text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: |
In this work the existence of weak solutions for a class of non-Newtonian viscous fluid problems is analyzed. The problem is modeled by the steady case of the generalized Navier-Stokes equations, where the exponent $q$ that characterizes the flow depends on the space variable: $q=q(\mathbf{x})$. For the associated boundary-value problem we show that, in some situations, the log-Hölder continuity condition on $q$ can be dropped and the result of the existence of weak solutions still remain valid for any variable exponent $q\geq\alpha>\frac{2N}{N+2}$, where $\alpha=\mathrm{ess}\inf q$.
**Keywords and phrases:** steady flows, non-Newtonian, variable exponent, existence, local decomposition of the pressure, Lipschitz truncation.
**MSC 2010:** 76D03, 76D05, 35J60, 35Q30, 35Q35.
address: '$^{\ast}$FCT - Universidade do Algarve and $^{\ast\ast}$CMAF - Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.'
author:
- 'Hermenegildo Borges de Oliveira$^{\ast,\ast\ast}$'
date: '**March 30, 2012**'
title: A note about existence for a class of viscous fluid problems
---
Introduction {#Sect-Int}
============
In this article we study the steady motion of an incompressible and homogeneous viscous fluid in a bounded domain $\Omega\subset\mathds{R}^N$, $N\geq 2$, with the boundary denoted by $\partial\Omega$. We assume the motion is described by the following boundary-value problem for the generalized Navier-Stokes equations: $$\label{geq1-inc}
\mathrm{div}\,\mathbf{u}=0\quad\mbox{in}\quad \Omega;$$ $$\label{geq1-vel}
\mathbf{div}(\mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u})
=\mathbf{f}-\mathbf{\nabla}p+\mathbf{div}\,\mathbf{S} \quad\mbox{in}\quad \Omega;$$ $$\label{geq1-bc}
\mathbf{u}=\mathbf{0} \qquad\mbox{on}\quad \partial\Omega.$$ Here, $\mathbf{u}$ is the velocity field, $p$ stands for the pressure divided by the constant density and $\mathbf{f}$ is the external forces field. We assume the extra stress tensor $\mathbf{S}$ has a variable $q$-structure in the following sense:
- $\mathbf{S}:\Omega\times\mathds{M}^N_{\mathrm{sym}}\to\mathds{M}^N_{\mathrm{sym}}$ is a Charathéodory function;
- $|\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{A})|\leq C|\mathbf{A}|^{q(\mathbf{x})-1}$ for all $\mathbf{A}$ in $\mathds{M}^N_{\mathrm{sym}}$ and a.a. $\mathbf{x}$ in $\Omega$;
- $\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{A}):\mathbf{A}\geq C|\mathbf{A}|^{q(\mathbf{x})}$ for all $\mathbf{A}$ in $\mathds{M}^N_{\mathrm{sym}}$ and a.a. $\mathbf{x}$ in $\Omega$;
- $\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{A})-\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{B})\right):(\mathbf{A}-\mathbf{B})>0$ for all $\mathbf{A}\not=\mathbf{B}$ in $\mathds{M}^N_{\mathrm{sym}}$ and a.a. $\mathbf{x}$ in $\Omega$.
Here, $\mathds{M}^N_{\mathrm{sym}}$ is the vector space of all symmetric $N\times N$ matrices, which is equipped with the scalar product $\mathbf{A}:\mathbf{B}$ and norm $|\mathbf{A}|=\sqrt{\mathbf{A}:\mathbf{A}}$. The existence of weak solutions to the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]) with a constant $q$-structure was established by [@L-1967] and [@Lions-1969] for $q\geq\frac{3N}{N+2}$, by [@FMS-1997] and [@R-1997] for $q>\frac{2N}{N+1}$ and, finally and again, by [@FMS-2003] for $q>\frac{2N}{N+2}$. These results were obtained in the class $$\label{V-q=const}
\mathbf{V}_q:=\mbox{closure of $\mathcal{V}$ in $\mathbf{W}^{1,q}(\Omega)$},\quad\mbox{where}\quad\mathcal{V}:=\{\mathbf{v}\in\mathbf{C}^{\infty}_0(\Omega):\mathrm{div\,}\mathbf{v}=0\}\,.$$ The proofs in [@L-1967; @Lions-1969] use the theory of monotone operators together with compactness arguments, whereas in [@FMS-1997; @R-1997] and [@FMS-2003] are used, in addition, the $L^{\infty}$ and the Lipschitz-truncation methods, respectively. Each one of these results improves the previous one in the sense that the convective term $\mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}:\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\varphi})$ is in $\mathbf{L}^1(\Omega)$ for an increasingly smaller lower limit of $q$.
The mathematical analysis of the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]), with the deviatoric stress tensor satisfying to (A)-(D) with a variable $q$-structure, must be done in the context of Orlicz spaces. These spaces resemble many of the aspects of classical Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces, but there are some important differences which must be pointed out (see Section \[Sect-Not\]). Existence results for the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]), with the deviatoric stress tensor satisfying to (A)-(D) with a variable $q$-structure, are due to [@R-2000], [@H-2011] and [@DMS-2008] and were obtained in the class $$\label{Wq-nolog}
\mathbf{W}_q(\Omega):=\mbox{closure of $\mathcal{V}$ in the $\|\mathbf{D(v)}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)}$--\ norm}\,,$$ where $q\in\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, the set of all measurable functions $q:\Omega\to [1,\infty]$, satisfies to $$\label{ap1}
\displaystyle
1<\alpha:=\mathrm{ess}\inf_{\hspace{-0.5cm}\mathbf{x}\in \Omega}q(\mathbf{x})\leq q(\mathbf{x})\leq \mathrm{ess}\sup_{\hspace{-0.5cm}\mathbf{x}\in \Omega}q(\mathbf{x}):=\beta<\infty.$$ The proofs in [@R-2000] and in [@H-2011] are valid for $\alpha>\frac{3N}{N+2}$ and $\alpha>\frac{2N}{N+1}$, respectively. Moreover they follow the same approach of [@L-1967; @Lions-1969] and [@FMS-1997; @R-1997], respectively, and use the fact that $\mathbf{W}_q(\Omega)$ is continuously imbedded into $\mathbf{V}_{\alpha}$. The proof of [@DMS-2008] is valid for $\alpha>\frac{2N}{N+2}$, provided the variable exponent $q$ is globally log-Hölder continuous in the sense of (\[glob-log-H\]) below. The proof here follows the same approach of the result for constant $q$ in [@DMS-2008] and uses results on Lipschitz truncations of functions in Orlicz-Sobolev spaces performed still in [@DMS-2008]. See also [@ADO-PNDEA; @AR-2006; @R-1997] for concrete fluid models with a variable $q$-structure.
Our goal in this work is to show that the log-Hölder continuity condition (\[glob-log-H\]) is not necessary to show the existence of weak solutions to the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]) with the deviatoric stress tensor satisfying to (A)-(D) with a variable $q$-structure. As one can sees in the proof of [@DMS-2008 Theorem 5.1], assumption (\[glob-log-H\]) is fundamental to achieve the existence result by the method proposed there. Firstly, we shall seek for a different condition that assures the existence of weak solutions for this problem in the case of $\alpha>\frac{2N}{N+2}$. At the end, we shall give an example to which neither this new condition nor (\[glob-log-H\]) are needed.
Weak Formulation {#Sect-Not}
================
The notation used in this work is largely standard in Mathematical Fluid Mechanics (see *e.g.* [@Lions-1969]). In this article, the notations $\Omega$ or $\omega$ stand always for a domain, *i.e.*, a connected open subset of $\mathds{R}^N$, $N\geq 1$. Given $k\in\mathds{N}$, we denote by $\mathrm{C}^{k}(\Omega)$ the space of all $k$-differentiable functions in $\Omega$. By $\mathrm{C}^{\infty}_0(\Omega)$ we denote the space of all infinity-differentiable functions with compact support in $\Omega$. In the context of distributions, the space $\mathrm{C}^{\infty}_0(\Omega)$ is denoted by $\mathcal{D}(\Omega)$ instead. The space of distributions over $\mathcal{D}(\Omega)$ is denoted by $\mathcal{D}'(\Omega)$. If $\mathrm{X}$ is a generic Banach space, its dual space is denoted by $\mathrm{X}'$. Let $1\leq q\leq \infty$ and $\Omega\subset\mathds{R}^N$, with $N\geq 1$, be a domain. We use the classical Lebesgue spaces $\mathrm{L}^q(\Omega)$, whose norm is denoted by $\|\cdot\|_{\mathrm{L}^q(\Omega)}$. For any nonnegative $k$, $\mathrm{W}^{k,q}(\Omega)$ denotes the Sobolev space of all functions $u\in\mathrm{L}^q(\Omega)$ such that the weak derivatives $\mathrm{D}^{\alpha}u$ exist, in the generalized sense, and are in $\mathrm{L}^q(\Omega)$ for any multi-index $\alpha$ such that $0\leq |\alpha|\leq k$. In particular, $\mathrm{W}^{1,\infty}(\Omega)$ stands for the space of Lipschitz functions. The norm in $\mathrm{W}^{k,q}(\Omega)$ is denoted by $\|\cdot\|_{\mathrm{W}^{k,q}(\Omega)}$. We define $\mathrm{W}^{k,q}_0(\Omega)$ as the closure of $\mathrm{C}^{\infty}_0(\Omega)$ in $\mathrm{W}^{k,q}(\Omega)$. For the dual space of $\mathrm{W}^{k,q}_0(\Omega)$, we use the identity $(\mathrm{W}^{k,q}_0(\Omega))'=\mathrm{W}^{-k,q'}(\Omega)$, up to an isometric isomorphism. Vectors and vector spaces will be denoted by boldface letters.
We denote by $\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ the set of all measurable functions $q:\Omega\to [1,\infty]$ and define $$\displaystyle q^{-}:=\mathrm{ess}\inf_{\hspace{-0.5cm}x\in \Omega}q(x),\quad q^{+}:=\mathrm{ess}\sup_{\hspace{-0.5cm}x\in \Omega}q(x).$$ Given $q\in\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, we denote by $\mathrm{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ the space of all measurable functions $f$ in $\Omega$ such that its semimodular is finite: $$\label{ap3}
A_{q(\cdot)}(f):=\int_{\Omega}|f(x)\mathbf{|}^{q(x)}d\,x<\infty.$$ The space $\mathrm{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ is called Orlicz space and is also known by Lebesgue space with variable exponent. Equipped with the norm $$\label{ap4}
\left\Vert f\right\Vert_{\mathrm{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)}:=
\inf\left\{\lambda>0 : A_{q(\cdot)}\left(\frac{f}{\lambda}\right) \leq
1\right\},$$ $\mathrm{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ becomes a Banach space. If $q^{+}<\infty$, $\mathrm{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ is separable and the space $\mathrm{C}^{\infty}_0(\Omega)$ is dense in $\mathrm{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$. Moreover, if $1<q^{-}\leq q^{+}<\infty$, $\mathrm{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ is reflexive. One problem in Orlicz spaces is the relation between the semimodular (\[ap3\]) and the norm (\[ap4\]). If (\[ap1\]) is satisfied, one can shows that $$\label{ap4-56}
\|f\|_{\mathrm{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)}^{q^{-}}-1\leq A_{q(\cdot)}(f)\leq
\|f\|_{\mathrm{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)}^{q^{+}}+1\,.$$ In Orlicz spaces, there holds a version of Hölder’s inequality, called generalized Hölder’s inequality. Given $q\in\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, the Orlicz-Sobolev space $W^{1,q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ is defined as the set of all functions $f\in\mathrm{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ such that $\mathrm{D}^{\alpha}f\in\mathrm{\mathrm{L}}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ for any multi-index $\alpha$ such that $0\leq |\alpha|\leq 1$. In $W^{1,q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ is defined a semimodular and the correspondent induced norm analogously as in (\[ap3\])-(\[ap4\]). For this norm, $W^{1,q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ is a Banach space, which becomes separable and reflexive in the same conditions as $\mathrm{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$. The Orlicz-Sobolev space with zero boundary values is defined by: $$W^{1,q(\cdot)}_0(\Omega):=\overline{\left\{f\in W^{1,q(\cdot)}(\Omega): \mathrm{supp}\ f\subset\subset \Omega\right\}}^{\ \|\cdot\|_{W^{1,q(\cdot)}(\Omega)}}\,.$$ In contrast to the case of classical Sobolev spaces, the set $\mathrm{C}_0^{\infty}(\Omega)$ is not necessarily dense in $\mathrm{W}^{1,q(\cdot)}_0(\Omega)$ – the closure of $\mathrm{C}_0^{\infty}(\Omega)$ in $\mathrm{W}^{1,q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$ is strictly contained in $\mathrm{W}^{1,q(\cdot)}_0(\Omega)$. The equality holds only if $q$ is globally log-Hölder continuous, *i.e.*, if exist positive constants $C_1$, $C_2$ and $q_{\infty}$ such that $$\label{glob-log-H}
\left|q(\mathbf{x})-q(\mathbf{y})\right|\leq \frac{C_1}{\ln(e+1/|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}|)},\quad
\left|q(\mathbf{x})-q_{\infty}\right|\leq \frac{C_2}{\ln(e+|\mathbf{x}|)}\quad\forall\ \mathbf{x},\ \mathbf{y}\in \Omega.$$ See the monograph [@DHHR] for a thorough analysis on Orlicz and Orlicz-Sobolev spaces.
In order to introduce the notion of weak solutions we shall consider in this work, let us recall the well-known function spaces of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics defined at (\[V-q=const\]). Due to the presence of the variable exponent $q(\cdot)$ in the structure of the tensor $\mathbf{S}$, we need to consider the weak solutions to the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]) in some Orlicz-Sobolev space. Since the set $\mathbf{C}_0^{\infty}(\Omega)$ is not necessarily dense in $\mathbf{W}^{1,q(\cdot)}_0(\Omega)$, we define the analogue of $\mathbf{V}_q$ by (\[Wq-nolog\]). It is a easy task to verify the space $\mathbf{W}_q(\Omega)$ satisfies to the following continuous imbeddings: $$\mathbf{V}_{\beta}\hookrightarrow\mathbf{W}_q(\Omega)\hookrightarrow\mathbf{V}_{\alpha}\,.$$ Moreover, $\mathbf{W}_q(\Omega)$ is a closed subspace of $\mathbf{V}_{\alpha}$ and therefore it is a reflexive and separable Banach space for the norm $$\|\mathbf{v}\|_{\mathbf{W}_q(\Omega)}:=
\|\mathbf{D(v)}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)}.$$
\[weak-sol-vq\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain of $\mathds{R}^N$, with $N \geq 2$, and let $q\in\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ be a variable exponent satisfying to (\[ap1\]). Let also $\mathbf{f}\in\mathbf{L}^{1}(\Omega)$ and assume that conditions (A)-(D) are fulfilled with a variable exponent $q$. A vector field $\mathbf{u}$ is a weak solution to the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]), if:
1. $\mathbf{\mathbf{u}}\in \mathbf{W}_q(\Omega)$;
2. For every $\varphi\in\mathbf{C}^{\infty}_0(\Omega)$, with $\mathrm{div\,}\varphi=0$, $$\int_{\Omega}\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}))-\mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}\right):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\varphi})\,d\mathbf{x}
=\int_{\Omega}\mathbf{f}\cdot\varphi\,d\,\mathbf{x}.$$
The main goal of this work is to seek for the condition(s) we have to impose in the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]) that assure(s) the existence of weak solutions to this problem in the sense of Definition \[weak-sol-vq\] and without any further restriction on $q$ besides (\[ap1\]) above and (\[h-f\])-(\[al-TE\]) below.
\[th-exst-ws-pp\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathds{R}^{N}$, $N\geq 2$. Assume that conditions (A)-(D) are fulfilled with a variable exponent $q\in\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ satisfying to (\[ap1\]), and $$\label{h-f}
\mathbf{f}=-\mathbf{div}\,\mathbf{F},\quad \mathbf{F}\in\mathds{M}^N_{\mathrm{sym}}\,,
\quad \mathbf{F}\in\mathbf{L}^{q'(\cdot)}(\Omega),$$ $$\label{al-TE}
\frac{2N}{N+2}<\alpha\leq\beta<\infty\,.$$ Is it possible to find a distinct condition from the log-Hölder continuity property (\[glob-log-H\]) that assures the existence of a weak solution to the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]) in the sense of Definition \[weak-sol-vq\]?
The answer to Question \[th-exst-ws-pp\] will be the aim of next sections. For that, we shall prove an existence result for the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]) under the conditions stated in Question \[th-exst-ws-pp\]. We will see that the validity of such an existence result will demand a new and different condition.
The regularized problem {#Sect-Exist-RP}
=======================
Let $\Phi\in\mathrm{C}^{\infty}([0,\infty))$ be a non-increasing function such that $0\leq\Phi\leq 1$ in $[0,\infty)$, $\Phi\equiv 1$ in $[0,1]$, $\Phi\equiv 0$ in $[2,\infty)$ and $0\leq -\Phi'\leq 2$. For $\epsilon>0$, we set $$\label{Phi-e}
\Phi_{\epsilon}(s):=\Phi(\epsilon s),\quad s\in[0,\infty).$$ We consider the following regularized problem: $$\label{eq2-inc-e}
\mathrm{div}\,\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}=0\quad\mbox{in}\quad \Omega,$$ $$\label{eq2-vel-e}
\mathbf{div}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}\Phi_{\epsilon}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}|))
=\mathbf{f}-\mathbf{\nabla}p_{\epsilon}+
\mathbf{div}\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}))+\epsilon|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon})|^{\beta-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon})\right)
\quad\mbox{in}\quad \Omega,$$ $$\label{eq1-bc-u-e}
\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}=\mathbf{0}\qquad\mbox{on}\quad \partial\Omega.$$ A vector function $\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}\in\mathbf{V}_{\beta}$ is a weak solution to the problem (\[eq2-inc-e\])-(\[eq1-bc-u-e\]), if $$\label{eq-ws-reg}
\int_{\Omega}\left[\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}))+\epsilon|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon})|^{\beta-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon})-\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}\Phi_{\epsilon}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}|)\right]:\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\varphi})\,d\mathbf{x}
=\int_{\Omega}\mathbf{F}:\mathbf{D}(\varphi)\,d\,\mathbf{x}$$ for all $\varphi\in\mathcal{V}$. Under the assumptions stated in Question \[th-exst-ws-pp\], it can be proved that, for each $\epsilon>0$, there exists a weak solution $\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}\in\mathbf{V}_{\beta}$ to the problem (\[eq2-inc-e\])-(\[eq1-bc-u-e\]). The proof of this result is based on the Schauder fixed point theorem. The map construction is done by putting the convective term on the right hand side and by solving a nonlinear equation via the monotone operator theory. Moreover, it can be proved that every weak solution satisfies to the following energy equality: $$\label{e-equality-qr}
\int_{\Omega}\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon})):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon})d\mathbf{x}+
\epsilon\int_{\Omega}|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon})|^{\beta}d\mathbf{x}
=\int_{\Omega}\mathbf{F}:\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon})d\mathbf{x}.$$
Now, let $\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}\in\mathbf{V}_{\beta}$ be a weak solution to the problem (\[eq2-inc-e\])-(\[eq1-bc-u-e\]). From (\[e-equality-qr\]) we can prove that $$\label{e-inequality-qr}
\int_{\Omega}|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon})|^{q(\mathbf{x})}d\mathbf{x}+
\epsilon\int_{\Omega}|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon})|^{\beta}d\mathbf{x}\leq C,$$ where, by the assumption (\[h-f\]), $C$ is a positive constant and, very important, does not depend on $\epsilon$. Then we can prove from (\[e-inequality-qr\]) that $$\label{est-q}
\|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon})\|_{\mathbf{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)}\leq C,$$ $$\label{est-inf-gam}
\|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}\|_{\mathbf{V}_{\alpha}}\leq C,$$ $$\label{est-q'}
\|\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}))\|_{\mathbf{L}^{q'(\cdot)}(\Omega)}\leq C,$$ $$\label{est-gam'}
\|\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}))\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\beta'}(\Omega)}\leq C.$$ On the other hand, by using (\[est-inf-gam\]) and Sobolev’s inequality, we have $$\label{est-gam(N+2)/N}
\|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\alpha^{\ast}}(\Omega)}\leq C,$$ where $\alpha^{\ast}$ denotes the Sobolev conjugate of $\alpha$. As a consequence of (\[est-gam(N+2)/N\]) and (\[Phi-e\]), $$\label{est-Phiuxu}
\|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}\Phi_{\epsilon}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}|)\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\frac{\alpha^{\ast}}{2}}(\Omega)}\leq C.$$ From (\[est-inf-gam\]), (\[est-gam’\]) and (\[est-Phiuxu\]), there exists a sequence of positive numbers $\epsilon_m$ such that $\epsilon_m\to 0$, as $m\to \infty$, and $$\label{convg-La}
\mbox{$\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\to \mathbf{u}$\quad weakly in $\mathbf{V}_{\alpha}$,\quad as $m\to\infty$,}$$ $$\label{convg-S-b'}
\mbox{$\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))\to \mathbf{S}$\quad weakly in $\mathbf{L}^{\beta'}(\Omega)$,\quad as $m\to\infty$,}$$ $$\label{convg-Phiuxu}
\mbox{$\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\Phi_{\epsilon_m}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}|)\to \mathbf{G}$\quad weakly in $\mathbf{L}^{\frac{\alpha^{\ast}}{2}}(\Omega)$,\quad as $m\to\infty$},$$ $$\label{conv-Re-0}
\epsilon_{m}|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})|^{q-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})\to 0\quad\mbox{weakly in}\quad\mathbf{L}^{\beta'}(\Omega),\quad\mbox{as}\quad m\to\infty.$$
Now we observe that, due to (\[convg-La\]), the application of Sobolev’s compact imbedding theorem implies $$\label{convg-s-g}
\mbox{$\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\to \mathbf{u}$\quad strongly in $\mathbf{L}^{\gamma}(\Omega)$,\quad as $m\to\infty$,
\quad
for any $\gamma:1\leq\gamma<\alpha^{\ast}$.
}$$ Since $2<\alpha^{\ast}$, it follows from (\[convg-s-g\]) that $$\label{convg-s-2}
\mbox{$\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\to \mathbf{u}$\quad strongly in $\mathbf{L}^{2}(\Omega)$,\quad as $m\to\infty$.
}$$ Using (\[Phi-e\]) and (\[convg-s-2\]), we can prove that $$\label{limit-eq-G}
\mbox{$\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\Phi_{\epsilon_m}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}|)\to \mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}$\quad strongly in $\mathbf{L}^{1}(\Omega)$,\quad as $m\to\infty$.
}$$ Then gathering the information of (\[convg-Phiuxu\]) and (\[limit-eq-G\]), we see that $\mathbf{G}=\mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}$.
Finally, using the convergence results (\[convg-La\])-(\[conv-Re-0\]) and observing (\[limit-eq-G\]), we can pass to the limit $m\to\infty$ in the following integral identity, which results from (\[eq-ws-reg\]), $$\label{eq-wsm-reg}
\int_{\Omega}\left[\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))+\epsilon_m|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})|^{\beta-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})-\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\Phi_{\epsilon_m}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}|)-\mathbf{F}\right]:\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\varphi})\,d\mathbf{x}
=0,$$ valid for all $\mathbf{\varphi}\in\mathcal{V}$, to obtain $$\label{limit-eq-SH}
\int_{\Omega}(\mathbf{S}-\mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{F}):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\varphi})\,d\mathbf{x}=0\quad
\forall\ \varphi\in\mathcal{V}. $$
Decomposition of the pressure. {#Sect-Dec-p}
==============================
Since we shall use test functions which are not divergence free, we first have to determine the approximative pressure from the weak formulation (\[eq-wsm-reg\]). First, let $\omega'$ be a fixed but arbitrary open bounded subset of $\Omega$ such that $$\label{om-l}
\omega'\subset\subset\Omega\quad\mbox{and}\quad\partial\omega'\ \mbox{is Lipschitz}, $$ where $\omega'\subset\subset\Omega$ means that $\omega'$ is compactly contained in $\Omega$, and let us set $$\label{Q-em}
\mathbf{Q}_{\epsilon_m}:=\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))+\epsilon_m|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})|^{\beta-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})-\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\Phi_{\epsilon_m}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}|)-\mathbf{F}.$$ Using assumption (\[h-f\]) and the results (\[est-gam’\]), (\[est-Phiuxu\]) and (\[conv-Re-0\]), we can prove that $$\label{Q-in-Lr}
\mathbf{Q}_{\epsilon_m}\in\mathbf{L}^r(\Omega),\quad\mbox{where}\quad
1<r\leq r_0:=\min\left\{\beta',\frac{\alpha^{\ast}}{2}\right\}.$$ Note that $r_0=\min\{\beta',\frac{N\alpha}{2(N-\alpha)}\}$ if $\alpha<N$ and $r_0=\beta'$ if $N\geq\alpha$. Then we define a linear functional $$\label{b1-lin-f-r}
\Pi_{\epsilon_m}:\mathbf{W}^{1,r'}_0(\omega')\rightarrow\mathbf{W}^{-1,r}(\omega')\,,$$ $$\label{b2-lin-f-r}
\langle\Pi_{\epsilon_m},\mathbf{\varphi}\rangle_{\mathbf{W}^{-1,r}(\omega')\times\mathbf{W}^{1,r'}_0(\omega')}:=
\int_{\omega'}\mathbf{Q}_{\epsilon_m}:\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\varphi})\,d\mathbf{x}.$$ Using (\[b1-lin-f-r\])-(\[b2-lin-f-r\]), we can prove, owing to (\[Q-in-Lr\]), that $$\label{b-lin-op-p}
\|\Pi_{\epsilon_m}\|_{(\mathbf{V}_{r'})'}\leq C\,,$$ where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $m$. Note that here $\mathbf{V}_{r'}$ is taken over $\omega'$. Moreover, since $\mathcal{V}$ is dense in $\mathbf{V}_{r'}$, we can see that (\[eq-wsm-reg\]), (\[Q-em\]) and (\[b2-lin-f-r\]) imply $$\label{dual=0}
\langle\Pi_{\epsilon_m},\mathbf{\varphi}\rangle_{(\mathbf{V}_{r'})'\times\mathbf{V}_{r'}}=0\quad\forall\
\mathbf{\varphi}\in\mathbf{V}_{r'}.$$ By virtue of (\[b1-lin-f-r\])-(\[dual=0\]) and due to assumption (\[om-l\]), we can apply a version of de Rham’s Theorem to prove the existence of a unique function $$\label{app-pr}
p_{\epsilon_m}\in\mathbf{L}^{r'}(\omega'),\qquad\mbox{with}\quad\int_{\omega'}p_{\epsilon_m}d\mathbf{x}=0,$$ such that $$\label{Rham-thm}
\langle\Pi_{\epsilon_m},\mathbf{\varphi}\rangle_{\mathbf{W}^{-1,r}(\omega')\times\mathbf{W}^{1,r'}_0(\omega')}=
\int_{\omega'}p_{\epsilon_m}\,\mathrm{div}\mathbf{\varphi}\,d\mathbf{x}\quad\forall\ \mathbf{\varphi}\in\mathbf{W}^{1,r'}_0(\omega')\,,$$ $$\label{b-pem}
\|p_{\epsilon_m}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{r'}(\omega')}\leq\|\Pi_{\epsilon_m}\|_{(\mathbf{V}_{r'})'}.$$ Then, gathering the information of (\[eq-wsm-reg\]), (\[Q-em\]), (\[b2-lin-f-r\]) and (\[Rham-thm\]), we obtain $$\label{eq-wsm-reg-pem}
\begin{split}
& \int_{\omega'}\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\varphi})\,d\mathbf{x}+
\epsilon_m\int_{\omega'}|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})|^{\beta-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\varphi})\,d\mathbf{x}= \\
& \int_{\omega'}\mathbf{F}:\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\varphi})\,d\mathbf{x}+
\int_{\omega'}\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\Phi_{\epsilon_m}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}|):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\varphi})\,d\mathbf{x}+
\int_{\omega'}p_{\epsilon_m}\,\mathrm{div}\mathbf{\varphi}\,d\mathbf{x}
\end{split}$$ for all $\mathbf{\varphi}\in\mathbf{W}^{1,r'}_0(\omega')$. On the other hand, due to (\[b-lin-op-p\]) and (\[b-pem\]) and by means of reflexivity, we get, passing to a subsequence, that $$\label{conv-p0-em}
p_{\epsilon_m}\to p_0\quad\mbox{weakly in}\quad\mathrm{L}^{r'}(\omega'),\quad\mbox{as}\quad m\to\infty.$$ Next, passing to the limit $m\to\infty$ in the integral identity (\[eq-wsm-reg-pem\]) by using the convergence results (\[convg-S-b’\]), (\[convg-Phiuxu\]) together with (\[limit-eq-G\]), using also (\[conv-Re-0\]) and (\[conv-p0-em\]), we obtain $$\label{eq-limit-pem}
\begin{split}
& \int_{\omega'}\left(\mathbf{S}-\mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}-\mathbf{F}\right):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\varphi})\,d\mathbf{x}=
\int_{\omega'}p_0\,\mathrm{div}\mathbf{\varphi}\,d\mathbf{x}
\end{split}$$ for all $\mathbf{\varphi}\in\mathbf{W}^{1,r'}_0(\omega')$. Next, we shall decompose the pressure found in the first part of this section. With this in mind, let $\omega$ be a fixed but arbitrary domain such that $$\label{om-C2}
\omega\subset\subset\omega'\subset\subset\Omega\quad\mbox{and}\quad\partial\omega\ \mbox{is $C^2$}. $$ To simplify the notation in the sequel, let us set $$\label{set-A}
\mathrm{A}^s(\omega):=\{a\in\mathrm{L}^{s}(\omega):a=\triangle u,\quad u\in\mathrm{W}^{2,s}_0(\omega)\},\qquad 1<s<\infty. \\$$ Here we shall use some results due to [@Wolf-2007] that allow us to locally decompose the pressure. Applying [@Wolf-2007 Lemma 2.4], with $s=\beta'$ first and then with $s=\frac{\alpha^{\ast}}{2}$, and using (\[convg-S-b’\]) and (\[conv-Re-0\]) by one hand and (\[convg-Phiuxu\]) and (\[limit-eq-G\]) on the other, we can infer that exist unique functions $$\label{E1-p1}
p^1_{\epsilon_m}\in\mathrm{A}^{\beta'}(\omega),$$ $$\label{E1-p2}
p^2_{\epsilon_m}\in\mathrm{A}^{\frac{\alpha^{\ast}}{2}}(\omega)$$ such that $$\label{dec-p1}
\int_{\omega}p^1_{\epsilon_m}\triangle\phi\,d\mathbf{x}=
\int_{\omega}\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))+\epsilon_m|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})|^{\beta-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})- \mathbf{S}\right):\nabla^2\phi\,d\mathbf{x},$$ $$\label{dec-p2}
\int_{\omega}p^2_{\epsilon_m}\triangle\phi\,d\mathbf{x}=-
\int_{\omega}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\Phi_{\epsilon_m}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}|)-
\mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}):\nabla^2\phi\,d\mathbf{x}$$ for all $\phi\in\mathrm{C}_0^{\infty}(\omega)$. Attending to (\[convg-S-b’\]), (\[conv-Re-0\]) and (\[dec-p1\]) by one hand, and (\[convg-Phiuxu\]), (\[limit-eq-G\]) and (\[dec-p2\]) on the other, a direct application of [@Wolf-2007 Lemma 2.3], with $s=\beta'$ and then with $s=\frac{\alpha^{\ast}}{2}$, yields $$\label{bd2-p1-em}
\|p^1_{\epsilon_m}\|_{\mathrm{L}^{\beta'}(\omega)}\leq C_1\|\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))-\mathbf{S}+\epsilon_m|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})|^{\beta-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\beta'}(\omega)},$$ $$\label{bd2-p2-em}
\|p^2_{\epsilon_m}\|_{\mathrm{L}^{\frac{\alpha^{\ast}}{2}}(\omega)}\leq C_2\|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\Phi_{\epsilon_m}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}|)-
\mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\frac{\alpha^{\ast}}{2}}(\omega)}.$$ where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are positive constants depending on $\beta'$, $\alpha^{\ast}$ and on $\omega$. Now, combining (\[eq-wsm-reg-pem\]) and (\[eq-limit-pem\]), and using the definition of the distributive derivative, we obtain $$\label{dist-der}
\begin{split}
& \mathbf{div}\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))-\mathbf{S}+\epsilon_m|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})|^{\beta-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})\right)-\\
&\mathbf{div}\left(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\Phi_{\epsilon_m}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}|)-\mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}\right)
=\mathbf{\nabla}(p_{\epsilon_m}-p_0)
\end{split}
\qquad\mbox{in $\mathcal{D}'(\omega)$}.$$ Then, testing (\[dist-der\]) by $\nabla\phi$, with $\phi\in\mathrm{C}_0^{\infty}(\omega)$, integrating over $\omega$ and comparing the resulting equation with the one resulting from adding (\[dec-p1\]) and (\[dec-p2\]), we obtain $$p_{\epsilon_m}-p_0=p^1_{\epsilon_m}+p^2_{\epsilon_m}\,.$$ Inserting this into (\[dist-der\]), it follows that $$\label{dist2-der}
\begin{split}
& \mathbf{div}\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))-\mathbf{S}+\epsilon_m|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})|^{\beta-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})\right)-\\
&\mathbf{div}\left(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\Phi_{\epsilon_m}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}|)-\mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}\right)
=\mathbf{\nabla}\left(p^1_{\epsilon_m}+p^2_{\epsilon_m}\right)
\end{split}
\qquad\mbox{in $\mathcal{D}'(\omega)$}.$$
The Lipschitz truncation {#Sect-Lip-T}
========================
To start this section, let us set $$\label{v-em-chi}
\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}:=(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}-\mathbf{u})\chi_{\omega},$$ where $\chi_{\omega}$ denotes the characteristic function of the set $\omega$ introduced in (\[om-C2\]). Having in mind the extension of (\[dist2-der\]) to $\mathds{R}^{N}$, here we shall consider that $$\label{Ups}
\mathbf{\Upsilon}_{\epsilon_m}:=\mathbf{\Upsilon}^1_{\epsilon_m}+\mathbf{\Upsilon}^2_{\epsilon_m}$$ is extended from $\omega$ to $\mathds{R}^{N}$ by zero, where $$\label{Ups-1}
\mathbf{\Upsilon}^1_{\epsilon_m}:=-\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))-\mathbf{S}+\epsilon_m|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})|^{\beta-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})\right)+p^1_{\epsilon_m}\mathbf{I},$$ $$\label{Ups-2}
\mathbf{\Upsilon}^2_{\epsilon_m}:=\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\Phi_{\epsilon_m}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}|)- \mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}+p^2_{\epsilon_m}\mathbf{I},$$ and $\mathbf{I}$ denotes the identity tensor. Now, due to the definition (\[v-em-chi\]) and by virtue of (\[convg-La\]) and (\[convg-s-g\]), we have $$\label{un-b-v-em}
\mbox{$\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}\to \mathbf{0}$\quad weakly in $\mathbf{W}^{1,{\alpha}}(\mathds{R}^{N})$,\quad as $m\to\infty$,}$$ $$\label{str-v-em}
\mbox{$\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}\to \mathbf{0}$\quad strongly in $\mathbf{L}^{\gamma}(\mathds{R}^{N})$,\quad as $m\to\infty$,
\quad
for any $\gamma:1\leq\gamma<\alpha^{\ast}$.
}$$ Moreover, due to (\[convg-S-b’\]), (\[conv-Re-0\]) and (\[bd2-p1-em\]) by one hand, and due to (\[convg-Phiuxu\]), (\[limit-eq-G\]) and (\[bd2-p2-em\]) on the other, we have $$\label{un-b-T-p1-em}
\|\mathbf{\Upsilon}^1_{\epsilon_m}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\beta'}(\mathds{R}^{N})}\leq C,$$ $$\label{un-bA-uxu-p2-em}
\|\mathbf{\Upsilon}^2_{\epsilon_m}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\frac{\alpha^{\ast}}{2}}(\mathds{R}^{N})}\leq C.$$ In addition to (\[un-bA-uxu-p2-em\]), we see that, due to (\[convg-s-g\]) and (\[bd2-p2-em\]), $$\label{un-b-uxu-p2-em}
\mathbf{\Upsilon}^2_{\epsilon_m}\to 0\quad\mbox{strongly in $\mathbf{L}^{\frac{\gamma}{2}}(\mathds{R}^{N})$,\quad as $m\to\infty$,
\quad
for any $\gamma:1\leq\gamma<\alpha^{\ast}$.}$$
Next, let us consider the Hardy-Littlewood maximal functions of $|\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}|$ and $|\mathbf{\nabla}\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}|$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&\displaystyle& \mathcal{M}(|\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}|)(\mathbf{x}):=\sup_{0<R<\infty}\frac{1}{\mathcal{L}_N(B_R(\mathbf{x}))}\int_{B_R(\mathbf{x})}|\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}(\mathbf{y})|\,d\mathbf{y},\\
&\displaystyle& \mathcal{M}(|\mathbf{\nabla}\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}|)(\mathbf{x}):=\sup_{0<R<\infty}\frac{1}{\mathcal{L}_N(B_R(\mathbf{x}))}\int_{B_R(\mathbf{x})}|\mathbf{\nabla}\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}(\mathbf{y})|\,d\mathbf{y};\end{aligned}$$ where $B_R(\mathbf{x})$ denotes the ball of $\mathds{R}^N$ centered at $\mathbf{x}$ and with radius $R>0$, and $\mathcal{L}_N(\omega)$ is the $N$-dimensional Lebesgue measure of $\omega$. Arguing as in [@DMS-2008 p. 218] and using the boundedness of the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator $\mathcal{M}$, we can prove that for all $m\in\mathds{N}$ and all $j\in\mathds{N}_0$ there exists $$\label{int-2j}
\lambda_{m,j}\in\left[2^{2^j},2^{2^{j+1}}\right)$$ such that $$\label{Leb-F}
\mathcal{L}_{N}\left(F_{m,j}\right)\leq
2^{-j}\lambda_{m,j}^{-\gamma}\,\|\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\gamma}(\mathds{R}^{N})},
\quad
\mbox{for any $\gamma:1\leq\gamma<\alpha^{\ast}$,}$$ $$\label{Leb-G}
\mathcal{L}_{N}\left(G_{m,j}\right)\leq
2^{-j}\lambda_{m,j}^{-\alpha}\,\|\mathbf{\nabla}\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\alpha}(\mathds{R}^{N})},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&\displaystyle& F_{m,j}:=\left\{\mathbf{x}\in\mathds{R}^{N}:\mathcal{M}(|\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}|)(\mathbf{x})>2\lambda_{m,j}\right\},\\
&\displaystyle& G_{m,j}:=\left\{\mathbf{x}\in\mathds{R}^{N}:\mathcal{M}(|\mathbf{\nabla}\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}|)(\mathbf{x})>2\lambda_{m,j}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Setting $$\label{R-mj}
R_{m,j}:=F_{m,j}\cup G_{m,j}\cup\left\{\mathbf{x}\in\mathds{R}^{N}:\ \mbox{$\mathbf{x}$ is not a Lebesgue point of $|\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}|$}\right\},$$ we can see that, by virtue of (\[Leb-F\])-(\[R-mj\]), $$\label{Leb-R}
\mathcal{L}_{N}\left(R_{m,j}\right)\leq
2^{-j}\lambda_{m,j}^{-\alpha}\,\|\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}\|_{\mathbf{W}^{1,{\alpha}}(\mathds{R}^{N})}.$$ In addition, due to (\[un-b-v-em\])-(\[str-v-em\]) and (\[int-2j\]), $$\label{lim-m-R}
\limsup_{m\to\infty}\mathcal{L}_{N}\left(R_{m,j}\right)\leq C2^{-j}\lambda_{m,j}^{-\alpha}.$$
Then, by [@AF-1988] together with (\[v-em-chi\]), $$\label{z-mj}
\exists\ \mathbf{z}_{m,j}\in\mathbf{W}^{1,\infty}(\mathds{R}^N),\qquad
\mathbf{z}_{m,j}=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m} & \mbox{in $\omega\setminus A_{m,j}$} \\
0 & \mathds{R}^N\setminus\omega
\end{array}\right.\,,$$ where $$\label{A-mj}
A_{m,j}:=\{\mathbf{x}\in\omega:\mathbf{z}_{m,j}(\mathbf{x})\not=\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}(\mathbf{x})\},$$ such that $$\label{eq1-AF}
\|\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\infty}(\omega)}\leq2\lambda_{m,j},$$ $$\label{eq2-AF}
\|\mathbf{\nabla}\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\infty}(\omega)}\leq C\lambda_{m,j},\quad C=C(N,\omega).$$ Moreover, by [@Landes-1996 Proposition 2.2] and using (\[Leb-F\])-(\[R-mj\]) and (\[A-mj\]), $$\label{eq3-AF}
A_{m,j}\subset\omega\cap R_{m,j}.$$ As a consequence of (\[eq3-AF\]) together with (\[Leb-R\]) and (\[lim-m-R\]), $$\label{Leb-A}
\mathcal{L}_{N}\left(A_{m,j}\right)\leq
2^{-j}\lambda_{m,j}^{-\alpha}\,\|\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}\|_{\mathbf{W}^{1,{\alpha}}(\mathds{R}^{N})},$$ $$\label{lim-m-A}
\limsup_{m\to\infty}\mathcal{L}_{N}\left(A_{m,j}\right)\leq C
2^{-j}\lambda_{m,j}^{-\alpha}.$$ On the other hand, due to (\[eq1-AF\])-(\[eq2-AF\]) and (\[un-b-v-em\]) together with (\[Leb-A\])-(\[lim-m-A\]), we can prove that for any $j\in\mathds{N}_0$ $$\label{w-z-em-a}
\mbox{$\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\to \mathbf{0}$\quad weakly in $\mathbf{W}^{1,{\alpha}}_0(\omega)$,\quad as $m\to\infty$.}$$ Then by Sobolev’s compact imbedding theorem, we get for any $j\in\mathds{N}_0$ $$\mbox{$\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\to \mathbf{0}$ strongly in $\mathbf{L}^{\gamma}(\omega)$,\quad as $m\to\infty$,\quad for any $\gamma: 1\leq\gamma<\alpha^{\ast}$.}$$ Using this information, (\[eq1-AF\]) and interpolation, we prove that for any $j\in\mathds{N}_0$ $$\label{str-z-em}
\mbox{$\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\to \mathbf{0}$\quad strongly in $\mathbf{L}^s(\omega)$,\quad as $m\to\infty$,\quad for any $s:1\leq s<\infty$.}$$ Finally, as a consequence of (\[w-z-em-a\]) and (\[str-z-em\]), we obtain for any $j\in\mathds{N}_0$ $$\label{w-con-s-z-em}
\mbox{$\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\to \mathbf{0}$\quad weakly in $\mathbf{W}^{1,s}_0(\omega)$,\quad as $m\to\infty$,\quad for any $s:1\leq s<\infty$.}$$
Convergence of the approximated extra stress tensor {#Sect-Conv-EST}
===================================================
Let us first observe that, using the notations (\[Ups\])-(\[Ups-2\]), we can write (\[dist2-der\]) as $$\label{dist3-der}
\mathbf{div}\mathbf{\Upsilon}_{\epsilon_m}=\mathbf{0}
\quad\mbox{in\quad $\mathcal{D}'(\omega)$}.$$ On the other hand, due to (\[un-b-T-p1-em\])-(\[un-bA-uxu-p2-em\]), $\mathbf{\Upsilon}_{\epsilon_m}\in\mathbf{L}^{r}(\mathds{R}^N)$ for $r$ satisfying to (\[Q-in-Lr\]). Then, using this information and (\[w-con-s-z-em\]), we infer, from (\[dist3-der\]), that for any $j\in\mathds{N}_0$ $$\label{dist4-der}
\int_{\omega}\mathbf{\Upsilon}_{\epsilon_m}:\mathbf{\nabla}\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\,d\mathbf{x}=0.$$ Expanding $\mathbf{\Upsilon}_{\epsilon_m}$ in (\[dist4-der\]) through the notations (\[Ups\])-(\[Ups-2\]) and subtracting and adding the integral of $\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u})):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{z}_{m,j})$ to the left hand side of the resulting equation, we obtain for any $j\in\mathds{N}_0$ $$\label{dist5-der}
\begin{split}
& \int_{\omega}\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))-\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}))\right):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{z}_{m,j})\,d\mathbf{x} =\int_{\omega}\left(\mathbf{S}-\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}))\right):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{z}_{m,j})\,d\mathbf{x}\\
&-\int_{\omega}\epsilon_m|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})|^{\beta-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{z}_{m,j})\,d\mathbf{x}+
\int_{\omega}p^1_{\epsilon_m}\,\mathrm{div}\,\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\,d\mathbf{x}+\\
&\int_{\omega}\left(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\otimes\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}\Phi_{\epsilon_m}(|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}|)- \mathbf{u}\otimes\mathbf{u}+p^2_{\epsilon_m}\mathbf{I}\right):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{z}_{m,j})\,d\mathbf{x}\\
&:=J_{m,j}^1+J_{m,j}^2+J_{m,j}^3+J_{m,j}^4.
\end{split}$$ We claim that, for a fixed $j$, $$\label{dist6-der}
\lim_{m\to\infty}\int_{\omega}\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))-\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}))\right):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{z}_{m,j})\,d\mathbf{x}
\leq C2^{-\frac{j}{\beta}}$$ To prove this, we will carry out the passage to the limit $m\to\infty$ in all absolute values $|J_{m,j}^i|$, $i=1,\dots,4$.
$\bullet\ \limsup_{m\to\infty}|J_{m,j}^1|=0$. By (\[w-con-s-z-em\]), with $s=\beta$, this is true once we can justify that $\mathbf{S}-\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}))$ is uniformly bounded in $\mathbf{L}^{\beta'}(\omega)$. But this is a consequence of (\[convg-S-b’\]), the continuous imbedding $\mathbf{L}^{q'(\cdot)}(\omega)\hookrightarrow\mathbf{L}^{\beta'}(\omega)$ and (\[est-q’\]).
$\bullet\ \limsup_{m\to\infty}|J_{m,j}^2|=0$. Indeed, by Hölder’s inequality, (\[eq2-AF\]), (\[int-2j\]) and (\[e-inequality-qr\]), we have successively $$\begin{split}
|J_{m,j}^2|&\leq \|\epsilon_m|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})|^{\beta-2}\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})\|_{\mathbf{L}^{1}(\omega)}
\|\mathbf{\nabla}\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\infty}(\omega)} \\
&\leq C_1\lambda_{m,j}\, \epsilon_m^{\frac{1}{\beta}}\left(\int_{\omega}\epsilon_m|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})|^{\beta}\,d\mathbf{x}\right)^{\frac{\beta-1}{\beta}}\leq C_2\,\epsilon_m^{\frac{1}{\beta}}\to 0,\quad\mbox{as}\ m\to\infty.
\end{split}$$
$\bullet\ \limsup_{m\to\infty}|J_{m,j}^3|\leq C 2^{-\frac{j}{\beta}}$. In fact, by Hölder’s inequality and (\[bd2-p1-em\]) together with (\[convg-S-b’\]) and (\[conv-Re-0\]), and using (\[z-mj\])) together with (\[v-em-chi\]), $$|J_{m,j}^3|\leq C_1\|\mathrm{div}\,\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\beta}(\omega)}
\leq C_1\|\mathbf{\nabla}\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\infty}(\omega)}\mathcal{L}_N(A_{m,j})^{\frac{1}{\beta}}.$$ The result follows by the application of (\[eq2-AF\]), (\[int-2j\]) and (\[lim-m-A\]), provided that $$\label{cond1-HI}
\lambda_{m,j}^{1-\frac{\alpha}{\beta}}\quad\mbox{is uniformly bounded in $m$.}$$
$\bullet\ \limsup_{m\to\infty}|J_{m,j}^4|=0$. Using Hölder’s inequality and (\[Ups-2\]), we have $$|J_{m,j}^4|\leq \|\mathbf{\Upsilon}^2_{\epsilon_m}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{1}(\omega)}\|\mathbf{\nabla}\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\infty}(\omega)}\leq C_1\|\mathbf{\Upsilon}^2_{\epsilon_m}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{1}(\omega)}\to 0,\quad\mbox{as}\ m\to\infty.$$ The last inequality and the conclusion follow, respectively, from (\[eq2-AF\]) and (\[int-2j\]), and (\[un-b-uxu-p2-em\]) with $\gamma=2$, observing here that assumption (\[al-TE\]) implies $2<\alpha^{\ast}$.
Gathering the estimates above we just have proven (\[dist6-der\]).
We proceed with the proof by using an argument due to [@DalM-M Theorem 5]. Firstly, observing the definition of $\mathbf{z}_{m,j}$ (*cf.* (\[z-mj\])), we have $$\label{eq21-est-theta}
\int_{\omega}\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))-\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}))\right):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{z}_{m,j})\,d\mathbf{x}= I_{m,j}+II_{m,j},\\$$ where $$\begin{split}
&I_{m,j}:=\int_{\omega\setminus A_{m,j}}\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))-\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}))\right):(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})-\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}))\,d\mathbf{x},\\
&II_{m,j}:= \int_{A_{m,j}}\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))-\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}))\right):\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{z}_{m,j})\,d\mathbf{x}.
\end{split}$$ Then (\[dist6-der\]) and (\[eq21-est-theta\]) imply that $$\label{est-I1}
\limsup_{m\to\infty}I_{m,j}\leq\limsup_{m\to\infty}|II_{m,j}|+C2^{-\frac{j}{\beta}}.$$ For the term $II_{m,j}$, we have by applying successively Hölder’s inequality, (\[convg-S-b’\]), the continuous imbedding $\mathbf{L}^{q'(\cdot)}(\omega)\hookrightarrow\mathbf{L}^{\beta'}(\omega)$ and (\[est-q’\]) altogether with (\[eq2-AF\]), $$\begin{split}
|II_{m,j}|&\leq
C_1
\|\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))-\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}))\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\beta'}(A_{m,j})}
\|\mathbf{\nabla}\mathbf{z}_{m,j}\|_{\mathbf{L}^{\beta}(A_{m,j})}\\
&\leq
C_2\lambda_{m,j}\mathcal{L}_N(A_{m,j})^{\frac{1}{\beta}}.
\end{split}$$ Then, (\[int-2j\]) and (\[lim-m-A\]) yield that for any $j\in\mathds{N}_0$ $$\label{est-I2}
\limsup_{m\to\infty}|II_{m,j}|\leq
C2^{-\frac{j}{\beta}}\lambda_{m,j}^{1-\frac{\alpha}{\beta}}.$$ As a consequence of (\[est-I1\]) and (\[est-I2\]), we obtain for any $j\in\mathds{N}_0$ $$\label{est2-I1}
\limsup_{m\to\infty}|I_{m,j}|\leq
C2^{-\frac{j}{\beta}}\left(1+\lambda_{m,j}^{1-\frac{\alpha}{\beta}}\right).$$ Arguing as we did to prove (\[est-I2\])-(\[est2-I1\]) and using (\[z-mj\]) and (\[lim-m-A\]), we have for any $\theta\in(0,1)$ $$\label{eq3-est-theta}
\limsup_{m\to\infty}\int_{\omega}g_{\epsilon_m}^{\theta}\,d\mathbf{x}
\leq
C_1 2^{-\theta\frac{j}{\beta}}\left(1+\lambda_{m,j}^{1-\frac{\alpha}{\beta}}\right)^{\theta}+C_2 2^{-\theta\frac{j}{\beta}-(1-\theta)j}\lambda_{m,j}^{\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)\theta-(1-\theta)\alpha}\,,$$ where $$g_{\epsilon_m}:=\left(\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m}))-\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}))\right):(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})-\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u})).$$ Since $\beta>1$, $\theta\in(0,1)$ and $j\in\mathds{N}_0$ is arbitrary, $2^{-\theta\frac{j}{\beta}}\to 0$ and $2^{-\theta\frac{j}{\beta}-(1-\theta)j}\to 0$, as $j\to\infty$. This and (\[eq3-est-theta\]) imply that for any $\theta\in(0,1)$ $$\limsup_{m\to\infty}\int_{\omega}g_{\epsilon_m}^{\theta}\,d\mathbf{x}=0$$ provided that (\[cond1-HI\]) holds. Then, passing to a subsequence, $$\label{eq2-est-theta}
g_{\epsilon_m}\to 0\quad\mbox{a.e. in $\omega$},\quad\mbox{as $m\to\infty$}.$$ From the continuity of $\mathbf{S}$ on $\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u})$ (*cf.* condition (A)), the strict monotonicity condition (D), (\[eq2-est-theta\]) and [@DalM-M Lemma 6] (see also [@Lions-1969 Lemme 2.2.2]), $$\label{eq4-est-theta}
\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon_m})\to\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u})\quad\mbox{a.e. in $\omega$},\quad\mbox{as $m\to\infty$}.$$ Finally, (\[est-gam’\]) and (\[eq4-est-theta\]) allow us to use Vitali’s theorem together with (\[convg-S-b’\]) to conclude that $\mathbf{S}=\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}))$.
Answer to Question \[th-exst-ws-pp\]
====================================
From Section \[Sect-Exist-RP\] until Section \[Sect-Conv-EST\] we have proven the existence of, at least, a weak solution to the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]) in the sense of Definition \[weak-sol-vq\] and satisfying to the conditions stated in Question \[th-exst-ws-pp\], provided condition (\[cond1-HI\]) is fulfilled. A simple analysis shows us that condition (\[cond1-HI\]) is equivalent to assume that $\alpha\geq\beta$. But this cannot happen unless $\alpha=\beta$. In this situation, we would fall in the case of a constant exponent $q$ studied in [@FMS-2003]. If we go further behind, we see that condition (\[cond1-HI\]) came as a result of (\[lim-m-A\]) and this in turn had its origin in (\[un-b-v-em\])-(\[str-v-em\]). Therefore the best way to assure that (\[cond1-HI\]) is fulfilled is to assume that (\[un-b-v-em\])-(\[str-v-em\]) are satisfied with $\alpha$ replaced by $\beta$, *i.e.* $$\label{un-b-v-em-beta}
\mbox{$\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}\to \mathbf{0}$\quad weakly in $\mathbf{W}^{1,{\beta}}(\mathds{R}^{N})$,\quad as $m\to\infty$,}$$ $$\label{str-v-em-beta}
\mbox{$\mathbf{w}_{\epsilon_m}\to \mathbf{0}$\quad strongly in $\mathbf{L}^{\gamma}(\mathds{R}^{N})$,\quad as $m\to\infty$,
\quad
for any $\gamma:1\leq\gamma<\beta^{\ast}$.
}$$ We observe that (\[un-b-v-em\])-(\[str-v-em\]) came as a result of (\[est-inf-gam\]). In consequence, (\[un-b-v-em-beta\])-(\[str-v-em-beta\]) hold if we had $$\label{est-inf-beta}
\|\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon}\|_{\mathbf{V}_{\beta}}\leq C$$ instead of (\[est-inf-gam\]). Finally, condition (\[est-inf-beta\]) is satisfied if $$\label{cond2-HI}
\int_{\Omega}|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u}_{\epsilon})|^{\beta}\,d\mathbf{x}\leq C\,.$$ In consequence, if we go back to Sections \[Sect-Lip-T\] and \[Sect-Conv-EST\] and replace all the exponents $\alpha$ by $\beta$, than we have $\lambda_{m,j}^{1-\frac{\alpha}{\beta}}=1$ in condition (\[cond1-HI\]), and the existence result follows. Condition (\[cond2-HI\]) can be seen as a consequence of the following higher integrability condition: assume that exists $\delta>0$ such that $$\label{HI-cond}
\int_{\omega'}|\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{u})|^{q(\mathbf{x})(1+\delta)}d\mathbf{x}<\infty$$ for any subdomain $\omega'\subset\subset\Omega$. Then, under all the assumptions of Question \[th-exst-ws-pp\], we can prove the existence of weak solutions for the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]) with $q=q(\mathbf{x})$, which *a priori* satisfy condition (\[HI-cond\]). This property is crucial to control the gradients of velocity in the space $\mathbf{L}^{\beta}(\Omega)$ and with the technique we used we can control them only in the spaces $\mathbf{L}^{\alpha}(\Omega)$ and $\mathbf{L}^{q(\cdot)}(\Omega)$. Despite assumption (\[HI-cond\]) is so strong that weakens very much such an existence result, we observe that this property is satisfied by the weak solutions to some fluid problems. In fact, fluids with viscosity dependence described using non-standard growth conditions have been treated, in the stationary case, in various settings (see [@AMS-2004; @AZ-2005] and the references therein). We think that the approach followed in [@AMS-2004; @AZ-2005] can be potentially useful to extend theses results to our problem. Therefore we are let to believe the higher integrability property expressed by assumption (\[HI-cond\]) is satisfied by every weak solution to the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]) with $q=q(\mathbf{x})$. In this case, to prove an existence result for our problem we do not need the log-Hölder continuity condition (\[glob-log-H\]) on $q$. On the other hand, we can realize that for models of generalized fluid flows in which the stress tensor brings itself this higher regularity, the existence result follows without assuming (\[glob-log-H\]) and (\[HI-cond\]). An example of this situation is the problem with the stress tensor defined by $$\mathbf{S}=\left(\mu+\tau|\mathbf{D}|^{q(\mathbf{x})-2}\right)\mathbf{D}\,,$$ where $\mu$ and $\tau$ are positive constants related with the viscosity. In this case, an existence result can be proved for $\frac{2N}{N+2}<\alpha<\beta\leq 2$ proceeding as in the above sections.
A similar analysis can be done for the parabolic version of the problem (\[geq1-inc\])-(\[geq1-bc\]). In this case all the reasoning is identical and we just have to use the parabolic versions of the results considered from Section \[Sect-Exist-RP\] to Section \[Sect-Conv-EST\]. The impact of our work in the transient problem is in fact more important, because the parabolic extension of the work [@DMS-2008] is, to the best of our knowledge, still not proved. A thorough analysis of these problems is being written and it will be published elsewhere.
[99]{} E. Acerbi and N. Fusco. An approximation lemma for $W^{1,p}$-functions. In *Materials Instabilities in Continuum Mechanics and Related Mathematical Problems*, J.M. Ball. (ed.), Oxford University Press, New York, 1998, pp. 1-5.
E. Acerbi, G. Mingione and G.A. Seregin. Regularity results for parabolic systems related to a class of non-Newtonian fluids. *Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire* **21** (2004), no. 1, 25-60.
S.N. Antontsev, J.I Díaz and H.B. de Oliveira. Stopping a viscous fluid by a feedback dissipative field: thermal effects without phase changing. *Progr. Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl.* **61**, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2005, 1-14.
S.N. Antontsev and J.F. Rodrigues. On stationary thermo-rheological viscous flows. *Ann. Univ. Ferrara Sez. VII Sci. Mat.* **52** (2006), no. 1, 19-36.
S.N. Antontsev and V. Zhikov. Higher integrability for parabolic equations of $p(x,t)$-Laplacian type. *Adv. Differential Equations* **10** (2005), no. 9, 1053-1080.
G. Dal Maso and F. Murat. Almost everywhere convergence of gradients of solutions to nonlinear elliptic systems. *Nonlinear Anal. Serie A* **31** (1998), nos. 3-4, 405-412.
L. Diening, P. Harjulehto, P. Hästo and M. Ružička. *Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces with variable exponents*. Springer, Heidelberg, 2011.
L. Diening, J. Málek and M. Steinhauer. On Lipschitz truncations of Sobolev functions (with variable exponent) and their selected applications. *ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var.* **14** (2008), no. 2, 211-232.
J. Frehse, J. Málek and M. Steinhauer. An existence result for fluids with shear dependent viscosity-steady flows. *Nonlinear Anal.* **30** (1997), no. 5, 3041-3049.
J. Frehse, J. Málek and M. Steinhauer. On analysis of steady flows of fluids with shear dependent viscosity based on the Lipschitz truncation method. *SIAM J. Math. Anal.* **34** (2003), no.5, 1064-1083.
A. Huber The divergence equation in weighted- and $L^{p(\cdot)}$-spaces. *Math. Z.* **267** (2011), 341-366.
O.A. Ladyzhenskaya. New equations for the description of motion of viscous incompressible fluids and solvability in the large of boundary value problem for them. *Proc. Steklov Inst. Math.* **102** (1967), 95-118.
R. Landes. Quasimonotone versus pseudomonotone. *Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A* **126** (1996), 705-707.
J.-L. Lions. *Quelques mèthodes de résolution des problèmes aux limites non liniaires.* Dunod, Paris, 1969.
M. Ružička. A note on steady flow of fluids with shear dependent viscosity. *Nonlinear Anal.* **30** (1997), no. 5, 3029-3039.
M. Ružička. *Electrorheological fluids: modeling and mathematical theory.* Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1748. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.
J. Wolf. Existence of weak solutions to the equations of non-stationary motion of non-Newtonian fluids with shear rate dependent viscosity. *J. Math. Fluid Mech.* **9** (2007), no. 1, 104–138.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In order to study the effect of cell elastic properties on the behavior of assemblies of motile cells, this paper describes an alternative to the cell phase field (CPF) [@Palmieri2015] we have previously proposed. The CPF is a multi-scale approach to simulating many cells which tracked individual cells and allowed for large deformations. Though results were largely in agreement with experiment that focus on the migration of a soft cancer cell in a confluent layer of normal cells [@Lee2012], simulations required large computing resources, making more detailed study unfeasible. In this work we derive a sharp interface limit of CPF, including all interactions and parameters. This new model offers over $200$ fold speedup when compared to our original CPF implementation. We demonstrate that this model captures similar behavior and allows us to obtain new results that were previously intractable. We obtain the full velocity distribution for a large range of degrees of confluence, $\rho$, and show regimes where its tail is heavier and lighter than a normal distribution. Furthermore, we fully characterize the velocity distribution with a single parameter, and its dependence on $\rho$ is fully determined. Finally, cell motility is shown to linearly decrease with increasing $\rho$, consistent with previous theoretical results.'
author:
- Yony Bresler
- Benoit Palmieri
- Martin Grant
bibliography:
- 'Automatically\_Imported.bib'
title: 'Effects of cell elasticity on the migration behavior of a monolayer of motile cells: Sharp Interface Model'
---
Introduction\[sec:intro\]
=========================
Cell monolayers have been used to study a variety of biological process, such as cancer metastasis, wound healing, colony fronts, immunosurveillance and collective cell migration [@Trepat2009; @Tambe2011; @Friedl2008]. These can exhibit complex behavior which can be studied at the intersection of in vivo, in vitro and in silico experiments. This paper is motivated by the metastasis pathway where a single cancer cell, having left the primary tumor, squeezes through the much stiffer endothelium in an attempt to reach a nearby blood vessel.
One method to simulate such cells which has been introduced in recent years is a phase-field approach [@Nonomura2012; @Najem2016; @Camley2014; @Lober2015], where each cell, labeled $n$, is described by a field $\phi_{n}\text{\ensuremath{\left(\mathbf{r,t}\right)}}$. These fields are defined at every point in space $\mathbf{r}$ and time **$\mathbf{t}$**, and smoothly transitions from unity inside the cell to zero outside. In particular, the authors of this paper previously developed a multi-scale phase field for studying elasticity mismatch in cells [@Palmieri2015]. That approach explicitly modeled each cell with tunable elasticity and allowed for large deformations. It was argued that these deformations play a key role in velocity “bursts”, as a highly deformed cell propagates to a more relaxed state with high velocity. However, a major limitation of the model is the large computational resources required for large-scale, long-time simulations that are needed to obtain sufficient statistics.
There are several methods known for improving the efficiency of phase field models. One approach is to replace the uniform mesh with an adaptive mesh [@Provatas2013]. While this reduces the number of mesh points required to perform a simulation, these methods still explicitly track details in both the interior and exterior the cell. Here we are only interested in the motion of the interface and simulating the bulk can be superfluous. Additionally, when the cell is highly deformed, the advantage of such an approach diminishes. Sometimes, in simple cases, it is possible to consider only the motion of the interface, and disregard the bulk evolution. See, for example [@Yao1992], for a treatment of Ostwald ripening. Another approach is to represent all cells with a single field using a vacancy phase field crystal approach [@Alaimo2016]. This allows efficient modeling of many cells but does not allow for large deformations.
A multitude of other models that have been used to study the motion of cells. These include the Cellular Potts model approaches to the motion of cells, including their interaction with the extracellular matrix [@Galiano2010]; self-propelled Voronoi models to study jamming transitions [@Bi2015; @Bi2016] and swarm migration [@Grossman2008]; sub-cellular description using beads and springs models for cell rheology [@Mkrtchyan2014] and tissue growth [@Mkrtchyan2014]; and continuum models to model unconstrained spreading of epithelial layers [@Kopf2013] or wound closure [@Lee2011]. See [@Camley2017; @Hakim2017] for recent comprehensive reviews of various methods in collective cell motility. All these methods differ in their level of description, but none both explicitly track each cell as well as allow for tunable elasticity and arbitrarily large deformations. Furthermore, many of these methods are limited to the study of perfectly confluent layers, whereas we wish to address any degree of confluence. One notable exception is recent treatment by Madhikar *et al.* [@Madhikar2018] which we became aware of after completing this work.
The model proposed in this paper bridges a gap between previous approaches. As a sharp-interface limit of the CPF, there is a significant numerical speedup over the standard CPF approach. At the same time, it retains the description of single cells and allows for large deformations with tunable elasticity. Since the 1950s, there has been extensive work on sharp interface models, including approaches to the Stefan problem [@rubinshtein1971stefan], Ostwald ripening [@Voorhees1985], and the Gibbs-Thomson effect [@Johnson1965]. The phase field model itself emerged to solve some of the morphological instabilities of sharp interfaces. A review of this evolution can be found here [@Sekerka2004]. The model we propose does not suffer from those instabilities, as the number of cells is fixed, and cell volume is kept constant to good approximation. In the absence of growth, the sharp interface model is tractable and allows for a significant speedup over phase field models.
There has also been previous work using a sharp-interface approach to model or detect cell motion. Lee [@Lee1993a] used a sharp-interface mathematical model to track the motion of single Keratocytes cells. Their work has been extended to include details of the actin including nucleation [@Grimm2003] and cell polarization [@Kozlov2007], and the Filament Based Lamellipodium Model [@Manhart2015]. These approaches provide a more detailed description of cells than the model we propose. By their nature, these models are more specialized to certain types of cells and may not be applicable to different cell lines. They have also been used to model single cells, but not multi-cell collective behavior.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: First we derive our sharp interface model from the CPF including non-local terms, model parameters, as well as outline implementation details. Section \[Simulation-Results\] is the results section, which includes reproducing ’bursts’ seen in the CPF, as well as a study of the effects of different concentrations and elasticities on cell motion which were not feasible with CPF. We conclude by summarizing our results and suggest future work.
Sharp Interface Model for Cells
===============================
We begin with the CPF model, where the time evolution for the field of each cell (labeled n), $\phi_{n}$ is given in dimensionless units by
= -**v**\_[n]{}\_[n]{}+\^[2]{}\_[n]{} - -\_[n]{},\[eq:phasefieldcells\]
where $\textbf{v}_{n}$ is the velocity of each cell, $\gamma$ is the parameter that controls cell stiffness or elastic response, $\lambda$ is the width of the cell boundary interface, $\kappa$ sets the strength of neighbor-neighbor cell repulsion, and $\mu$ is a soft constraint to keep cells at their preferred size, $\pi R_{0}^{2}$. The interior of a cell is described where $\phi=1$, smoothly decreasing across the interface, until reaching $\phi=0$ at the cell exterior. This phase field model was shown to be successful, though it is computationally taxing. Hence, we set out to take the sharp interface limit of the phase field equations.
Consider a phase field with a free-energy function given by $$F=\int d^{d}r\left[\frac{1}{2}C\left(\nabla\phi\right)^{2}+f\left(\phi\right)\right],\label{eq:phase-field-generic}$$ where C is a constant, and $f\left(\phi\right)$ is the bulk free energy which has any double well structure. When the thickness of the interface is much less than the radius of curvature of the interface, the local interface velocity $\mathbf{v}_{interface}$ can be approximated [@Grant1983] as $$\mathbf{v}_{interface}=\Gamma K\hat{\mathbf{n}}.$$ Here, $K$ denotes the local curvature, $\Gamma$ is a model dependent parameter, and $\mathbf{v}_{interface}$ points along the local normal to the interface, denoted as $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$. Note that the interface velocity is entirely independent of the choice of $f(\phi)$. Now consider a system governed by a free-energy of the form shown in Equation \[eq:phase-field-generic\] and an interface initially given by $R\left(\theta,t=0\right)$, where $R\left(\theta,t\right)$ describes the distance to the interface from the cell center for any angle $\theta$. We shall use this angular representation for simplicity, and though it precludes multi-valued radii, we will later generalize to remove this restriction. Its time evolution will be given by $$\left.\frac{\partial\mathbf{R}\left(\theta,t\right)}{\partial t}\right|_{Curvature}=\mathbf{v}_{interface}(\theta,t)=\gamma K\left(\theta,t\right)\mathbf{\hat{n}}\left(\theta,t\right),\label{eq:drdt curvature}$$ where in this model, $\Gamma=\gamma$. Evolving the system in time is thus reduced to computing the local curvature along the interface.
Approximating non-local terms
-----------------------------
Although the sharp interface limit of Equation \[eq:phase-field-generic\] does not depend on the details of the bulk free energy $f(\phi)$, the same does not hold for non-local terms. The CPF model had two such terms, the area conservation, and neighbor-neighbor interaction terms. Similar to the sharp interface approximation, we assume that $\lambda \ll K$ such that the radial component is in 1D equilibrium and obtain sharp-interface estimate of these terms by calculating the rate of change of the location of the interface. The long-time equilibrium solution of Equation \[eq:phasefieldcells\] for a cell interface centered at $x=0$ is given by $$\phi_{n}^{*}(x)=\frac{1+\tanh\left(\alpha x\right)}{2},\label{eq:PFequilibriumSoln}$$ with $\alpha=\sqrt{\frac{15}{2}}/\lambda$. We define the sharp interface to be at the point $x=0$, where $\phi_{n}^{*}(x)=0.5$ is halfway between the interior ($\phi=1$) and exterior ($\phi=0$) the cell.
Recall the evolution of the phase field model is restricted by the area conservation term $$\left.\frac{d\phi_{n}}{dt}\right|_{Area}=-\frac{2\mu}{\pi R^{2}}\phi_{n}\left[\int dx\int dy\phi_{n}^{2}-\pi R_{0}^{2}\right].$$ Consider the interface $\phi_{n}$ to be at equilibrium at time $t_{i}$ but with a change $\Delta A$ from the equilibrium area $A_{eq}=\pi R_{0}^{2}$. Assuming all other terms remain at equilibrium, this will introduce a change to the field $$\left.\frac{d\phi_{n}}{dt}\right|_{Area}=-\frac{2\mu}{\pi R^{2}}\phi_{n}^{*}\left[A_{eq}+\Delta A-A_{eq}\right]=-\frac{2\mu}{\pi R^{2}}\phi_{n}^{*}\Delta A.$$ Using the 1st order (forward-Euler) approximation, we find that the solution at $t_{i+1}$ is $$\phi_n(x,t_{i+1})=\phi_n^{*}(x)+\Delta t\cdot\left(-\beta\phi_{n}^{*}(x)\right),$$ with $\beta=\frac{2\mu\Delta A}{\pi R^{2}}$. Solving for the updated position of the interface, $\phi(x,t_{i+1})=0.5$, and using Equation \[eq:PFequilibriumSoln\] , the updated position of the interface will be
0.5 =\_n\^[\*]{}(x)+t(-\_[n]{}\^[\*]{}(x))
x = -.
We then take the limit $$\lim_{\Delta t\rightarrow0}\frac{x}{\Delta t}=\frac{\beta}{\alpha}=\sqrt{\left(8/15\right)}\lambda,$$ to obtain the rate at which a change in area $\Delta A$ moves the position of the interface. Thus, we obtain an approximation for the area conservation term in the sharp interface limit, $$\left.\frac{\partial\mathbf{R}\left(\theta,t\right)}{\partial t}\right|_{Area}=\mu'\left(A\left(\mathbf{R}\left(\theta,t\right)\right)-\pi R_{0}^{2}\right)\mathbf{\hat{n}}\left(\theta,t\right),\label{eq:drdt area}$$ where we have defined $\mu'=\frac{\sqrt{\nicefrac{8}{15}}\lambda}{\pi R_{0}^{2}}\mu$. Note that this derivation also assumed that the area of a cell at equilibrium is $\pi R_{0}^{2}$, for both the sharp interface and CPF models. This is a good approximation since $\int_{-\infty}^{d}((1+tanh(x))/2)^{2}\,dx\simeq d-0.5$.
To derive the neighbor-neighbor interactions, we follow a similar procedure, though the equations do not have a closed form solution and will require some additional approximations. We first consider the interface of cell $n$ centered at $x=0$, and another cell with an interface in the opposite orientation centered at $x=-d$. We assume the cells to be at their unperturbed equilibrium, and now overlap. In actuality, this overlap would perturb the interface resulting in a smaller interface width and profile, though those corrections are unnecessary for our desired level of description. Assuming all other terms remain at equilibrium, this overlap leads to an updated interface location
\_[n]{}(x,t\_[i+1]{}) =\_[n]{}\^[\*]{}(x)+t2\_[n]{}\^[\*]{}(x)[\_[m]{}\^[\*]{}(-x-d)]{}\^[2]{}
0.5 =\_[n]{}\^[\*]{}(x)
0.5 ={ -15t+\^[2]{}+30t(d)-15t\^[2]{}(d)+ x}
x =,
where in the 3rd line we have taken the 1st order series expansion around $x=0$, so that the equation may be solved analytically. Taking the same limit as in the area term gives us an expression for the rate of change of the interface position due to the neighbor-neighbor term $$\lim_{\Delta t\rightarrow0}\frac{x}{\Delta t}=\frac{15\kappa\left(\tanh(\alpha d)-1\right)^{2}}{\alpha\lambda^{2}},$$ as a function of the distance $d$ between the two cell interfaces. Thus, the sharp interface limit of the interactions between cell n and all other cells is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\frac{\partial\mathbf{R}_{n}\left(\theta,t\right)}{\partial t}\right|_{Neigh} & =\frac{15\kappa\left(\tanh\left(\alpha d_{n,\theta'}\right)-1\right)^{2}}{\alpha\lambda}\hat{\mathbf{n}}\left(\theta,t\right),\label{eq:drdt neighbor}\end{aligned}$$ where $d_{n,\theta'}$ is understood to be the distance between $\mathbf{R}_{n}\left(\theta,t\right)$ along $\mathbf{n}_{\theta}$, to the nearest neighboring cell.
{width="50.00000%"}
Cell Velocity
-------------
Up to this point, our description of the sharp interface has not accounted for cell motility. We have already seen that a sharp interface cell $n$ will move with a velocity $\mathbf{v}_{n}$ with the additional term $$\frac{\partial\mathbf{R}_{n}\left(\theta,t\right)}{\partial t}=\mathbf{v}_{n}.$$ As in the CPF, each cell will have a single velocity which consists of both an active, and an inactive part, $$\mathbf{v}_{n}=\mathbf{v}_{n}^{Active}+\mathbf{v}_{n}^{Inactive}.\label{eq:drdt v total}$$ The active velocity describes the cell’s net self propulsion, and is driven by the cellular motors. This velocity can be applied directly to each cell. As before, we chose this active velocity to have a constant magnitude $v_{A}$ and reoriented with probability $P(t)=\frac{1}{\tau}e^{-t/\tau}$, where $\tau$ is the mean time between reorientations. The inactive velocity of cell $n$ is due to forces exerted by the other cells surrounding it. In CPF, the inactive velocity was given by $$\textbf{v}_{n}^{Inactive}=\frac{60\kappa}{\xi\lambda^{2}}\int dx\int dy\phi_{n}\left(\mathbf{\nabla}\phi_{n}\right)\sum_{m\neq n}\phi_{m}^{2},$$ where $\xi$ is due to friction between the cells, the substrate, and the surrounding water. In a similar procedure to estimating the non-local terms, we will substitute the equilibrium solution $\phi^{*}(x)$ for both cells $n$ and $m$, and evaluate the expression as a function of the distance $d$ between the two interfaces. No approximations or simulated time step is needed, and the integral can be evaluated exactly to give
\_[n]{}\^[Inactive]{}=\_[’]{}\_[’]{}.\[eq:drdt v inactive\]
Since the calculation of $d$ is the most computationally demanding portion of our model, we use the distance $d_{n,\theta'}$ computed for the neighbor-neighbor interaction, and assume that this value of $\textbf{v}_{n}^{Inactive}$ is constant over the interval $\frac{\theta_{i}-\theta_{i-1}}{2}-\frac{\theta_{i+1}-\theta_{i}}{2}$. Thus combining equations \[eq:drdt curvature\], \[eq:drdt area\], \[eq:drdt neighbor\], \[eq:drdt v total\] & \[eq:drdt v inactive\] the complete evolution of each cell is given by
=\_+\_[n]{}\^[Inactive]{}+\_[n]{}\^[Active]{}.\[eq:drdt total\]
Numerical Implementation
------------------------
To this point we have implicitly defined positions along the interface by a radial representation, $R(\theta,t)$. While this is well suited to cells that are mostly spherical, this representation has several limitations, particularly for cells with large deformations. This representation is explicitly single valued and cannot account for overhangs. There are also challenges in the numerical implementation to the radial representation. For example, to have uniform spacing in $\theta$, would require either that all tangential components $\hat{\theta}$ be discarded to preserve the uniform spacing; or alternatively that the points be redistributed to be uniform after every time step.
For our model system and parameter set, we found that a Cartesian coordinate representation was more convenient. Hence, we moved to represent each point $P_{i}$ along the interface by its position in the $x-y$ plane. This representation requires only infrequent redistribution of points. The curvature is computed as $$K(P_{i})=-2\gamma\frac{P_{x}'P_{y}''-P_{y}''P_{x}''}{\left(\left(P_{x}'\right)^{2}+\left(P_{y}'\right)^{2}\right)},$$ and the area is given by $A=\frac{1}{2}\int P_{x}P'_{y}\:dP$, where $P_{x}'$ ($P_{y}'$ ) denotes a partial derivative along $x\,\left(y\right)$. Since each point along the interface can move in any direction, they may move too closely together leading to numerical instability. Hence, we redistribute the points along the interface by use of spline interpolation when needed, using the centripetal Catmull-Rom spline [@Barry1988], since it will not form closed loops or cusps within a curved section. We perform this redistribution whenever adjacent points $\Delta P_{i}$ are either too close $(\Delta P_{i}<0.8\Delta\bar{P})$ or too far apart $(\Delta P_{i}>1.5\Delta\bar{P})$, as compared to $\Delta\bar{P=}2\pi R/N$ which is the uniform spacing for a circle.
Another challenge is that cells can become too deformed and lead to instabilities. In particular, a soft cell that is pushed by two normal cells on opposites sides, may ’pinch-off’ a portion of the cell by bringing the two opposite interfaces of the soft cell to touch. This can be resolved in several ways. The first is to make the cells stiffer, however in our model system this would not allow for sufficient elastic mismatch between the soft and normal cells. A second option is to penalize pinching-off by adding a self repulsion term to the model. This would better represent the mechanical and chemical mechanisms that exist in real cells which prevent pinching-off from occurring. We opted for a third approach, which is to offset the curvature term $$K_{natural}(P_{i})=K(P_{i})-\frac{1}{R_{0}}, \label{eq:Knatural}$$ by the natural curvature of a cell with radius $R_{0}$, analogous to Helfrich theory [@Helfrich1973]. We found this was sufficient to prevent the cell from being pinched-off while still allowing large deformations needed for bursts.
As shown in Table \[tab:Simulations-Parameters.-Table\] model parameters were similar to CPF, with some minor modifications, improving the stability of cells while also preserving the deformation needed to allow for bursts. Despite these minor changes, having derived our model directly from CPF, we think these models yields asymptotically the same results. A sample snapshot from a simulation is shown in Figure \[fig:SimulationSnapshot\], where the soft cell is colored in green, and all other cells have normal stiffness and are shown in blue.
![**Simulation Snapshot.** Snapshot from a simulation with degree of confluence $\rho=80\%$, showing the soft cell in green, and normal cells interfaces in blue. \[fig:SimulationSnapshot\]](snapshot_from_800_filled){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Simulations were performed with the same parameters shown above, unless otherwise mentioned, in a simulation box with periodic boundary conditions. $72$ cells were used, each consisted of $N=150$ points, and forward Euler integration was used with a time step $dt=0.1$. The curvature was computed using a 2nd order (5 point) symmetric stencil. Simulations were initialized with the same random number seed and in a hexagonal lattice, and equilibration consisted of the first $t=40,000$. Following that, samples were taken every $t=800$, for a total simulation time of $t=2\cdot10^{6}$ for each run. Using these units, $t=1$ corresponds to roughly $0.36$s in real time. Our sharp interface model was implemented using C++ and openMP, with use of the boost library [@schaling2011boost]. Run on a Compute Canada cluster, a single $t=2\times10^{6}$ simulations took approximately 8 hours of wall time using 16 cores. This constitutes a roughly 200 factor speedup over a traditional CPF implementation.
Simulation Results {#Simulation-Results}
==================
Having derived a sharp interface model for cells with tunable elasticity, we present the results of our simulations. The model can be summed as solving Equation \[eq:drdt total\], using the natural curvature in Equation \[eq:Knatural\] and with the parameters shown in table \[tab:Simulations-Parameters.-Table\]. As in CPF, the model can be used at any degree of confluence, that is at any concentration, $$\rho=\frac{N_{cells}\pi R_{0}^{2}}{L^{2}},$$ where $L$ is the length of the simulation box. This does not account for the gap between neighboring cells that is proportional to $\lambda$ thus it slightly under-represents the actual degree of confluence. In section \[subsec:Burst-Behavior\] we demonstrate our model can qualitatively recover features seen in experiment and in the CPF model, including increased velocity bursts, and a higher diffusion for soft-in-normal as compared to the all-normal cells. Thanks to the large computational speedup of this model over CPF, section \[subsec:Concentrations\] examines the behavior across a broad range of concentrations, varying cell stiffness, and properties of the active motor. Notably, we show a single parameter characterization of the instantaneous velocity distribution as a function of concentration.
Burst Behavior\[subsec:Burst-Behavior\]
---------------------------------------
![**Sharp Interface Model Recovers Soft Cell Burst.** Probability plot for instantaneous cell velocity of both soft-in-normal (green triangles) and all other normal cells (blue circles) of a $\rho=83\%$ simulation. Plotted as Quantile where Gaussian Probability is a straight line, and showing best Gaussian fit for soft-in-normal (green dashed line) and all other normal cells (blue dashed line). \[fig:Sharp-Interface-Model\]](\string"v_dist_19_runs_v12\string"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Rare bursts of high cell velocity were observed in experiment [@Lee2012] as well as by our previous CPF model and play a key role in higher cell motility. Thus, we begin evaluating the sharp interface model by showing it also recovers bursts. The system consists of a single soft cell surrounded by stiff (normal) cells, where all other cell parameters are identical, except for the random motor orientation. The velocity distribution of a single simulation performed at $\rho=83\%$ is shown in Figure \[fig:Sharp-Interface-Model\]. The probability distribution of the absolute value of the $x $ component (or equivalently, the $y$ component) of cell velocity is plotted as a half-normal distributed quantile, such that a half-normal distribution would be a straight line. This is done to better show differences in the tail of the distribution. We combined the results from $20$ independent runs to reduce noise and better illustrate differences deep in the tail of the distributions. The plot shows that the soft cell (green triangles) has a fatter tail than the normal cells (blue circles). This demonstrates that the elasticity mismatch enhances cell velocity and is consistent with CPF results. While distribution for the normal cells shows high velocities are less probable than in the soft cell, it is clear that this distribution also has a fatter tail compared with a normal distribution as shown by the deviation from the line of best fit. In CPF, the comparison was performed with a new simulation replacing the soft cell with a normal cell. However, we have found that statistically a new simulation behaves indistinguishably from any of the normal cells in the soft-in-normal simulation. As such, we collected data from all normal cells in the soft-in-normal simulations, thereby reducing noise. The non-Gaussian distribution tail of the normal cells was not seen in CPF results, likely visible due to the reduced statistics as compared to this study.
![**Average change in perimeter as a function of velocity for different elasticities.** The average change in perimeter, $\left\langle \Delta L\right\rangle $ binned as a function of velocity magnitude $\left|\mathbf{v}\right|$. Each symbol corresponds to different elasticity where all cells are adjusted, spanning $\gamma=0.45-1.25$, and the active motor speed is $0.1$. As elasticity is decreased, higher velocities become increasingly correlated with a negative $\left\langle \Delta L\right\rangle $, indicating that bursts are likely to occur when the cell has contracted from a more deformed to a less deformed state.\[fig:Scaling-of-velocity\]](\string"v_vs_delta_L_across_different_gamma_BoxSize800_v2\string"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
To better illustrate the relation between elasticity and bursts, we look at the average change in perimeter $\left\langle \Delta L\right\rangle $ (divided by $2\pi R_0$) from the previous time-step, binned for different velocity magnitudes $\left|\mathbf{v}\right|$, as shown in Figure \[fig:Scaling-of-velocity\]. The elasticity of all cells is changed, ranging from the all-normal cells $\text{\ensuremath{\gamma}=1.25}$ to all-soft cells $\text{\ensuremath{\gamma}=0.45}$, all performed at $\rho=85\%$. For all elasticities, low velocities are uncorrelated with perimeter change as $\left\langle \Delta L\right\rangle \approx$0. However, higher velocities are correlated with a decrease in $\left\langle \Delta L\right\rangle $. This indicates that bursts are more likely to occur when the cell has relaxed from a more deformed configuration to one with a smaller perimeter length. Comparing different series, it is also evident that reducing cell elasticity increases this effect. As we will show later, this increase in bursts results in a higher diffusivity for softer cells.
We have shown that our sharp interface model can recover the main features of the CPF model, at a significant reduction in computation time. This speedup makes a broader study of parameter space feasible. We begin by studying the effect of system concentration. As before, a single soft cell with all other cells having normal elasticity are simulated at various concentrations, ranging from near confluent $\rho=95\%$ to the very dilute $\rho=25\%$.
**(a)**![**Velocity distribution.** The instantaneous velocity probability distribution for all-normal cells at different concentrations (**a:** $\rho=93\%$, **b:** $\rho=81\%$, **c:** $\rho=77\%$, **d:** $\rho=25\%$) plotted such that a Gaussian distribution is a straight line. Also plotted are Gaussian (black line) and student-t (red line) best fit lines. \[fig:3\_velocity\_distributions\]](\string"765_v_normal_fit_gaussian_plus_student_T\string" "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}**(b)**![**Velocity distribution.** The instantaneous velocity probability distribution for all-normal cells at different concentrations (**a:** $\rho=93\%$, **b:** $\rho=81\%$, **c:** $\rho=77\%$, **d:** $\rho=25\%$) plotted such that a Gaussian distribution is a straight line. Also plotted are Gaussian (black line) and student-t (red line) best fit lines. \[fig:3\_velocity\_distributions\]](\string"820_v_normal_fit_gaussian_plus_student_T\string" "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"} **(c)**![**Velocity distribution.** The instantaneous velocity probability distribution for all-normal cells at different concentrations (**a:** $\rho=93\%$, **b:** $\rho=81\%$, **c:** $\rho=77\%$, **d:** $\rho=25\%$) plotted such that a Gaussian distribution is a straight line. Also plotted are Gaussian (black line) and student-t (red line) best fit lines. \[fig:3\_velocity\_distributions\]](\string"840_v_normal_fit_gaussian_plus_student_T\string" "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}**(d)**![**Velocity distribution.** The instantaneous velocity probability distribution for all-normal cells at different concentrations (**a:** $\rho=93\%$, **b:** $\rho=81\%$, **c:** $\rho=77\%$, **d:** $\rho=25\%$) plotted such that a Gaussian distribution is a straight line. Also plotted are Gaussian (black line) and student-t (red line) best fit lines. \[fig:3\_velocity\_distributions\]](\string"1474_v_normal_fit_gaussian_plus_student_T\string" "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:3\_velocity\_distributions\] shows the velocity probability distribution of an all-normal simulation in three regimes: \[fig:3\_velocity\_distributions\]**(a)** a very dense system, $\rho=93\%$ **(**Movie **** \#1), where the velocity probability distribution is highly non-Gaussian, but overall velocity is limited by the presence of neighboring cells; \[fig:3\_velocity\_distributions\]**(b & c)** intermediate concentrations, $\rho=81\,\&\,77\%$ **(**Movies **** \#2 & \#3), cells move faster but there are less bursts as the tail is nearly Gaussian; and finally \[fig:3\_velocity\_distributions\]**(d)** at a very dilute concentration, $\rho=25\%$ **(**Movie **** \#4), where the cells interact less frequently and the distribution resembles that of an isolated cell, which peaks at the motor active velocity. Each plot also shows several best fit lines. The solid lines are a Gaussian fit, obtained by including velocities $0\leq v\leq v'$, where the cut-off $v'$ is chosen to minimizes the Chi squared of the fit. This was done since it is evident that the tail of the distribution is non-Gaussian and including it in the fit skews the low velocity behavior that does appear to follow Gaussian statistics. The dashed red line is a student-t distribution fit for the entire velocity distribution.
![**Student-t parameter fits across concentrations.** Student-t fit parameter of instantaneous velocity probability distribution, for all-normal cells at different concentrations. Top: $\sigma$ as a function of concentration, with solid line a single parameter best fit $\sigma=a\sqrt{1-\rho^{2}}$. Bottom: Student-t fit parameter **$\beta$** as a function of $\sigma$ according to fit above (Equation \[eq:sigma by rho\]). The solid line is a linear fit for small $\sigma$.\[fig:Student-t-parameter-fits\]](\string"Student_T_sigma_scaling\string"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![**Student-t parameter fits across concentrations.** Student-t fit parameter of instantaneous velocity probability distribution, for all-normal cells at different concentrations. Top: $\sigma$ as a function of concentration, with solid line a single parameter best fit $\sigma=a\sqrt{1-\rho^{2}}$. Bottom: Student-t fit parameter **$\beta$** as a function of $\sigma$ according to fit above (Equation \[eq:sigma by rho\]). The solid line is a linear fit for small $\sigma$.\[fig:Student-t-parameter-fits\]](\string"Student_T_beta_scaling_vs_sigma\string"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The student-t distribution proved to be a fit for the velocity distribution in all but the most dilute of simulations. Given a set of Gaussian random numbers $X_{i}$ with mean $0$ and standard deviation $\sigma$, sampling $\nicefrac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}}{S\sqrt{n}}$ (where $S$ is the sample variance) gives a student-t distribution with $n-1$ degrees of freedom. $X_{i}$ can be thought of as the cell motor sampled over the neighboring cells that it is interacting with. Here we use the 2-parameter student-t, where $\sigma$ sets the scale of the distribution, and $\beta=n-1$ denotes the degrees of freedom [@jackman2009bayesian]. Results of fitting the student-t $\sigma$ parameter are plotted as a function of concentration at the top of Figure \[fig:Student-t-parameter-fits\]. This shows a clear relation where increased $\rho$ leads to lower $\sigma$, as crowding makes higher velocities increasingly unlikely. We found our results are well described by the one parameter fit $$\sigma\left(\rho\right) = a\sqrt{1-\rho^{2}},
\label{eq:sigma by rho}$$ shown as a solid line. Therefore, we motivate this particular form by considering the symmetry around $\rho=1$. Although as plotted here $\sigma$ is positive semi-definite, the complete $v_{x}$ distribution is both positive and negative, and symmetric around zero. Similar to a Gaussian distribution, $P\left(v=\pm\sigma\right)/P\left(v=0\right)\approx1/\sqrt{e}$ (Given the relation for $\sigma\left(\rho\right)\&\beta\left(\rho\right)$, this is within 5% even at $\rho=1$), and this form preserves this symmetry continuity. In the bottom of Figure \[fig:Student-t-parameter-fits\], we plot the other fit-parameter of the student-t, $\beta$. Rather than as a function of concentration, $1/\beta$ as a function of the expected $\sigma$ from Equation \[eq:sigma by rho\] shows that below a critical value of $\sigma*$, it follows $$\left.\beta\left(\sigma\right)\right|_{\sigma < \sigma*} = \frac{1}{b_1 \sigma + b_0}.
\label{eq:beta by sigma}$$ This reduces the two parameter student-t to a single fit parameter $\sigma$ (or equivalently, $\rho$). As concentration is increased, cells are more confined and move with reduced velocity, yet the tail of the distribution becomes more pronounced as collective behavior leads to increased bursts. Note that fitting beyond $\beta=100$ proved difficult as it is numerically indistinguishable from a Gaussian distribution. There are, of course, many other possible distributions that resemble a Gaussian with fatter tail. In our previous analysis of the CPF results, we had shown that the heavier than Gaussian tail of the velocity distribution could be fitted in two ways: the student-t distribution, as well as a single parameter ’caged cell’ fit where the soft cell mostly behaves like a normal cell, with the exception of rare events where its motor supplements the Gaussian velocity given by the surrounding cells. Here we found the caged cell model was not a good fit, particularly for the all-normal cells.
![**Instantaneous velocity probability distributions master curve.** Velocity profiles for all-normal cells at different concentrations (shown in the legend) rescaled such that a student-t distribution forms a straight line. Each concentration was scaled by $\sigma\, \&\, \beta$ given by Equations \[eq:sigma by rho\] $\&$ \[eq:beta by sigma\]. The dashed line represents an ideal student-t distribution (for any $\sigma\, \&\, \beta$). Data collapses onto the dashed line, with the exception of the $2$ most dilute simulation. \[fig:Velocity-distribution\]](\string"v_distribution_quantile_student_t_beta_and_sigma_forms\string"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
To further illustrate the scaling of the velocity distribution with respect to concentration, Figure \[fig:Velocity-distribution\] shows the velocity probability distribution for all concentration in a quantile plot $T\left(v_x\right)$ such that a student-t distribution would form a straight line. Each concentration was rescaled by $\sigma\left(\rho\right), \beta\left(\sigma\right)$ as given from Equations \[eq:sigma by rho\],\[eq:beta by sigma\] respectively. The data largely collapses to the master curve showing that the student-t parameter relations as a function of $\rho$, hence these are accurate in predicting the full velocity distribution at any concentration. The slight spread at deep in the tail of the distribution is likely due to the small sampling of rare events, and propagation of error in determining $\sigma\,\&\,\beta$. The main exceptions are the two most dilute simulations. These more closely resemble the distribution of an isolated cell, with a peak at $v=v_{A}=0.01$, as was seen in Figure \[fig:3\_velocity\_distributions\]**(d)**. Here, the sharp fall off cannot be described by a normal or student-t distribution.
Cell Motility\[subsec:Concentrations\]
--------------------------------------
![**Estimating Diffusion constant from Velocity auto-correlation.** Integrating the velocity auto-correlation function (VACF) of soft-in-normal (green triangles) and all other normal cells (blue circles) is used to estimate the diffusion constant, $\rho = 87\%$. Averaging over later times is used to obtain an estimate for the diffusion constant, shown as a solid green (blue) line for soft-in-normal (normal) cells. \[fig:estimatingD\]](D_int_from_VACF-790_soft_and_hard){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Having shown that softer cells experience more bursts, we now examine whether this leads to higher cell motility. There are various methods for calculating the motility. Here we chose to use the integral of the velocity auto-correlation (VACF), $D\left(t\right)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{t}\mathbf{\left\langle v\left(\mathrm{t}\mathrm{'}\right)\cdot v\left(\mathrm{0}\right)\right\rangle \mathrm{dt'}}$, where taking $\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}D(t)$ yields the diffusion constant [@Green1954; @Kubo1957]. We estimate this by averaging over $D\left(t\right)$ at late times. As shown in Figure \[fig:estimatingD\], this allows for a good estimate as the VACF quickly converges to $0$, and so a shorter time window can be used to accurately estimate $D\left(\infty\right)$ by averaging $D\left(t\right)$ after it stops rising. The solid line shows the final result of averaging. Since these simulations include $71$ normal cells but only $1$ soft cell, the latter has significantly more noise. The fluctuations of the average underestimate the systematic error since they are correlated. Instead we estimated systematic error as follows: performing $20$ independent simulations, a diffusion constant was computed for each run. Fitting a normal distribution to these 20 results yields their standard deviation. We find that it is $3.2\%$ for the normal cells, and $9.2\%$ for the soft-in-normal cell. As such, it is difficult to evaluate the behavior of the soft-in-normal cell, beyond what we already demonstrated in Figure \[fig:Sharp-Interface-Model\].
Examining the instantaneous velocity distribution, we showed competition between increasing burst frequency and an overall reduction in the mean velocity as $\rho$ increases. One may ask how does this effect cell motility? Following the procedure outlined previously, Figure \[fig:Diffusion-constant-from\]**(a)** shows the motility for different concentrations, as well as for different cell stiffness. Compared to the all-normal case, error for the soft-in-normal is considerably higher, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions. Therefore, to study the effect of elasticity, it was varied for all cells in a given simulation ranging from the all-normal $\gamma=1.25$ to the all-soft $\gamma=0.45$. Also shown on the plot are our two previous CPF results, for both the soft-in-normal (green star) and normal-in-normal (blue star) simulations at $\rho=90\%$, and the well-known result $$D(\rho)=D_{0}(1-\rho),
\label{eq:DrhoTheory}$$ derived for a discrete random walk where cells move to an adjacent site unless it is already occupied [@phillips2013]. Overall, our results are consistent with these three results. The linear fit appears to describe general scaling, and diffusion is reduced with increased concentration. The inset shows the residuals between the $\gamma=1.25$ all-normal simulation and the theoretical fit. Though the residuals are small, there appears to be some additional higher order behavior beyond linear scaling. We also see that at each concentration, lower elasticity leads to increased diffusion. To better illustrate this, in Figure \[fig:Diffusion-constant-from\]**(b)** we plot $D\left(\gamma\right)$ for different concentrations. The best fit lines correspond well with data, indicating that at all concentrations, increased elasticity reduces cell diffusion, at a rate that is roughly constant within error. Hence, decreasing cell elasticity leads to increased cell motility, at all concentrations, consistent with results from CPF.
**(a)**![**Cell diffusion as a function of concentration and elasticity.** **(a)** Diffusion constant as a function of concentration, and for various elasticities, as shown in the legend. Also shown is the well known theoretical result Equation \[eq:DrhoTheory\], as well as results from CPF for both soft (green star) and normal (blue star). **(b)** Diffusion constant as a function of elasticity, at different concentration as shown in legend, with linear best fit line for each series. **\[fig:Diffusion-constant-from\]**](\string"D_from_VACF_fit_normals_-_DintTailAvg_method_plus_errorbars_revised_v25\string" "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
**(b)**![**Cell diffusion as a function of concentration and elasticity.** **(a)** Diffusion constant as a function of concentration, and for various elasticities, as shown in the legend. Also shown is the well known theoretical result Equation \[eq:DrhoTheory\], as well as results from CPF for both soft (green star) and normal (blue star). **(b)** Diffusion constant as a function of elasticity, at different concentration as shown in legend, with linear best fit line for each series. **\[fig:Diffusion-constant-from\]**](\string"D_across_gamma_for_different_concentrations_revised_v22\string" "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Finally, we examine the role of the cellular motor parameters on diffusion. For isolated cells, diffusion can be derived analytically, $D_{iso}=\frac{1}{2}v_{A}^{2}\tau$. For non-isolated cells, that relation no longer holds for several reasons. As cells are interacting, the effective velocity is on average lower than the active velocity. As well, reorientation time due to collisions may be shorter and dominate over the motor reorientation time. To decouple these effects, Figure \[fig:DiffusionAcrossTauAndConcentration\] shows the resulting diffusion constant when $\tau$ is varied while keeping $v_{A}$ constant, for a range of concentrations. $\tau_{0}$ is the reorientation time used previously in this paper, as shown in table \[tab:Simulations-Parameters.-Table\]. For $\tau/\tau_{0}\leq1$, the diffusion constant was calculated as in previous sections, by averaging over the tail of $D(t)=\int_{0}^{t}\left\langle v\left(t'\right)v\left(0\right)\right\rangle dt'$. However, for $\tau/\tau_{0}>1$ the diffusion constant is large, and this method is slow to converge. Instead, an exponential fit to $D\left(t\right)$ is performed to extrapolate the long-time diffusion constant. As seen in the plot, though the particular value of $\tau$ affects the magnitude of cellular diffusion, the qualitative behavior of higher $\rho$ leading to slower diffusion remains consistent. It is also evident that the measured diffusion is non linear with respect to $\tau$, and the slope at $\tau=\tau_{0}$ is smaller than 1. At $\tau/\tau_{0}\ll1$, the active velocity oscillated rapidly, leading rapid decorrelation of the VACF and hence, a decreased diffusion constant [@Hurley1995]. Due to collisions with the surrounding cells, increasing $\tau$ increases $D$ but at a diminishing rate. This reduction is correlated with increased concentration, and diffusion appears to level off at a lower value of $\tau/\tau_{0}$ for denser systems.
![**Cell diffusion as a function of motor reorientation time $\tau$ and concentration.** Cell motility increases with increased $\tau/\tau_0$, but in a non-linear fashion, for different concentration, as shown in legend. \[fig:DiffusionAcrossTauAndConcentration\] ](\string"D_across_different_taus_and_box_sizes_v2\string"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Discussion
==========
Our paper focused on a new, sharp interface model for the simulation of assemblies of motile cells with varying elasticities. The model was inspired by a previous phase field approach to this system. While successful in recreating velocity bursts, this method was very computationally demanding. By approximating the cell interface and ignoring all bulk behavior, we were able to dramatically speed up simulation time by a factor of $\sim200$. Model parameters allow to independently tune differing elasticities for each cell while keeping all other cell properties identical. These parameters were largely derived from the CPF model, using equilibrium approximations to determine the strength of the various terms. The sharp interface model is more susceptible than CPF to cell pinching, where opposite ends of the cell interface can overlap. In this study we circumvented this issue by making the cells slightly stiffer and adding a term which corresponds to a spontaneous curvature in the energy functional. Other solutions, such as adding an internal cell wall repulsion are feasible and may allow the simulations of softer cells. A comparison of these approaches may elucidate some of the observed difference between this sharp interface model and previous CPF results. Our model is also distinct from other sharp interface models of cells. Though some studies focused on the motion of individual cells in greater detail, we are able to simulate large systems efficiently, while maintaining description at the individual cell level. Conversely, other methods that do allow for much larger systems size do not allow for large deformations of individual cells, which we have shown to be key to velocity bursts.
We demonstrated that this model recovers behavior seen in experiment, as well as many but not all of the features of the full CPF model with respect to cell dynamics. As before, soft cells show an increased likelihood of high velocity burst events than stiffer cells. These bursts were described by performing a student-t fit to the velocity probability distribution, where a lower degree of freedom, $\beta$ represents a “fatter” tail of the distribution. We have also shown that these bursts occur as a highly deformed cell relaxes to a more spherical configuration, qualitatively consistent with previous CPF results as well as with experiment. These bursts result in softer cells having higher motility (diffusion constant) than normal cells at the same concentration.
We also obtained several new results that were not feasible with the computationally slower CPF model. For a given elasticity, we have shown that both $\beta$ and $\sigma$ are consistent with a simple relation to $\rho$, and that these reduce the student-t to a single parameter fit. Below a cut-off concentration, $\beta$ is infinite suggesting the tail is Gaussian or below-Gaussian, as seen at very dilute simulations. Above this cut-off, $1/\beta$ is linearly correlated with concentration as more bursts are seen. On the other hand, $\sigma$ decreases with increased concentration, as cells lack free space to move to and overall mobility is reduced. This becomes clear when examining cell motility which appears to linear decrease with $\rho$, consistent with theory. Furthermore, this linear relation appears to hold across various cell elasticities. Finally, we have shown that at a given concentration, motility is also linearly related to cell elasticity. Although softer cells are more motile than stiffer cells, the quantitative difference between the two is less pronounced than that in the CPF model. Finally, we showed that varying our motor parameters does not affect these relations qualitatively.
There are several other prospects for application of this model. The first is to better understand some of the differences between CPF and this sharp interface model, though this will likely require considerable computational resources to perform comparable CPF simulations at various parameters and with sufficient statistics. Another avenue is to extend this model to other biologically relevant systems. In particular, future work will examine the additions of cell-cell adhesion, which can be different for cancer and healthy cells. It remains to be seen whether adhesion changes the burst behavior and in what way. Similarly, different cellular motor schemes could also lead to changes in bursts or motility.
Finally, we are also interested in applying the model to physics systems which may not be directly tied to biology. For example, as the concentration tends to 1 and $\sigma$ approaches zero, we are studying an apparent ordered-disordered phase transition, similar to those studied in other model systems.
In summary, we have developed a new model for simulating cells on a monolayer. This sharp interface model has similar advantages to CPF by explicitly tracking deformations of individual cells with tunable elasticity, yet it is $200$ times faster. We recover previous results for velocity bursts, as well as demonstrate new description of the velocity distribution and cell motility as a function of concentration and cell elasticity.
Acknowledgments
================
The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la nature et les technologies are gratefully acknowledged for funding this research. Computations were performed on the Guillimin supercomputer from McGill University, managed by Calcul Québec and Compute Canada. The operation of this supercomputer is funded by the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), the ministère de l’Économie, de la science et de l’innovation du Québec (MESI) and the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Nature et technologies (FRQ-NT).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Word embeddings are numerical vectors which can represent words or concepts in a low-dimensional continuous space. These vectors are able to capture useful syntactic and semantic information. The traditional approaches like Word2Vec, GloVe and FastText have a strict drawback: they produce a single vector representation per word ignoring the fact that ambiguous words can assume different meanings. In this paper we use techniques to generate sense embeddings and present the first experiments carried out for Portuguese. Our experiments show that sense vectors outperform traditional word vectors in syntactic and semantic analogy tasks, proving that the language resource generated here can improve the performance of NLP tasks in Portuguese.'
address: 'Federal University of São Carlos, Department of Computer Science '
author:
- 'Jéssica Rodrigues da Silva, Helena de Medeiros Caseli'
bibliography:
- 'sbc-template.bib'
title: Generating Sense Embeddings for Syntactic and Semantic Analogy for Portuguese
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Any natural language (Portuguese, English, German, etc.) has ambiguities. Due to ambiguity, the same word surface form can have two or more different meanings. For example, the Portuguese word *banco* can be used to express the financial institution but also the place where we can rest our legs (a seat). Lexical ambiguities, which occur when a word has more than one possible meaning, directly impact tasks at the semantic level and solving them automatically is still a challenge in natural language processing (NLP) applications. One way to do this is through word embeddings.
Word embeddings are numerical vectors which can represent words or concepts in a low-dimensional continuous space, reducing the inherent sparsity of traditional vector-space representations [@salton1975vector]. These vectors are able to capture useful syntactic and semantic information, such as regularities in natural language. They are based on the distributional hypothesis, which establishes that the meaning of a word is given by its context of occurrence [@bruni2014multimodal]. The ability of embeddings to capture knowledge has been exploited in several tasks, such as Machine Translation [@mikolov2013exploiting], Sentiment Analysis [@socher2013recursive], Word Sense Disambiguation [@chen2014unified] and Language Understanding [@mesnil2013investigation].
Although very useful in many applications, the word embeddings (word vectors), like those generated by Word2Vec [@mikolov2013Aefficient], GloVe [@pennington2014glove] and FastText [@bojanowski2016enriching] have an important limitation: the Meaning Conflation Deficiency, which is the inability to discriminate among different meanings of a word. In any natural language, there are words with only one meaning (monosemous) and words with multiple meanings (ambiguous) [@CamachoCollados2018FromWT]. In word embeddings, each word is associated with only one vector representation ignoring the fact that ambiguous words can assume different meanings for which different vectors should be generated. Thus, there is a loss of information by representing a lexical ambiguity in a single vector, since it will only contain the most commonly used meaning for the word (or that which occurs in the corpus from which the word vectors were generated).
Several works [@pina2014simple; @neelakantan2015efficient; @wu2015sense; @liu2015multi; @huang2012improving; @reisinger2010multi; @iacobacci2015sensembed] have investigated the representation of word senses instead of word occurrences in what has been called *sense embeddings* (sense vectors).
In this paper, we present the first experiments carried out to evaluate sense vectors for Portuguese. In section \[sec:relatedwork\] we describe some of the approaches for generating sense vectors proposed in the literature. The approaches investigated in this paper are described in section \[sec:sswe\]. The experiments carried out for evaluating sense vectors for Portuguese are described in section \[sec:experiment\]. Section \[sec:conclusion\] finishes this paper with some conclusions and proposals for future work.
Related Work {#sec:relatedwork}
============
[@shutze1998discrimination] was one of the first works to identify the meaning conflation deficiency of word vectors and to propose the induction of meanings through the clustering of contexts in which an ambiguous word occurs. Then, many other works followed these ideas.
One of the first works using neural network to investigate the generation of sense vectors was [@reisinger2010multi]. The approach proposed there is divided in two phases: pre-processing and training. In the pre-processing, firstly, the context of each target word is defined as the words to the left and to the right of that target word. Then, each possible context is represented by the weighted average of the vectors of the words that compose it. These context vectors are grouped and each centroid is selected to represent the sense of the cluster. Finally, each word of the corpus is labeled with the cluster with the closest meaning to its context. After this pre-processing phase, a neural network is trained from the labeled corpus, generating the sense vectors. The model was trained in two corpora, a Wikipedia dump in English and the third English edition of Gigaword corpus. The authors obtained a correlation of Spearman of around 62.5% in WordSim-353 [@finkelstein2001placing][^1], for the Wikipedia and Gigaword corpus.
Another approach for generating sense vectors was [@huang2012improving], which extends the [@reisinger2010multi]’s approach by incorporating a global context into the generation of word vectors. According to them, aggregating information from a larger context improves the quality of vector representations of ambiguous words that have more than one possible local context. To provide the vector representation of the global context, the proposed model uses all words in the document in which the target word occurs, incorporating this representation into the local context. The authors trained the model in a Wikipedia dump (from April 2010) in English with 2 million articles and 990 million tokens. The authors obtained a Spearman correlation of 65.7% in the Stanford’s Contextual Word Similarities (SCWS)[^2], surpassing the baselines.
Based on [@huang2012improving], [@neelakantan2015efficient] proposed the generation of sense vectors by performing a Skip-Gram adaptation of [@mikolov2013Aefficient]. In this approach, the identification of the senses occurs together with the training to generate the vectors, making the process efficient and scalable. This approach was the one chosen to be used in this paper and is explained in detail in the next section. The authors used the same corpus as [@huang2012improving] for training the sense vectors and obtained a Spearman correlation of 67.3 % also in the SCWS, surpassing the baselines.
[@trask2015sense2vec] propose a different approach that uses a tagged corpus rather than a raw corpus for sense vectors generation. The authors annotated the corpus with part of speech (PoS) tags and that allowed the identification of ambiguous words from different classes. For example, this approach allow to distinguish between the noun *livro* (book) and the verb *livro* (free). After that they trained a word2vec (CBOW or Skip-Gram) model [@mikolov2013Aefficient] with the tagged corpus. The authors did not report results comparing their approach with baselines. In addition to the PoS tags, the authors also tested the ability of the method to disambiguate named entities and feelings, also labeling the corpus with these tags, before generating word embeddings. This approach was one of the chosen to be investigated in this paper and it will be explained in detail in the next section.
More recently, new proposals for language model generation like ELMo [@peters2018elmo], OpenAI GPT [@radford2018openai] and BERT [@devlin2018bert] have begun to use more complex architectures to model context and capture the meanings of a word. The idea behind this language models is that each layer of the neural network is able to capture a different sense of the input word and generate dynamic vector representations, according to each input context. This idea of dynamic embeddings facilitates the use of these representations in downstream tasks. These architectures are complex and require very powerful hardware resources for training. The difference between sense vectors and language models like those lies in the architecture and in the way the trained model is used. Sense vectors are features that will be used for specific NLP tasks. On the other hand, the complex architecture of language models has both the neural networks that will create the language model and the NLP tasks, which can even share the same hyper-parameters (fine-tuning approach).
Sense embeddings {#sec:sswe}
================
In this paper, two approaches were used for sense vectors generation: the MSSG [@neelakantan2015efficient] and the Sense2Vec [@trask2015sense2vec]. Each one is explained in the next sections.
Multiple-Sense Skip-Gram (MSSG)
-------------------------------
In [@neelakantan2015efficient], two methods were proposed for generating sense vectors based on the original Skip-Gram model [@mikolov2013Aefficient]: MSSG (Multiple-Sense Skip-Gram) and NP-MSSG (Non-Parametric Multiple-Sense Skip-Gram). The main difference between them is that MSSG implements a fixed amount of possible meanings for each word while NP-MSSG does this as part of its learning process.
In both methods, the vector of the context is given by the weighted average of the vectors of the words that compose it. The context vectors are grouped and associated to the words of the corpus by approximation to their context. After predicting the sense, the gradient update is performed on the centroid of the cluster and the training continues. The training stops when vector representations have already been generated for all the words.
Different from the original skip-gram, its extensions, MSSG and NP-MSSG, learn multiple vectors for a given word. They were based on works such as [@huang2012improving] and [@reisinger2010multi]. In the MSSG model, each word $w \in W$ is associated to a global vector $v_g(w)$ and each sense of the word has a sense vector $v_s(w,k)(k=1,2,\cdots,K)$ and a context cluster with centroid $u(w,k)(k=1,2,\cdots,K)$. The $K$ sense vectors and the global vectors are of dimension $d$ and $K$ is a hyperparameter.
Considering the word $w_t$, its context $c_t=\{w_{t-R_t},\cdots,w_{t-1},w_{t+1},\cdots,w_{t+R_t}\}$ and the window size $R_t$, vector representation of the context is defined as the mean of the global vector representation of the words in the context. Let $v_{context}(c_t)=\frac{1}{2*R_t}\sum_{c \in c_t} v_g(c)$ be the vector representation of the context $c_t$. The global vectors of context words are used instead of their sense vectors to avoid the computational complexity associated with predicting the meanings of words in the context. It is possible, then, to predict the meaning of the word $w_t$, $s_t$, when it appears in the context $c_t$. The algorithm used for building the clusters is similar to k-means. The centroid of a cluster is the mean of the vector representations of all contexts that belong to this cluster and the cosine similarity is used to measure the similarity.
In MSSG, the probability ($P$) that the word $c$ is observed in the context of the word $w_t$ ($D=1$), given the sense and the probability that it is not observed ($D=0$), has the addition of $s_t$ (sense of $w_t$) in the formulas of the original Skip-gram (formula \[eq:likelehood\_context\] and \[eq:likelehood\_notcontext\]). The objective function ($J$) also considers $(w_t, s_t)$ instead of just $(w_t)$ (formula \[eq:objective\_function\]).
$$P(D = 1|v_s(w_t, s_t), v_g(c)) = \frac{1}{1 + e^{-v_s(w_t, s_t)^T v_g(c)}}
\label{eq:likelehood_context}$$
$$\label{eq:likelehood_notcontext}
P(D = 0|v_s(w_t, s_t),v_g(c)) = 1 - P(D = 1|v_s(w_t, s_t),v_g(c))$$
$$\begin{split}
\label{eq:objective_function}
J = \sum_{(w_t,c_t) \in D_+} \sum_{c \in c_t} log P(D=1|v_s(w_t, s_t),v_g(c)) + \\
\sum_{(w_t,c'_t) \in D_-} \sum_{c' \in c'_t} log P(D=0|v_s(w_t, s_t),v_g(c'))
\end{split}$$
After predicting the meaning of the word $w_t$, MSSG updates the sense vector generated for the word $w_t(v_s(w_t,s_t))$, the global vector of context words and the global vector of noisy context words selected by chance. The centroid of the context cluster $s_t$ for the word $w_t(u(w_t,s_t))$ is updated when the context $c_t$ is added to the cluster $s_t$.
In this paper, we choose to work with the MSSG fixing the amount of senses for each target word. We did that to allow a fair comparison with the second approach investigated here which a limited amount of meanings.
Sense2Vec
---------
[@trask2015sense2vec] propose the generation of sense vectors from a corpus annotated with part-of-speech (PoS) tags, making it possible to identify ambiguous words from the amount of PoS tags they receive (for example, the noun *livro* (book) in contrast with the verb *livro* (free)). The authors suggest that annotating the corpus with PoS tags is a costless approach to identify the different context of ambiguous words with different PoS tags in each context. This approach makes it possible to create a meaningful representation for each use. The final step is to train a word2vec model (CBOW or Skip-Gram) [@mikolov2013Aefficient] with the tagged corpus, so that instead of predicting a word given neighboring words, it predicts a sense given the surrounding senses.
[@trask2015sense2vec] presents experiments demonstrating the effectiveness of the method for sentiment analysis and named entity recognition (NER). For sentiment analysis, sense2vec was trained with a corpus annotated with PoS tags and adjectives with feeling tags. The word “bad” was disambiguated between positive and negative sentiment. For the negative meaning, words like “terrible”, “horrible” and “awful” appeared, while in the positive meaning there was present words like “good”, “wrong” and “funny”, indicating a more sarcastic sense of “bad”.
In the NER task, sense2vec was trained with a corpus annotated with PoS and NER tags. For example, the NE “Washington” was disambiguated between the entity categories PERSON-NAME (person’s name) and GPE (geolocation). In the PERSON-NAME category it was associated with words like “George-Washington”, “Henry-Knox” and “Philip-Schuyler” while in the GPE category the word was associated with “Washington-DC”, “Seattle” and “Maryland”.
Experiments and Results {#sec:experiment}
=======================
In this section we present the first experiments carried out to evaluate sense vectors generated for Portuguese. As follows, we first describe the corpora used to generate sense vectors, then we present the network parameters used for training the models and, finally, we show the experiments carried out to evaluate the two approaches under investigation: MSSG and sense2vec.
Training Corpora
----------------
The corpora used for the training of sense vectors were the same as [@hartmann2017portuguese] which is composed of texts written in Brazilian Portuguese (PT-BR) and European Portuguese (PT-EU). Table \[tab:corpusembeddings\] summarizes the information about these corpora: name, amount of tokens and types and a briefly description of the genre.
Corpus Tokens Types Genre
---------------------------------- ------------------- --------------- -----------------
LX-Corpus [@rodrigues2016lx] 714,286,638 2,605,393 Mixed genres
Wikipedia 219,293,003 1,758,191 Encyclopedic
GoogleNews 160,396,456 664,320 Informative
SubIMDB-PT 129,975,149 500,302 Spoken language
G1 105,341,070 392,635 Informative
PLN-Br 31,196,395 259,762 Informative
Literacy works ofpublic domain 23,750,521 381,697 Prose
Lacio-web [@aluisio2003lacioweb] 8,962,718 196,077 Mixed genres
Portuguese e-books 1,299,008 66,706 Prose
Mundo Estranho 1,047,108 55,000 Informative
CHC 941,032 36,522 Informative
FAPESP 499,008 31,746 Science
Textbooks 96,209 11,597 Didactic
Folhinha 73,575 9,207 Informative
NILC subcorpus 32,868 4,064 Informative
Para Seu Filho Ler 21,224 3,942 Informative
SARESP 13,308 3,293 Didactic
**Total** **1,395,926,282** **3,827,725**
: Statistics of our training corpora
\[tab:corpusembeddings\]
The corpora were pre-processed in order to reduce the vocabulary size. For the sense2vec model, the corpora were also PoS-tagged using the nlpnet tool [@fonseca2013twostep], which is considered the state-of-art in PoS-tagging for PT-BR.
It is important to say that both approaches for generating sense vectors were trained with these corpora. The only difference is that the input for the MSSG is the sentence without any PoS tag while the input for the sense2vec is the sentence annotated with PoS tags.
Network Parameters
------------------
For all training, including baselines, we generated vectors of 300 dimensions, using the Skip-Gram model, with context window of five words. The learning rate was set to 0.025 and the minimum frequency for each word was set to 10. For the MSSG approach, the maximum number of senses per word was set to 3.
Evaluation
----------
Based on [@hartmann2017portuguese], this experiment is a task of syntactic and semantic analogies where the use of sense vectors is evaluated. Word vectors were chosen as baselines.
#### **Dataset.**
The dataset of Syntactic and Semantic Analogies of [@rodrigues2016lx] has analogies in Brazilian (PT-BR) and European (PT-EU) Portuguese. In syntactic analogies, we have the following categories: adjective-to-adverb, opposite, comparative, superlative, present-participle, nationality-adjective, past-tense, plural, and plural-verbs. In semantic analogies, we have the following categories: capital-common-countries, capital-world, currency, city-in-state and family. In each category, we have examples of analogies with four words:
#### **adjective-to-adverb:**
- *fantástico fantasticamente aparente aparentemente* **(syntactic)**\
fantastic fantastically apparent apparently
#### **capital-common-countries:**
- *Berlim Alemanha Lisboa Portugal* **(semantic)**\
Berlin Germany Lisbon Portugal
#### **Algorithm.**
The algorithm receives the first three words of the analogy and aims to predict the fourth. Thus, for instance considering the previous example, the algorithm would receive Berlin (a), Germany (b) and Lisbon (c) and should predict Portugal (d). Internally, the following algebraic operation is performed between vectors: $$v (b) + v (c) - v (a) = v (d)$$
#### **Evaluation metrics.**
The metric used in this case is accuracy, which calculates the percentage of correctly labeled words in relation to the total amount of words in the dataset.
#### **Discussion of results.**
Table \[tab:evaluation\] shows the accuracy values obtained for the syntactic and semantic analogies. The Word2vec, GloVe and FastText were adopted as word vectors baselines since they performed well in [@hartmann2017portuguese] experiments. Note that the sense vectors generated by our sense2vec model outperform the baselines at the syntactic and semantic levels.
------------------- --------------- -------------- ---------- --------------- -------------- ----------
**Syntactic** **Semantic** **All** **Syntactic** **Semantic** **All**
Word2Vec (word) 49.4 42.5 45.9 49.5 38.9 44.3
GloVe (word) 34.7 36.7 35.7 34.9 34.0 34.4
FastText (word) 39.9 8.0 24.0 39.9 7.6 23.9
MSSG (sense) 23.0 6.6 14.9 23.0 6.3 14.7
Sense2Vec (sense) **52.4** **42.6** **47.6** **52.6** **39.5** **46.2**
------------------- --------------- -------------- ---------- --------------- -------------- ----------
: Accuracy values for the syntactic and semantic analogies
\[tab:evaluation\]
In syntactic analogies, the sense vectors generated by sense2vec outperform the word vectors generated by word2vec in opposite, nationality-adjective, past-tense, plural and plural-verbs. An example is shown in table \[tab:syntactic\]. We can explain this type of success through an algebraic operation of vectors. When calculating v(*aparentemente* (apparently)) + v(*completo* (complete)) - v(*aparente* (apparent)) the resulting vector of word2vec is v(*incompleto* (incomplete)) when it should be v(*completamente* (completely)). The correct option appears as the second nearest neighbor.
So, we can conclude that the sense2vec’s PoS tag functions as an extra feature in the training of sense vectors, generating more accurate numerical vectors, allowing the correct result to be obtained.
\[tab:syntactic\]
In semantic analogies, the sense vectors generated by sense2vec outperform the word vectors generated by word2vec in capital-world, currency and city-in-state. Examples of city-in-state are shown in table \[tab:semantic\].
----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
word2vec arlington texas akron : kansas **(predicted)** ohio **(expected)**
sense2vec arlington$|$N texas$|$N akron$|$N : ohio$|$N **(predicted)(expected)**
word2vec bakersfield califórnia madison : pensilvânia **(predicted)** wisconsin **(expected)**
sense2vec bakersfield$|$N califórnia$|$N madison$|$N : wisconsin$|$N **(predicted)(expected)**
word2vec worcester massachusetts miami : seattle **(predicted)** flórida **(expected)**
sense2vec worcester$|$N massachusetts$|$N miami$|$N : flórida$|$N **(predicted)(expected)**
----------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Example of semantic analogies predicted by word2vec and sense2vec
\[tab:semantic\]
In this case, the PoS tag is always the same for all words: N (noun). This indicates that the success of sense2vec is related to the quality of sense vectors as a whole. As all words are tagged, this feature ends up improving the inference of all vector spaces during training.
Based on [@mikolov2013Aefficient], who performs the algebraic operation: vector(“King”) - vector(“Man”) + vector(“Woman”) = vector(“Queen”), this experiment explores the ability of sense vectors to infer new semantic information through algebraic operations.
#### **Dataset.**
The CSTNews dataset [@cardoso2011cstnews] contains 50 collections of journalistic documents (PT-BR) with 466 nouns annotated with meanings, from the synsets of wordnet. Therefore, 77% of the nouns are ambiguous (with more than two meanings). Some ambiguous words were chosen for algebraic operations between vectors.
#### **Algorithm.**
The algorithm receives the first three words of the analogy and aims to predict the fourth. Thus, for instance considering the previous example, the algorithm would receive Man (a), Woman (b) and King (c) and should predict Queen (d). Internally, the following algebraic operation is performed between vectors: $$v (b) + v (c) - v (a) = v (d)$$
#### **Evaluation metrics.**
This evaluation shows qualitative results, so a metric is not used.
#### **Discussion of results.**
To illustrate how sense vectors capture the meaning differences better than word vectors do, examples of algebraic operations using word vectors (generated by word2vec) and sense vectors (generated by MSSG) are shown below.
This first example is for the ambiguous word *banco* (bank) which has three predominant meanings: (1) reserve bank (soccer, basketball), (2) physical storage (trunk, luggage rack) and (3) financial institution (Santander, Pactual).
![Algebraic Operation by MSSG and word2vec with the word “banco”[]{data-label="fig:nearest_neighbor_bank"}](nearest_neighbor_bank){width="90.00000%"}
In this example, we show the results of *banco* $+$ *dados* $-$ *dinheiro* (bank $+$ data $-$ money) and we expect as a result words related to the second meaning of the word *banco*.[^3] When the sense vectors are used (top part of Fig \[fig:nearest\_neighbor\_bank\]) we obtain exactly what we were expecting. However, when the word vectors are used (bottom part of Fig \[fig:nearest\_neighbor\_bank\]) we do not obtain any result related to data.
Another example is shown in Fig \[fig:nearest\_neighbor\_gol\]. This example is for the ambiguous word *gol* (goal) which has one predominant meanings: soccer goal. In this example, we show the results of *gol* $+$ *companhia* $-$ *futebol* (goal $+$ company $-$ soccer) and we have discovered a new meaning for the word *gol*: airline name such as KLM, LATAM and American Airlines (top part of Fig \[fig:nearest\_neighbor\_gol\]). When the word vectors are used (bottom part of Fig \[fig:nearest\_neighbor\_gol\]) we do not get this new meaning. With this algebraic operation, we can conclude that it is possible to discover new meanings for a word, even if it does not have a sense vector corresponding to this meaning.
![Algebraic Operation by MSSG and word2vec with the word “gol”[]{data-label="fig:nearest_neighbor_gol"}](nearest_neighbor_gol){width="90.00000%"}
The last example uses two ambiguous words in the same operation: *centro* (center) and *pesquisas* (researches). We have found interesting results for this operations. The ambiguous word *centro* (center) has two predominant meanings: (1) institute (center of predictions, NASA center) and (2) midtown (central area). The ambiguous word *pesquisas* (researches) which has two predominant meanings to: (1) scientific research (experiments, discoveries) and (2) opinion or market research.
In the first operation, we show the results of *centro$_{sense1}$* $+$ *pesquisas$_{sense2}$* $-$ *científica* (center$_{sense1}$ $+$ researches$_{sense2}$ $-$ scientific). In top part of figure \[fig:nearest\_neighbor\_centro\_instituto\], we obtain a new type: institutes conducting statistical surveys, like Datafolha and YouGov, next to words related to the elections.
![Algebraic Operation by MSSG and word2vec with the word “centro$_{sense1}$”[]{data-label="fig:nearest_neighbor_centro_instituto"}](nearest_neighbor_centro_instituto){width="90.00000%"}
In the second operation, we show the results of *centro$_{sense2}$* $+$ *pesquisas$_{sense2}$* $-$ *científica* (center$_{sense2}$ $+$ researches$_{sense2}$ $-$ scientific). In top part of figure \[fig:nearest\_neighbor\_centro\_meio\], we obtain a new type to: Political ideologies/orientation of left, right or **center**, with words like trump (Donald Trump), clinton (Bill Clinton), romney (Mitt Romney), hillary (Hillary Clinton) and also words like *centro-direita* (center-right), *ultraconservador* (ultraconservative), *eleitores* (voters) and *candidato* (candidate). These words are related to the political sides, including the names of right, left and **center** politicians.
![Algebraic Operation by MSSG and word2vec with the word “centro$_{sense2}$”[]{data-label="fig:nearest_neighbor_centro_meio"}](nearest_neighbor_centro_meio){width="90.00000%"}
These results are interesting because they show new nuances of the meanings and prove that it is possible to infer new semantic information, which is not represented as sense vectors. These findings are not made using word vectors (bottom part of Fig \[fig:nearest\_neighbor\_centro\_instituto\] and \[fig:nearest\_neighbor\_centro\_meio\]).
Conclusion and Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
==========================
In this paper we used techniques to generate sense embeddings (sense vectors) for Portuguese (Brazilian and European). The generated models were evaluated through the task of syntactic and semantic analogies and the accuracy values show that the sense vectors (sense2vec) outperform the baselines of traditional word vectors (word2vec, Glove, FastText) with a similar computational cost.
Our sense-vectors and the code used in all the experiments presented in this paper are available at <https://github.com/LALIC-UFSCar/sense-vectors-analogies-pt>. The application of sense vectors in NLP tasks (WSD and others) is under development. As future work we intend to experiment a combination of the two approaches (MSSG and sense2vec) and also to explore how the new approaches proposed for generating language models perform in Portuguese.
Acknowledgements {#sec:acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This research is part of the MMeaning project, supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), grant \#2016/13002-0, and was also partly funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Funding Code 001.
[^1]: WordSim-353 is a dataset with 353 pairs of English words for which similarity scores were set by humans on a scale of 1 to 10.
[^2]: The SCWS is a dataset with 2,003 word pairs in sentential contexts.
[^3]: In Portuguese, the usual translation of “database” is *banco de dados*. So, in Portuguese, MySQL, SQL, etc. are common words related to *banco de dados*.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The strong chromatic index of a graph $G$, denoted ${\chi_{s}''(G)}$, is the least number of colors needed to edge-color $G$ so that edges at distance at most two receive distinct colors. The strong list chromatic index, denoted ${\chi_{\ell,s}''(G)}$, is the least integer $k$ such that if arbitrary lists of size $k$ are assigned to each edge then $G$ can be edge-colored from those lists where edges at distance at most two receive distinct colors. We use the discharging method, the Combinatorial Nullstellensatz, and computation to show that if $G$ is a subcubic planar graph with $\operatorname{girth}(G) \geq 41$ then ${\chi_{\ell,s}''(G)}\leq 5$, answering a question of Borodin and Ivanova \[Precise upper bound for the strong edge chromatic number of sparse planar graphs, *Discuss. Math. Graph Theory*, 33(4), (2014) 759–770\]. We further show that if $G$ is a subcubic planar graph and $\operatorname{girth}(G) \geq 30$, then ${\chi_{s}''(G)}\leq 5$, improving a bound from the same paper. Finally, if $G$ is a planar graph with maximum degree at most four and $\operatorname{girth}(G) \geq 28$, then ${\chi_{s}''(G)}\leq 7$, improving a more general bound of Wang and Zhao from \[Odd graphs and its application on the strong edge coloring, `arXiv:1412.8358`\] in this case.'
author:
- 'Philip DeOrsey$^{1,6}$'
- 'Jennifer Diemunsch$^{2,6}$'
- 'Michael Ferrara$^{2,6,7}$'
- 'Nathan Graber$^{2,6}$'
- 'Stephen G. Hartke$^{3,6,8}$'
- 'Sogol Jahanbekam$^{2,6}$'
- 'Bernard Lidický$^{4,6,9}$'
- 'Luke Nelsen$^{2,6}$'
- 'Derrick Stolee$^{4,5,6}$'
- 'Eric Sullivan$^{2,6}$'
title: On the Strong Chromatic Index of Sparse Graphs
---
Introduction
============
A [*proper edge-coloring*]{} of a graph $G$ is an assignment of colors to the edges so that incident edges receive distinct colors. A [*strong edge-coloring*]{} of a graph $G$ is an assignment of colors to the edges so that edges at distance at most two receive distinct colors. A proper edge-coloring is a decomposition of $G$ into matchings, while a strong edge-coloring is a decomposition of $G$ into *induced* matchings. Fouquet and Jolivet [@Fouquet83; @Fouquet84] defined the [*strong chromatic index*]{} of a graph $G$, denoted ${\chi_{s}'(G)}$, as the minimum integer $k$ such that $G$ has a strong edge-coloring using $k$ colors. Erdős and Nešetřil gave the following conjecture, which is still open, and provided an example to show that it would be sharp, if true.
\[Erdos\] For every graph $G$, $\chi'_s(G) \leq \dfrac{5}{4}\Delta(G)^2$ when $\Delta(G)$ is even, and $\chi'_s(G) \leq \dfrac{1}{4}(5\Delta(G)^2-2\Delta(G)+1)$ when $\Delta(G)$ is odd.
Towards this conjecture, Molloy and Reed [@MR] bounded ${\chi_{s}'(G)}$ away from the trivial upper bound of $2\Delta(G)(\Delta(G)-1)+1$ by showing that every graph $G$ with sufficiently large maximum degree satisfies ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq1.998\Delta(G)^2$. Bruhn and Joos [@BJ] have announced an improvement, claiming ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 1.93\Delta(G)^2$.
The focus of this paper is the study of strong edge-colorings of *subcubic graphs*, those with maximum degree at most three, and *subquartic graphs*, those with maximum degree at most four. Faudree, Gyárfas, Schelp, and Tuza [@Faudree90] studied ${\chi_{s}'(G)}$ in the class of subcubic graphs, and gave the following conjectures.
Let $G$ be a subcubic graph.
(1) ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 10$.
(2) If $G$ is bipartite, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 9$. \[con:bipartite\]
(3) If $G$ is planar, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 9$. \[con:planar\]
(4) If $G$ is bipartite and for each edge $xy \in E(G)$, $d(x) + d(y) \leq 5$, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 6$.
(5) If $G$ is bipartite and $C_4 \not \subset G$, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 7$.
(6) If $G$ is bipartite and its girth is large, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 5$. \[con:girth\]
\[con:Faud\]
Several of these conjectures have been verified, including (1) by Andersen [@Andersen] and (2) by Steger and Yu [@StegerYu]. Quite recently, Kostochka, Li, Ruksasakchai, Santana, Wang, and Yu [@KLRSWY2014] announced an affirmative resolution to (3). This result is best possible since the prism, shown in Figure \[prism\], is a subcubic planar graph with ${\chi_{s}'(G)}= 9$.
(0,0)–(9,0) (0,0)–(0,4) (0,4)–(9,4) (9,4)–(9,0);
(0,0) node\[insep\] (0,4) node\[insep\] (9,4) node\[insep\] (9,0) node\[insep\] (2,2) node\[insep\] (7,2) node\[insep\];
(0,0)–(2,2) (0,4)–(2,2) (2,2)–(7,2) (7,2)–(9,4) (7,2)–(9,0);
Several papers prove sharper bounds on the strong chromatic index of planar graphs with additional structure [@Fouquet84; @Hocquard11; @Hocquard13; @Hudak], generally by introducing conditions on maximum average degree or girth to ensure that the target graph is sufficiently sparse. For a graph $G$, the [*maximum average degree*]{} of $G$, denoted $\operatorname{mad}(G)$, is the maximum of average degrees over all subgraphs of $G$. Hocquard, Montassier, Raspaud, and Valicov [@Hocquard11; @Hocquard13] proved the following.
\[thm:hocquard\] Let $G$ be a subcubic graph.
1. If $\operatorname{mad}(G) < \frac{7}{3}$, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 6$. \[part1\]
2. If $\operatorname{mad}(G) < \frac{5}{2}$, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 7$. \[part2\]
3. If $\operatorname{mad}(G) < \frac{8}{3}$, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 8$.
\[thm:Hoc\]
(0,0)–(0,2) (0,2)–(2,2) (2,2)–(2,0) (2,0)–(0,0);
(0,0) node\[insep\] (0,2) node\[insep\] (2,2) node\[insep\] (2,0) node\[insep\] (1,2) node\[insep\] (1,3.5) node\[insep\] (0,2)–(1,3.5) (1,3.5)–(2,2);
\[fig:house\]
(-1.5,0)–(1.5,0) (-1.5,0) node\[insep\] (-.5,0) node\[insep\] (.5,0) node\[insep\] (1.5,0) node\[insep\] (90:1.5) node\[insep\] (270:1.5) node\[insep\] (-1.5,0)–(90:1.5) (90:1.5)–(1.5,0) (1.5,0)–(270:1.5) (270:1.5)–(-1.5,0) (90:1.5)–(2.5,1.5) (2.5,1.5)–(2.5,-1.5) (270:1.5)–(2.5,-1.5) (2.5,1.5) node\[insep\] (2.5,-1.5) node\[insep\] ;
\[fig:diamond\]
Parts (\[part1\]) and (\[part2\]) of Theorem \[thm:hocquard\] are sharp by the graphs shown in Figures \[fig:house\] and \[fig:diamond\], respectively. An elementary application of Euler’s Formula (see [@west]) gives the following.
If $G$ is a planar graph with girth $g$ then $\operatorname{mad}(G) < \frac{2g}{g-2}$. \[prop:mad\]
Theorem \[thm:Hoc\] and Proposition \[prop:mad\] yield the following corollary.
Let $G$ be a subcubic planar graph with girth $g$.
1. If $g \geq 14$, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 6$.
2. If $g \geq 10$, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 7$.
3. If $g \geq 8$, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 8$.
Note that no non-trivial sparsity condition on a graph $G$ with maximum degree $d$ will guarantee that ${\chi_{s}'(G)}< 2d - 1$ since any graph having two adjacent vertices of degree $d$ requires at least $2d-1$ colors to strongly edge-color the graph. We give sparsity conditions that imply a subcubic planar graph has strong chromatic index at most five and a subquartic planar graph has strong chromatic index at most seven. Previous work in this direction was initiated by Borodin and Ivanova [@BI], Chang, Montassier, Pěcher, and Raspaud [@CMPR], and most recently extended by Wang and Zhao [@WZ]. The current-best bounds are given by the following two results.
\[thm:bi\] Let $G$ be a subcubic graph.
1. If $G$ has girth at least $9$ and $\operatorname{mad}(G) < 2 + \frac{2}{23}$, then $\chi_s'(G) \leq 5$.
2. If $G$ is planar and has girth at least $41$, then $\chi_s'(G) \leq 5$.
\[thm:wz\] Fix $d \geq 4$ and let $G$ be a graph with $\Delta(G) \leq d$.
1. If $G$ has girth at least $2d-1$ and $\operatorname{mad}(G) < 2 + \frac{2}{6d-7}$, then $\chi_s'(G) \leq 2d-1$.
2. If $G$ is planar and has girth at least $10d-4$, then $\chi_s'(G) \leq 2d-1$.
One barrier to proving sparsity conditions that imply ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 5$ is that there exist graphs $G$ with $\operatorname{mad}(G) = 2$ and ${\chi_{s}'(G)}= 6$. Let $S_3$ be a triangle with pendant edges at each vertex, and let $S_4$ be a $4$-cycle with pendant edges at two adjacent vertices. For $k \geq 5$, let $S_k$ be a $k$-cycle with pendant edges at each vertex. Each of $S_3$, $S_4$ and $S_7$ have maximum average degree $2$ and strong chromatic index at least 6, see Figure \[fig:S3S4S5\]. However, these graphs are 6-critical with respect to ${\chi_{s}'(G)}$, as the removal of any edge from $S_3$, $S_4$ or $S_7$ results in a graph that has a strong edge-coloring using five colors.
Our main theorem demonstrates that if these few graphs are avoided, and the maximum average degree is not too large, then we can find a strong 5-edge-coloring, improving Theorem \[thm:bi\].
\[thm:sparse\] Let $G$ be a subcubic graph.
1. If $G$ does not contain $S_3$, $S_4$, or $S_7$ and $\operatorname{mad}(G) < 2 + \frac{1}{7}$, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 5$.
2. If $G$ is planar and has girth at least $30$, then ${\chi_{s}'(G)}\leq 5$.
The bound in Theorem \[thm:sparse\] is likely not sharp, but is close to optimal. The graph in Figure \[fig:thetaexample\] is subcubic, avoids $S_3$, $S_4$, and $S_7$, and satisfies both ${\chi_{s}'(G)}= 6$ and $\operatorname{mad}(G) = 2 + \frac{1}{6}$.
(0,0) node\[insep\](a) (5,0) node\[insep\](b)
\(a) to\[bend left=50\] node\[insep,pos=0.25\](x) node\[insep,pos=0.50\](y) node\[insep,pos=0.75\](z) (b) (x)– ++(90:0.5)node\[insep\] (y)– ++(90:0.5)node\[insep\] (z)– ++(90:0.5)node\[insep\]
\(a) to\[bend right=50\] node\[insep,pos=0.25\](x) node\[insep,pos=0.50\](y) node\[insep,pos=0.75\](z) (b) (x)– ++(-90:0.5)node\[insep\] (y)– ++(-90:0.5)node\[insep\] (z)– ++(-90:0.5)node\[insep\]
\(a) to node\[insep,pos=0.20\](x) node\[insep,pos=0.40\](y) node\[insep,pos=0.60\](z) node\[insep,pos=0.80\](w) (b) (x)– ++(90:0.5)node\[insep\] (y)– ++(90:0.5)node\[insep\] (z)– ++(90:0.5)node\[insep\] (w)– ++(90:0.5)node\[insep\] ;
;
Using similar methods, we improve the bounds in Theorem \[thm:wz\] when $d = 4$.
\[thm:sparse4\] Let $G$ be a subquartic graph.
1. If $G$ has girth at least $7$ and $\operatorname{mad}(G) < 2 + \frac{2}{13}$, then $\chi_s'(G) \leq 7$.
2. If $G$ is planar and has girth at least $28$, then $\chi_s'(G) \leq 7$.
We also consider a list variation of the strong chromatic index of $G$, first introduced by Vu [@vu]. A [*strong list edge-coloring*]{} of a graph $G$ is an assignment of lists to $E(G)$ such that a strong edge-coloring can be chosen from the lists at each edge. The minimum $k$ such that a graph $G$ can be strongly list edge-colored using any lists of size at least $k$ on each edge is the [*strong list chromatic index*]{} of $G$, denoted ${\chi_{\ell,s}'(G)}$. Borodin and Ivanova [@BI] asked if there are sparsity conditions that imply ${\chi_{\ell,s}'(G)}\leq 2d-1$ for a planar graph $G$ with maximum degree $d$. We generalize the bounds in Theorem \[thm:bi\] to apply to list coloring.
\[thm:mainlist\] Let $G$ be a subcubic graph.
1. If $G$ has girth at least $9$ and $\operatorname{mad}(G) < 2 + \frac{2}{23}$, then ${\chi_{\ell,s}'(G)}\leq 5$.
2. If $G$ is planar and has girth at least $41$, then ${\chi_{\ell,s}'(G)}\leq 5$.
The proofs of Theorems \[thm:sparse\], \[thm:sparse4\], and \[thm:mainlist\] use the discharging method. We begin by proving Theorem \[thm:mainlist\] in Section \[sec:list\] as the proof is shorter and the one reducible configuration is used again in the proof of Theorem \[thm:sparse\] in Section \[sec:sparse\].
Preliminaries and Notation
--------------------------
Throughout this paper we will only consider simple, finite, undirected graphs. We refer to [@west] for any undefined definitions and notation. A graph $G$ has vertex set $V(G)$, edge set $E(G)$, and maximum degree $\Delta(G)$. If a vertex $v$ has degree $j$ we refer to it as a [*$j$-vertex*]{}, and if $v$ has a neighbor that is a $j$-vertex, we say it is a [*$j$-neighbor*]{} of $v$. When $G$ is planar we let $F(G)$ denote the set of faces of $G$, and $\ell(f)$ denote the length of a face $f$. The [*girth*]{} of a graph $G$ is length of its shortest cycle. A graph $G$ is $\{a,b\}$-regular if for every $v$ in $G$, the degree of $v$ is either $a$ or $b$. Every graph $G$ with maximum degree $d$ is contained in a prescribed $\{1,d\}$-regular graph, denoted $\operatorname{ex}_d(G)$, the [*$d$-expansion*]{} of $G$. To construct $\operatorname{ex}_d(G)$, add $d-d(v)$ pendant edges to each vertex $v$ in $G$ where $d(v) \in \{2,\dots, d\}$. Additionally, let the [*contracted graph*]{} of $G$, denoted $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ be the graph obtained by deleting all 1-vertices of $G$. A vertex $v$ in $G$ is a *$2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertex* if $v$ is a 2-vertex in $\operatorname{ct}(G)$. Thus, for the remainder of the paper a vertex $v$ is a *$k^+$-vertex* in $G$ if it has degree at least $k$ in $\operatorname{ct}(G)$.
We will make use of the discharging method for some of our results. For an introduction to this method, see the survey by Cranston and West [@CW]. We will directly use two standard results that can be proven using this method. Both of Theorems \[thm:bi\] and \[thm:wz\] rely on Lemmas \[lma:cw\] and \[lma:nrs\].
Let $G$ be a graph and $\operatorname{ct}(G$) be the contracted graph. An *$\ell$-thread* is a path $v_1\dots v_\ell$ in $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ where each $v_i$ is a $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertex.
\[lma:cw\] If $G$ is a graph with girth at least $\ell+1$ and $\operatorname{mad}(G) < 2 + \frac{2}{3\ell - 1}$, then $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ contains a 1-vertex or an $\ell$-thread.
\[lma:nrs\] If $G$ is a planar graph with girth at least $5\ell + 1$, then $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ contains a 1-vertex or an $\ell$-thread.
Strong List Edge-Coloring of Subcubic Graphs {#sec:list}
============================================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[thm:mainlist\]. Our proof uses the discharging method, wherein we assign an initial charge to the vertices and faces of a theoretical minimal counterexample. This initial charge is then disbursed according to a set of discharging rules in order to draw a contradiction to the existence of such a minimal counterexample. We will often make use of the following, which is another simple and well known application of Euler’s Formula.
\[prop:sum\] In a planar graph $G$,
$$\sum_{f \in F(G)} ( \ell(f) - 6 ) + \sum_{v \in V(G)} (2d(v) - 6) = -12.$$
We will also use the Combinatorial Nullstellensatz, which will be applied to show we can extend certain list colorings.
\[CN\] Let $f$ be a polynomial of degree $t$ in $m$ variables over a field $\mathbb{F}$. If there is a monomial $\prod x_i^{t_i}$ in $f$ with $\sum t_i=t$ whose coefficient is nonzero in $\mathbb{F}$, then $f$ is nonzero at some point of $\prod S_i$, where each $S_i$ is a set of $t_i+1$ distinct values in $\mathbb{F}$.
The first item of Theorem \[thm:mainlist\] follows from the following strengthened theorem.
Let $G$ be a planar $\{1,3\}$-regular graph of girth at least $41$, and let $p \in V(G)$. Assign distinct colors to the edges incident to $p$ and let $L$ be a $5$-list-assignment to the remaining edges of $G$. There exists a strong edge-coloring $c$ where $c(e) \in L(e)$ for all $e \in E(G)$.
For the sake of contradiction, select $G$, $p$, $c$, and $L$ as in the theorem statement, and assume there does not exist a strong edge coloring of $E(G)$ using colors from $L$. In this selection, minimize $n(G)$. Note that $G$ is connected and $e(G) > 5$. We can further assume that $d(p) > 1$, since if $d(p)=1$ and $\{p'\}=N(p)$ then we can instead color the edges incident to $p'$.
\[lma:cutedge\] There does not exist a cut-edge $uv$ such that $d(u) = d(v) = 3$.
Suppose that $G$ contains a cut-edge $uv$ with $d(u) = d(v) = 3$. There are exactly two components in $G - uv$, call them $G_1$ and $G_2$, with $u \in V(G_1)$ and $v \in V(G_2)$. Without loss of generality, $p \in V(G_1)$. For each $i \in \{1,2\}$, let $G_i' = G_i + uv$.
Since $d(v) = 3$, $n(G_1') < n(G)$. Thus there is a strong edge-coloring of $G_1'$ using the 5-list-assignment $L$. Next, color the other two edges incident to $v$ using colors distinct from those on the edges incident to $u$. Now, $G_2'$ is a subcubic planar graph of girth at least 41 with distinctly colored edges about the vertex $v$ and $n(G_2') < n(G)$. Thus, there is an extension of the coloring to $G_2'$.
The colorings of $G_1'$ and $G_2'$ form a strong edge coloring of $G$, a contradiction.
Define a *$k$-caterpillar* to be a $k$-thread $v_1,\dots,v_k$ in $G$ where $p \notin \{v_1,\dots,v_k\}$. Figure \[8cat\] is an $8$-caterpillar.
(0,0)–(9,0) (0,0) node\[insep\] (9,0) node\[insep\];
in [1,2,...,8]{}[ (,0)–(,1) (,0) node\[free\] (,1) node\[extra\]; at (,-0.35) [$v_{\x}$]{}; at (,1.5) [$v_{\x}'$]{}; ]{};
(9,0)–(10,.75) (9,0)–(10,-.75) (0,0)–(-1,.75) (0,0)–(-1,-.75);
(-1,-.75) node\[insep\]; (-1,.75) node\[insep\]; (10,-.75) node\[insep\]; (10,.75) node\[insep\]; at (-0.5,0) [$v_{0}$]{}; at (9.5,0) [$v_{9}$]{}; at (10.35,.75) [$v_9'$]{}; at (10.35,-.75) [$u_9'$]{}; at (-1.35,.75) [$v_0'$]{}; at (-1.35,-.75) [$u_0'$]{};
\[lma:caterpillar\] $G$ does not contain an $8$-caterpillar.
We will show that if $G-p$ contains an 8-caterpillar, then $G$ has a strong edge $L$-coloring. If $v_1,\dots,v_8$ form an 8-caterpillar, then let $v_i'$ be the 1-vertex adjacent to $v_i$, $v_0$ and $v_9$ be the other neighbors of $v_1$ and $v_8$. For $i \in \{0,9\}$, let $v_i'$ and $u_i'$ be the neighbors of $v_i$ other than $v_1$ or $v_8$. By removing all edges incident to $v_2,\dots, v_7$ and $u_1,\dots,u_8$, as well as any isolated vertices that are produced, we obtain a graph $G'$ with fewer vertices than $G$, so we can strongly edge-color $G'$ with 5 colors. We fix such a coloring of $G'$ and generate a contradiction by extending this coloring to a strong edge-coloring of $G$. Suppose that $c_1, \dots, c_6$ are the colors of the edges incident to the vertices $v_0$ and $v_9$, and assign variables $y_1, \dots, y_8$ to the pendant edges, and variables $x_1, \dots, x_7$ to the interior edges as shown in Figure \[fig:lcat\].
(0,0)–(9,0) (0,0) node\[insep\] (9,0) node\[insep\];
in [1,2,...,8]{}[ (,0)–(,1) (,0) node\[free\] (,1) node\[extra\]; ]{};
(9,0)–(10,.75) (9,0)–(10,-.75) (0,0)–(-1,.75) (0,0)–(-1,-.75);
in [1,2,...,8]{}[ (-.2,.5) node[$y_{\x}$]{}; ]{}
in [1,2,...,7]{}[ (+.5, -.2) node[$x_{\x}$]{}; ]{}
(.5,-.2) node[$c_{3}$]{} (8.5,-.2) node[$c_{4}$]{} (-.25,.6) node[$c_1$]{} (-.25,-.6) node[$c_2$]{} (9.25,.6) node[$c_5$]{} (9.25,-.6) node[$c_6$]{} ;
(-1,-.75) node\[insep\]; (-1,.75) node\[insep\]; (10,-.75) node\[insep\]; (10,.75) node\[insep\];
Identifying the conflicts between variables and colors produces the following polynomial, $$\begin{aligned}
f(y_1, \dots, y_8,x_1,\dots, x_7) &= (y_2 - c_3)(x_2 - c_3)(y_7 - c_4)(x_6 - c_4) \\
&\quad\cdot
\prod_{i=1}^3(x_1 - c_i)\prod_{i=1}^3(y_1 - c_i) \prod_{i=4}^6 (x_7 - c_i) \prod_{i=4}^6 (y_8 - c_i)\\
&\quad\cdot \prod_{j -i \in \{1,2\}}(x_i-x_j) \prod_{j-i = 1}(y_i - y_j)\prod_{i - j \in \{-1,0,1,2\}} (y_i - x_j). \end{aligned}$$
We will use the Combinatorial Nullstellensatz to show that there is an assignment of colors $\hat{c}_1,\dots, \hat{c}_8$ and $c_1',\dots, c_7'$ such that $f(\hat{c}_1,\dots,\hat{c}_8,c_1',\dots,c_7')\ne 0$. Such an assignment of colors would extend the inductive coloring of $G-p$ to a strong edge-coloring of $G$. If the coefficient of $$(x_{1}~ x_{2}~ x_{3}~ x_{4} ~x_{5} ~x_{6} ~x_{7} ~y_{1} ~y_{2} ~y_{3} ~y_{4} ~y_{5} ~y_{6} ~y_{7} ~y_{8})^4$$ is nonzero, then there are values from $L$ for $x_1,\ldots,x_7,y_1,\ldots,y_8$ such that $f$ is nonzero by Theorem \[CN\]. Using the Magma algebra system [@magma], this monomial has coefficient $-2$, and thus there is a strong edge-coloring using the 5-list assignment[^1]. Thus, the 8-caterpillar does not exist in a vertex minimal counterexample.
Note that the proof in Lemma \[lma:caterpillar\] cannot be extended to exclude a 7-caterpillar in $G$, as there exists a 5-coloring of the external edges that does not extend to the caterpillar, even when the lists are all the same.
To complete the proof, we apply a discharging argument to $\operatorname{ct}(G)$. [^2]. First, observe that by Lemma \[lma:cutedge\], $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ is 2-connected and so every face is a simple cycle of length at least 41. Also observe that by Lemma \[lma:caterpillar\], $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ does not contain a path of length 8 where every vertex is of degree 2, unless one of those vertices is $p$.
Assign charge $2d(v)-6$ to every vertex $v \neq p$, charge $\ell(f) - 6$ to every face $f$, and charge $2d(p)+5$ to $p$. By Proposition \[prop:sum\], the total amount of charge on $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ is $-1$. Apply the following discharging rules.
1. For every $v\in G-p$, if $v$ is a $2$–vertex, $v$ pulls charge 1 from each incident face.
2. If $p$ is a $2$–vertex, then $p$ gives charge $\frac{9}{2}$ to each incident face.
Observe that every vertex has nonnegative charge after this discharging process. It remains to show that every face has nonnegative charge.
Let $f$ be a face, and let $r_2$ be the number of 2–vertices on the boundary of $f$, not counting $p$, and consider two cases.
**Case 1**: $d(p)=3$ or $p$ is not adjacent to $f$.
In this case, $p$ does not give charge to $f$, and therefore $f$ has charge $\ell(f) - r_2 - 6$ after discharging. Also, the boundary of $f$ does not contain a path of length 8 containing only vertices of degree 2, thus $r_2 \leq \left\lfloor \frac{7}{8}\ell(f)\right\rfloor$. Since $\ell(f) \geq 41$, we have $$\ell(f) - r_2 - 6 \geq \ell(f) - \left\lfloor \frac{7}{8}\ell(f)\right\rfloor - 6 \geq 0.$$
**Case 2**: $d(p)=2$ and $p$ is adjacent to $f$.
By (R2), $p$ gives charge $\frac{9}{2}$ to $f$, so that $f$ has charge $\ell(f) - r_2 - \frac{3}{2}$ after discharging. The boundary of $f$ does not contain a path of length 8 containing only vertices of degree 2, except when using $p$, so, $r_2 \leq \left\lfloor \frac{7}{8}\ell(f)\right\rfloor$. Since $\ell(f) \geq 41$, we have $$\ell(f) - r_2 - \frac{3}{2} \geq \ell(f) - \left\lfloor \frac{7}{8}\ell(f)\right\rfloor - \frac{3}{2} \geq 0.$$ Thus, all vertices and faces have nonnegative charge, contradicting Proposition \[prop:sum\].
The second item of Theorem \[thm:mainlist\] follows by similarly strengthening the statement to include a precolored vertex and using Lemmas \[lma:cw\], \[lma:cutedge\], and \[lma:caterpillar\].
Strong Edge-Coloring of Sparse Graphs {#sec:sparse}
=====================================
In this section, we prove Theorems \[thm:sparse\] and \[thm:sparse4\].
Let $G$ be a graph with maximum degree $\Delta(G) \leq d$. For a vertex $v$ in $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ denote by $N_3(v)$ the set of $3^+$-vertices $u$ where $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ contains a path $P$ from $u$ to $v$ where all internal vertices of $P$ are $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertices. For $u \in N_3(v)$, let $\mu(v,u)$ be the number of paths from $v$ to $u$ whose internal vertices have degree 2 in $\operatorname{ct}(G)$. For a 3-vertex $v$, let the *responsibility set*, denoted $\operatorname{Resp}(v)$, be the set of $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertices that appear on the paths between $v$ and the vertices in $N_3(v)$.
Let $D$ be a subgraph of $G$. We call $D$ a *$k$-reducible configuration* if there exists a subgraph $D'$ of $D$ such that any strong $k$-edge-coloring of $G-D'$ can be extended to a strong $k$-edge-coloring of $G$. One necessary property for the selection of $D'$ is that no two edges that remain in $G-D'$ can have distance at most two in $G$ but distance strictly larger than two in $G - D'$. In the next subsection we describe several reducible configurations.
Reducible Configurations
------------------------
This subsection contains description of four types of reducible configurations. Each configuration is described in terms of how it appears within $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ where $G$ is a graph with maximum degree $\Delta(G) \leq d$ for some $d \geq 4$.
Let $t$ be a positive integer. The *$t$-caterpillar* is formed by two $3^+$-vertices $v_0$ and $v_{t+1}$ with a path $v_0v_1\dots v_tv_{t+1}$ where each $v_i$ is a $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertex for every $i \in \{1,\dots,t\}$.
Let $t_1,\dots, t_k$ be nonnegative integers. A configuration $Y(t_1,\dots,t_k)$ is formed by a $k^+$-vertex $v$ and $k$ internally disjoint paths of lengths $t_1+1,\dots,t_k+1$ with $v$ as a common endpoint, where the internal vertices of the paths are $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertices. We call such configuration a *$Y$-type configuration about $v$*, see Figure \[fig:Y\].
A configuration $H(t_1,t_2;r;s_1,s_2)$ is formed by two 3-vertices $u$ and $v$ and 5 internally disjoint paths of lengths $t_1+1$, $t_2+1$, $r+1$, $s_1+1$, and $s_2+1$, where the internal vertices of the paths are $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertices. The paths of lengths $t_1+1$ and $t_2+1$ have $v$ as an endpoint, the path of length $r+1$ has $u$ and $v$ as endpoints and the paths of lengths $s_1+1$ and $s_2+1$ have $u$ as an endpoint. We call such configuration an *$H$-type configuration about $v$ and $u$*, see Figure \[fig:H\].
A configuration $\Phi(t,a_1,a_2,s)$ is formed by two 3-vertices $u$ and $v$ and 4 internally disjoint paths of lengths $t+1$, $a_1+1$, $a_2+1$, and $s+1$, where the internal vertices of the paths are $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertices. The path of length $t+1$ has $v$ as an endpoint, the paths of lengths $a_1+1$ and $a_2+1$ have $u$ and $v$ as endpoints and the path of length $s+1$ has $u$ as an endpoint. We call such configuration a *$\Phi$-type configuration about $v$ and $u$*, see Figure \[fig:Phi\].
The reducibility of these configurations was verified using computer[^3], and in addition the 8-caterpillar is addressed in Lemma \[lma:caterpillar\]. Given the definition of a $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertex, the vertices of degree two in these configurations may, or may not, be adjacent to some 1-vertices in $G$. We demonstrate the reducibility of the instances of these configurations wherein each vertex of degree 2 is adjacent to $d-2$ 1-vertices, as depicted in Figures \[fig:Y\]–\[fig:Phi\]. This suffices to address all other instances of these configurations that may occur.
\[claim:red\_cat\] The following caterpillars with maximum degree $d$ are reducible:
1. (Borodin and Ivanova [@BI]) For $d = 3$, the $8$-caterpillar is 5-reducible.
2. (Wang and Zhao [@WZ]) For $d \geq 4$, the $(2d-2)$-caterpillar is $(2d-1)$-reducible.
These caterpillars are likely the smallest that are reducible for each degree $d$. Thus, the bounds in Theorems \[thm:bi\] and \[thm:wz\] are best possible using only Lemma \[lma:nrs\]. To improve these bounds, we demonstrate larger reducible configurations and use a more complicated discharging argument.
\[clm:Reducible\] The following configurations with maximum degree 3 are 5-reducible:
1. $Y(1,6,7)$, $Y(2,5,6)$ and $Y(3,4,5)$.
2. $H(7,7;0;3,7),\, H(7,7;0;4,6),\, H(7,7;0;5,5),\, H(6,7;0;3,7),\, H(6,7;0;4,6),\\
H(6,7;0;5,5),\, H(6,6;1;2,7),\, H(6,6;1;3,6),\, H(6,6;1;4,5),\, H(5,7;1;2,7),\\
H(5,7;1;3,6),\, H(5,7;1;4,5),\, H(4,7;2;1,7),\, H(4,7;2;2,6),\, H(4,7;2;3,5),\\
H(4,7;2;4,4),\, H(3,7;3;1,6),\, H(3,7;3;2,5) \text{ and } H(3,7;3;3,4).$
3. $\Phi(7,0,7,1),\, \Phi(7,0,6,1),\, \Phi(6,0,7,1),\, \Phi(6,1,6,1),\, \Phi(7,1,5,1), \Phi(5,1,7,1),\\
\Phi(7,2,4,1),\, \Phi(4,2,7,1),\, \Phi(7,3,3,1),\, \Phi(3,3,7,1) \text{ and }\Phi(3,7,0,7).$
\[clm:Reducible4\] The following configurations with maximum degree 4 are $7$-reducible: $$Y(2,4,4),\ Y(1,5,5),\ Y(2,4,5),\ Y(3,4,4),\text{ and }Y(2,5,5).$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm:sparse\]
-------------------------------
Among graphs $G$ with $\operatorname{mad}(G) < 2 + \frac{1}{7}$ not containing $S_3$, $S_4$, or $S_7$, with ${\chi_{s}'(G)}> 5$, select $G$ while minimizing the number of vertices in $\operatorname{ct}(G)$. Note that $e(G) > 5$ since ${\chi_{s}'(G)}> 5$, and let $n$ be the number of vertices in $\operatorname{ct}(G)$. By using the discharging method, we will show that $\operatorname{mad}(\operatorname{ct}(G)) \geq 2+\frac{1}{7}$, which is a contradiction, so no such minimal counterexample exists.
Observe that $G$ does not contain any of the reducible configurations addressed in Claim \[clm:Reducible\]. We also have the following additional structure on $\operatorname{ct}(G)$.
\[lma:cutedge2\] $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ is 2-connected.
Suppose that $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ contains a cut-edge $uv$. In $G$, the vertices $u$ and $v$ have degree at least two. There are exactly two components, $G_1$ and $G_2$, in $G - uv$, with $u \in V(G_1)$ and $v \in V(G_2)$. Let $u_1,u_2$ be neighbors of $u$ in $G_1$ and $v_1,v_2$ be neighbors of $v$ in $G_2$; let $u_1 = u_2$ only when $u$ has a unique neighbor in $G_1$, and $v_1 = v_2$ only when $v$ has a unique neighbor in $G_2$. Let $G_1' = G_1 + \{ uv, vv_1, vv_2\}$ and $G_2' = G_2 + \{ uv, uu_1, uu_2\}$.
If $G_1' = G$, then consider $G' = G - v_1 - v_2$. Since $n(G') < n(G)$ and $\operatorname{mad}(G') \leq \operatorname{mad}(G)$, there is a strong 5-edge-coloring $c$ of $G'$. Extend the coloring $c$ to color $c(vv_1)$ and $c(vv_2)$ from the colors not in $\{ c(uv), c(uu_1), c(uu_2)\}$, a contradiction. We similarly reach a contradiction when $G_2' = G$.
Therefore, $n(G_i') < n(G)$ and $\operatorname{mad}(G_i') \leq \operatorname{mad}(G)$ for each $i \in \{1,2\}$. Thus, there exist strong 5-edge-colorings $c_1$ and $c_2$ of $G_1'$ and $G_2'$, respectively. For each coloring, the colors on the edges $uv, uu_1, uu_2, vv_1, vv_2$ are distinct. Let $\pi$ be a permutation of the five colors satisfying $\pi(c_2(e)) = c_1(e)$ for each edge $e \in \{uv, uu_1, uu_2, vv_1, vv_2\}$. Then, we extend the coloring $c_1$ of $G_1'$ to all of $G$ by assigning $c_1(e) = \pi(c_2(e))$ for all edges $e \in E(G_2')$. The coloring $c_1$ is a strong 5-edge-coloring of $G$, a contradiction.
If $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ does not have any $3$-vertices, then $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ must be isomorphic to cycle $C_n$. If $n \geq 9$, then $\operatorname{ex}_3(G)$ contains an 8-caterpillar. If $n \in \{5,6,8\}$, then $G$ is a subgraph of $S_5$, $S_6$, or $S_8$, which each has a strong edge-coloring using five colors, discovered by computer. When $n \in\{3,4,7\}$, $G$ does not contain $S_3$, $S_4$, or $S_7$, and any proper subgraph of these graphs is $5$ strong edge-colorable, discovered by computer. Therefore, $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ is not isomorphic to a cycle, and hence for every $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertex $u$ in $G$, $|N_3(u)| \geq 1$.
If $G$ has some vertex $v$ such that $|N_3(v)|=1$, then $G$ must be a subgraph of $\Theta(t_1,t_2,t_3)$, which is the graph consisting of three internally disjoint $x-y$ paths of length $t_1+1, t_2+1$ and $t_3+1$, for some $0 \leq t_1 \leq t_2 \leq t_3$.
If $t_3 \geq 8$, then $\operatorname{ex}_3(G)$ contains an 8-caterpillar, so we assume that $t_3 < 8$. Observe that if $\operatorname{mad}(\Theta(t_1,t_2,t_3)) < 2 + \frac{1}{7}$, then $t_1+t_2+t_3 \geq 13$. However, if $\Theta(t_1,t_2,t_3)$ does not contain a reducible $Y$-type configuration, then by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] the sequence $(t_1,t_2,t_3)$ is one of $(0,7,7)$, $(0,6,7)$, $(1,6,6)$, $(1,5,7)$, $(2,5,6)$, $(2,4,7)$, or $(3,3,4)$. In each of these cases, we have verified by computer that $\Theta(t_1,t_2,t_3)$ has a strong edge-coloring using five colors.
Therefore, $|N_3(v)|\geq 2$ for every $v\in\operatorname{ct}(G)$. We proceed using discharging. Assign each vertex initial charge $d(v)$. Note that the total charge on the graph is $2e(\operatorname{ct}(G))$, which is at most $\operatorname{mad}(G)n < (2+\frac{1}{7})n$. We shall distribute charge among the vertices of $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ and result with charge at least $2 + \frac{1}{7}$ on every vertex, giving a contradiction.
Distribute charge among the vertices according to the following discharging rules, applied to each pair of vertices $u, v \in V(\operatorname{ct}(G))$:
1. \[2vtx\] If $u$ is a 2-vertex and $v \in N_3(u)$, then $v$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to $u$.
2. \[3vtx\] If $v$ is a 3-vertex with $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)|\leq 10$ and $u \in N_3(v)$, then
(a) \[adj\] if $d(u,v)=1$ and $|\operatorname{Resp}(u)| = 14$, then $v$ sends charge $\frac{1}{7}$ to $u$;
(b) \[near\] otherwise, if $d(u,v) \leq 4$, then $v$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to $u$.
We will now verify the assertion that each vertex has final charge at least $2 + \frac{1}{7}$. If $v$ is a 2-vertex, then since $|N_3(v)| = 2$ the final charge on $v$ is $2 + \frac{1}{7}$ after by Rule R\[2vtx\]. Let $v$ be a 3-vertex. If $u \in N_3(v)$, then $d(u,v) \leq 8$ by Lemma \[lma:caterpillar\]. Claim \[clm:Reducible\] implies that $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)|\leq 14$.
*Case : $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)| \in \{11, 12\}$.*
In this case, $v$ only loses charge by Rule R\[2vtx\], so the final charge is at least $3 - \frac{12}{14} = 2 + \frac{1}{7}$.
*Case : $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)| = 14$.*
By Claim \[clm:Reducible\], the $Y$-type configuration about $v$ is $Y(0,7,7)$. Thus, some vertex $u_1 \in N_3(v)$ is at distance one from $v$. If $\mu(v,u_1) = 1$, then the $H$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $H(7,7;0;s_1,s_2)$; by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] $s_1+s_2 \leq 9$, $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)|\leq 9$, and $u_1$ sends charge $\frac{1}{7}$ to $v$ by Rule R\[adj\]. If $\mu(v,u_1) = 2$, then the $\Phi$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $\Phi(7,0,7,s)$; by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] $s = 0$, $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)|\leq 7$, and $u_1$ sends charge $\frac{1}{7}$ to $v$ by Rule R\[adj\].
*Case : $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)| = 13$.*
By Claim \[clm:Reducible\], the $Y$-type configuration $Y(t_1,t_2,t_3)$ about $v$ is one of $Y(0,6,7)$, $Y(1,6,6)$, $Y(1,5,7)$, $Y(2,4,7)$, or $Y(3,3,7)$. We consider each case separately.
*Case [.]{}: $(t_1,t_2,t_3) = (0,6,7).$*
Let $u_1$ be the vertex in $N_3(v)$ at distance 1 from $v$. If $\mu(v,u_1) = 1$, then the $H$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $H(6,7;0;s_1,s_2)$; by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] $s_1+s_2 \leq 9$, $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)|\leq 9$, and $u_1$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to $v$ by Rule R\[near\]. If $\mu(v,u_1) = 2$, then the $\Phi$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $\Phi(6,0,7,s)$ or $\Phi(7,0,6,s)$; by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] $s = 0$, $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)|\leq 7$, and $u_1$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to $v$ by Rule R\[near\].
*Case [.]{}: $(t_1,t_2,t_3) = (1,6,6).$*
Let $u_1$ be the vertex in $N_3(v)$ at distance 2 from $v$. If $\mu(v,u_1) = 1$, then the $H$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $H(6,6;1;s_1,s_2)$; by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] $s_1+s_2 \leq 8$, $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)|\leq 9$, and $u_1$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to $v$ by Rule R\[near\]. If $\mu(v,u_1) = 2$, then the $\Phi$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $\Phi(6,1,7,s)$ or $\Phi(7,1,6,s)$; by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] $s = 0$, $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)|\leq 8$, and $u_1$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to $v$ by Rule R\[near\].
*Case [.]{}: $(t_1,t_2,t_3) = (1,5,7).$*
Let $u_1$ be the vertex in $N_3(v)$ at distance 2 from $v$. If $\mu(v,u_1) = 1$, then the $H$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $H(5,7;1;s_1,s_2)$; by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] $s_1+s_2 \leq 8$, $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)|\leq 9$, and $u_1$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to $v$ by Rule R\[near\]. If $\mu(v,u_1) = 2$, then the $\Phi$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $\Phi(5,1,7,s)$ or $\Phi(7,1,5,s)$; by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] $s = 0$, $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)|\leq 8$, and $u_1$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to $v$ by Rule R\[near\].
*Case [.]{}: $(t_1,t_2,t_3) = (2,4,7).$*
Let $u_1$ be the vertex in $N_3(v)$ at distance 3 from $v$. If $\mu(v,u_1) = 1$, then the $H$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $H(4,7;2;s_1,s_2)$; by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] $s_1+s_2 \leq 7$, $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)|\leq 9$, and $u_1$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to $v$ by Rule R\[near\]. If $\mu(v,u_1) = 2$, then the $\Phi$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $\Phi(4,2,7,s)$ or $\Phi(7,2,4,s)$; by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] $s = 0$, $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)|\leq 8$, and $u_1$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to $v$ by Rule R\[near\].
*Case [.]{}: $(t_1,t_2,t_3) = (3,3,7).$*
Let $u_1$ be the vertex in $N_3(v)$ at distance 4 from $v$. If $\mu(v,u_1) = 1$, then the $H$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $H(3,7;3;s_1,s_2)$; by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] $s_1+s_2 \leq 7$, $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)|\leq 10$, and $u_1$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to $v$ by Rule R\[near\]. If $\mu(v,u_1) = 2$, then the $\Phi$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $\Phi(3,3,7,s)$ or $\Phi(7,3,3,s)$; by Claim \[clm:Reducible\] $s = 0$, $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)|\leq 10$, and $u_1$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to $v$ by Rule R\[near\].
*Case : $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)| \leq 10$.*
In this case, $v$ loses charge at most $\frac{10}{14}$ by Rule R\[2vtx\], so if it sends charge at most $\frac{1}{7}$ by Rule R\[3vtx\], then the final charge on $v$ is at least $2 + \frac{1}{7}$. Consider how much charge is sent by Rule R\[3vtx\].
*Case [.]{}: $v$ sends charge $\frac{3}{14}$ by Rule R\[3vtx\].*
If $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)| \leq 9$, then the final charge on $v$ is at least $2 + \frac{1}{7}$, so assume that $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)| = 10$. If $v$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to each of three vertices in $N_3(v)$, then $d(v,u) \leq 4$ for each $u \in N_3(v)$ and hence $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)| < 10$. Thus, $v$ sends charge $\frac{1}{7}$ to some $u_1 \in N_3(v)$ and $\frac{1}{14}$ to some $u_2 \in N_3(v)$. Since $|\operatorname{Resp}(u_1)| = 14$, Claim \[clm:Reducible\] implies that the $Y$-type configuration about $u_1$ is of the form $Y(0,7,7)$. Since $v$ is adjacent to $u_1$, $d(v,u_2)\leq 4$, and $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)| = 10$, the $Y$-type configuration about $v$ is of the form $Y(0,3,7)$. If $\mu(v,u_1)= 1$, then the $H$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $H(3,7;0;7;7)$ which is reducible by Claim \[clm:Reducible\]. If $\mu(v,u_1)= 2$, then the $\Phi$-type configuration about $v$ and $u_1$ is of the form $\Phi(3,7,0,7)$ which is reducible by Claim \[clm:Reducible\].
*Case [.]{}: $v$ sends charge $\frac{2}{7}$ by Rule R\[3vtx\].*
In this case, $v$ must send charge $\frac{1}{7}$ to at least one vertex $u_1$ in $N_3(v)$. If $v$ sends charge $\frac{1}{7}$ to another vertex $u_2$ in $N_3(v)$, then, as $G$ contains no $8$-caterpillar, $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)| \leq 7$ and hence the final charge on $v$ is at least $2 + \frac{3}{14}$. If $v$ sends charge $\frac{1}{14}$ to the other two vertices $u_2$ and $u_3$ in $N_3(v)$, then $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)| \leq 6$ and hence the final charge on $v$ is at least $2 + \frac{5}{14}$.
*Case [.]{}: $v$ either sends charge $\frac{5}{14}$ or $\frac{3}{7}$ by Rule R\[3vtx\].*
Suppose that $v$ sends charge $\frac{5}{14}$ by Rule R\[3vtx\]. Thus, $v$ must send charge $\frac{1}{7}$ to two of three vertices in $N_3(v)$, and $\frac{1}{14}$ to the third vertex. This implies that $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)|\le 3$ and hence the final charge on $v$ is at least $2 + \frac{3}{7}$. Similarly, if $v$ sends charge $\frac{3}{7}$ by Rule R\[3vtx\], then $|Resp(v)|=0$. Thus, the final charge on $v$ is $2+\frac{4}{7}$.
In all cases, we verified that the final charge is at least $2 + \frac{1}{7}$, contradicting that the average degree of $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ is strictly less than $2 + \frac{1}{7}$.
We note that it is possible to improve the bound $\operatorname{mad}(G) < 2 + \frac{1}{7}$ by a small amount. In particular, the discharging method used above essentially states that the average size of a responsibility set in $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ is at most 12. By careful analysis, we can find that a 3-vertex $v$ with $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)|\leq 11$ has some excess charge after the discharging argument that could be used to increase the charge on nearby vertices by a small fraction. We have verified using computation that for every 3-vertex $v$, there is at least one vertex $u \in N_3(v)$ where $|\operatorname{Resp}(u)| < 12$. Thus, it is impossible to have a minimal counterexample where all responsibility sets have size 12, and it is feasible to construct a discharging argument that will improve on the bound $\operatorname{mad}(G) < 2 + \frac{1}{7}$ by a small fraction. We do not do this explicitly as it requires significant detail without significant gain.
In order to prove that $\operatorname{mad}(G) < 2 + \frac{1}{6}$ implies that $G$ can be strongly 5-edge-colored, then the proof will imply that the average size of a responsibility set is at most 10. This will require sending charge to all of the vertices with 11 or 12 vertices in the responsibility set, and also making sure that the charge comes from vertices with responsibility sets much smaller. Likely, larger reducible configurations will grant some improvement in this direction, but our algorithm is insufficient to effectively test reducibility for larger configurations.\
Proof of Theorem \[thm:sparse4\]
--------------------------------
Note that the second item of Theorem \[thm:sparse4\] follows from the first by Proposition \[prop:mad\]. For the first item, we follow a similar discharging argument as in Theorem \[thm:sparse\]. The argument will be simpler as we will only discharge from $3^+$-vertices to $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertices. Select a graph $G$ that satisfies the hypotheses and minimizes $n(G)$. Observe that $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ is 2-connected by an argument similar to Lemma \[lma:cutedge2\].
Since the $6$-caterpillar is $7$-reducible by Claim \[claim:red\_cat\], $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ does not contain a path of six $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertices. Since $G$ has girth at least 7, $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ is not a cycle, so it contains at least one $3^+$-vertex.
If $v$ is a $3^+$-vertex, then let $\operatorname{Resp}(v)$ be the set of $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertices reachable from $v$ using only $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertices. We consider $\operatorname{Resp}(v)$ to be a multiset, where the multiplicity of a vertex $u \in \operatorname{Resp}(v)$ is given by the number of paths from $v$ to $u$ using only $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertices. Note that the multiplicity is either 1 or 2.
Assign charge $d_{\operatorname{ct}(G)}(v)$ to each vertex $v \in V(\operatorname{ct}(G))$. Note that the average charge on each vertex is equal to the average degree of $G$. To discharge, let $\varepsilon = \frac{1}{13}$ and each $3^+$-vertex $v$ sends $\varepsilon m$ to each $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertex in $\operatorname{Resp}(v)$ with multiplicity $m$. Thus, every $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertex ends with charge $2 + \frac{2}{13}$.
Suppose $d_{\operatorname{ct}(G)}(v) = 3$. Since $\operatorname{ct}(G)$ is 2-connected, all vertices in $\operatorname{Resp}(v)$ appear with multiplicity one. By Claim \[clm:Reducible4\], $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)| \leq 11$. Thus each $3$-vertex ends with charge at least $3 - \frac{11}{13} = 2 + \frac{2}{13}$.
Suppose $d_{\operatorname{ct}(G)}(v) = 4$. Since the $(6,4)$-caterpillar is reducible, each path of $2{{\ensuremath{^\perp}}}$-vertices has length at most five, and hence $|\operatorname{Resp}(v)| \leq 20$, including multiplicity. Thus each $4$-vertex ends with charge at least $4 - \frac{20}{13} = 2 + \frac{6}{13} > 2 + \frac{2}{13}$.
Therefore, every vertex ends with charge at least $2 + \frac{2}{13}$ and thus the average degree of $G$ is at least $2 + \frac{2}{13}$, a contradiction.
[99]{}
N. Alon. Combinatorial [N]{}ullstellensatz. **8** (1999), 7–29.
L. D. Andersen, The strong chromatic index of a cubic graph is at most 10, *Discrete Math.* 108 (1992) 231–252.
O.V. Borodin and A.O. Ivanova, Precise upper bound for the strong edge chromatic number of sparse planar graphs. *Discussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory*, 33(4) (2014) 759–770.
W. Bosma, J. Cannon, and C. Playoust, The Magma algebra system. I. The user language. *J. Symbolic Comput.* **24** (1997) 235–265.
H. Bruhn, F. Joos, A stronger bound for the strong chromatic index. *arXiv preprint* `arXiv:1504.02583`.
J. Chang, M. Montassier, A. Pěche, and A. Raspaud, Strong chromatic index of planar graphs with large girth. *Discussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory*, 34(4), (2014) 723–733.
D.W. Cranston and D.B. West, A Guide to the Discharging Method. *arXiv preprint* `arXiv:1306.4434`.
P. Erdős, Problems and results in combinatorial analysis and graph theory, *Proceedings of the First Japan Conference on Graph Theory and Applications* (Hakone, 1986), **72** (1988), 81–92.
R.J. Faudree, A. Gyárfas, R.H. Schelp, and Zs. Tuza. The strong chromatic index of graphs, **29** (1990) (B), 205–211.
J.-L. Fouquet and J.-L. Jolivet, Strong edge-colorings of graphs and applications to multi-k-gons, **16** (1983) (A) 141–150.
J.-L. Fouquet and J.-L. Jolivet, Strong edge-coloring of cubic planar graphs, in Progress in graph theory (Waterloo, Ont., 1982), Academic Press, Toronto, ON, 1984, pp. 247–264.
H. Hocquard and P. Valicov, Strong edge colouring of subcubic graphs, **159** (2011), 1650–1657.
H. Hocquard, M. Montassier, A. Raspaud, and P. Valicov, On strong edge-colouring of subcubic graphs **161** (2013), 2467–2479.
D. Hudák, B. Lužar, R. Soták, and R. Škrekovski, Strong edge-coloring of planar graphs, *Discrete Math.* **324** (2014), 41–49.
A.V. Kostochka, X. Li, W. Ruksasakchai, M. Santana, T. Wang, and G. Yu, Strong chromatic index of subcubic planar multigraphs, *in preparation*.
M. Molloy and B. Reed. A bound on the strong chromatic index of a graph, *J. Combin. Theory, Ser. B* **69** (1997), 103–109.
J. Nešetřil, A. Raspaud, and E. Sopena, Colorings and girth of oriented planar graphs, *Discrete Math.* 165/166 (1997) 519–530.
A. Steger and M.-L. Yu, On induced matchings, *Discrete Math.* **120** (1993), 291–295.
T. Wang and X. Zhao, Odd graphs and its application on the strong edge coloring. *arXiv preprint* `arXiv:1412.8358`.
D. B. West. . Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996.
V. H. Vu, A General Upper Bound on the List Chromatic Number of Locally Sparse Graphs, *Comb. Probab. Comp.*, **11** (2002), 103–111.
[^1]: All source code and data is available at <http://www.math.iastate.edu/dstolee/r/scindex.htm>.
[^2]: Our discharging approach is similar to the proof of Lemma \[lma:nrs\] where $\ell = 8$, but some care is needed due to the precolored vertex $p$.
[^3]: All source code and data is available at <http://www.math.iastate.edu/dstolee/r/scindex.htm>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Multicellular tissues are the building blocks of many biological systems and organs. These tissues are not static, but dynamically change over time. Even if the overall structure remains the same there is a turnover of cells within the tissue. This dynamic homeostasis is maintained by numerous governing mechanisms which are finely tuned in such a way that the tissue remains in a homeostatic state, even across large timescales. Some of these governing mechanisms include cell motion, and cell fate selection through inter cellular signalling. However, it is not yet clear how to link these two processes, or how they may affect one another across the tissue. In this paper, we present a multicellular, multiscale model, which brings together the two phenomena of cell motility, and inter cellular signalling, to describe cell fate selection on a dynamic tissue. We find that the affinity for cellular signalling to occur greatly influences a cells ability to differentiate. We also find that our results support claims that cell differentiation is a finely tuned process within dynamic tissues at homeostasis, with excessive cell turnover rates leading to unhealthy (undifferentiated and unpatterned) tissues.'
address: 'School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia'
author:
- 'Domenic P.J. Germano'
- 'James M. Osborne'
bibliography:
- 'bibAMathematicalModelOfCellFateSelectionOnADynamicTissue.bib'
title: A mathematical model of cell fate selection on a dynamic tissue
---
Multicellular modelling, Multiscale modelling, Cell fate selection
Introduction
============
Organs are comprised of dynamic multicellular tissues, with many healthy tissues existing in a state of dynamics homeostasis. This balance is achieved through multiple interacting governing mechanisms. One tissue where this balance is crucial is the intestinal epithelium, which protects the intestine and colon against digestive by-products, and also aids in the absorption of water and nutrients [@alpers2011textbook]. The intestinal epithelium is one of the fastest self renewing tissues in the human body, and this renewal is controlled within millions of test-tube-like structures which line the intestinal walls, known as the crypts of Lieberkühn [@shanmugathasan2000apoptosis]. At the base of each crypt, resides a stem cell population, which is directly responsible for the replenishment of the epithelial cells through mitosis. After dividing, cells migrate up the walls of the crypt, differentiating as they go, where upon reaching the top of the crypt they form the epithelial lining of the intestine and are removed by sloughing to prevent overcrowding. In humans, this renewal process usually takes 6–7 days [@shanmugathasan2000apoptosis]. Therefore, healthy crypt homeostasis is controlled by the fine balance of cell proliferation, migration, differentiation, and apoptosis [@shanmugathasan2000apoptosis].
As cells migrate up the crypt, cell differentiation and cell fate selection is controlled by another finely tuned mechanism, known as Delta-Notch signalling, which occurs between neighbouring cells [@collier1996pattern]. The key mechanisms controlling Delta-Notch signalling are the Notch receptors and Delta ligands, both of which are transmembrane proteins. The pathway is activated when Delta ligands on one cell bind to Notch receptors of a neighbouring cell. As a response, intracellular reactions are triggered on the said neighbouring cell, which in turn allows target gene expression, and thus leads to cell differentiation [@bray2006notch].
Mutations of cells within the crypts (particularly the stem cells) may trigger the development of colorectal cancer [@khalek2010colon; @salama2009colorectal]. For this reason, an understanding as to how crypt dynamics are maintained at homeostasis, and what may lead to malignancies is highly desirable. Mathematical and computational models provide an ideal framework to study these dynamical tissues. Previous modelling work has provided insight into how Delta-Notch signalling occurs within dynamic tissues. One early model of Delta-Notch signalling was proposed by @collier1996pattern [@collier1996pattern], where a tissues of static cells interact with their nearest neighbours through lateral inhibition. The authors found that their model reproduced Notch patterning, analogous to those found in living systems. In 2011 @buske2011comprehensive [@buske2011comprehensive] coupled a logic based Delta-Notch signalling with an over-lapping spheres model of cell dynamics with position dependent proliferation. Using their model, the authors were able to reproduce the correct ratios of cell types present at steady state. The model can also describe and predict dynamic behaviour of the epithelium at both steady state, and also following the introduction of mutant cells. The authors also showed that the intestinal epithelium is capable of complete recovery following eliminations of each subpopulations of cell within the crypt epithelium. The @collier1996pattern model for Delta Notch has been coupled with numerous multicellular models. @osborne2017comparing [@osborne2017comparing] present a comparison of coupling the signaling model with five biomechanical models and show that as long as the use of biomechanical model is appropriate (i.e there are no model artefacts), then the biomechanical models are equivalent. The @collier1996pattern model was extended to include other aspects of signalling in the Crypt in @kay2017role [@kay2017role]. In the paper the authors analyse this mode on pairs of connected cells and show that the Delta Notch patterning can influence cell differentiation.
Furthermore, it is know that during development, cell morphology changes, and therefore the contact geometry between neighbouring cells changes too. Since Notch signalling is mediated via transmembrane proteins, these morphological changes could influence cellular communication. To investigate, @shaya2017cell developed a model of Notch signalling which is dependent upon the contact area between neighbouring cells [@shaya2017cell]. They found that contact area biases cellular differentiation, where smaller cells are more likely to differentiate into the primary cell fate.
It is clear that understanding the interplay between cell fate signalling and cell dynamics is crucial in furthering our knowledge of tissue and organ development and function. To the authors knowledge no previous study has investigated how properties of the inter-cellular signalling, and cell turnover, influences cell differentiation and fate selection. In this paper we present a multiscale multicellular model which couples cell dynamics with Delta-Notch signalling and cell fate selection.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows, we begin by presenting our multicellular multiscale model of cell fate selection in a dynamic tissue in Section \[sec:model\]. In Section \[sec:results\], we first present an investigation into how subcellular dynamics and tissue geometry influences pattern formation on static tissues, before demonstrating the influence of cell turnover on patterning. Finally in Section \[sec:conclusion\], we discuss our results and relate them back to biological dynamical tissues like the colorectal crypt.
Model {#sec:model}
=====
Here, we model the tissue as a collection of discrete, interacting, individual cells, more commonly referred to as a multicellular model. In a multicellular model, cells are represented as a single point (or a collection of points) in space, and allows details at the cellular level and tissue level to be included [@osborne2017comparing]. Specifically, they allow the inclusion of cell population turnover and cellular signalling, which occur at differing timescales.Below, we discuss the multicellular, multiscale model we use to couple these processes, in order to analyse cell fate selection within a dynamic tissue.
Biomechanical Model
-------------------
To describe cell dynamics, we use a lattice-free, cell-centred model [@meineke2001cell]. The net force on a given cell $i$, $\mathbf{F}_{i}^{\text{Net}}$, is found by balancing the force due to neighbouring cell interactions, $\mathbf{F}_{i}^{\text{Interactions}}$, and the viscous forces on the cell, $\mathbf{F}_{i}^{\text{Viscous}}$, as proposed by @meineke2001cell [@meineke2001cell]: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{F}_{i}^{\text{Net}} =\mathbf{F}_{i}^{\text{Interactions}} + \mathbf{F}_{i}^{\text{Viscous}}, \qquad \forall i.\end{aligned}$$ Due to the highly viscous environment that cells occupy, we assume that cell motion is over-damped [@dallon2004cellular], and therefore viscous forces dominate allowing us to neglect inertial terms and all motion is determined by a force balance, $\mathbf{F}_{i}^{\text{Net}}=\mathbf{0}$.
### Equations of Motion
We follow @meineke2001cell [@meineke2001cell] and model the force due to neighbouring cell interactions using a linear Hooke’s law acting at cell-centres to describe attraction and repulsion between neighbouring cells. We also assume viscous forces acting on the cell oppose the direction of motion. This leads to the equations of motions, for cell $i$, at position $\mathbf{r}_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\nu \frac{d \mathbf{r}_i}{dt} = \sum_{j\in M_i} k_{ij}^{sp} \left( \vert \mathbf{r}_{ij}\vert - s_{ij} \right) \hat{ \mathbf{r}}_{ij}, \qquad \forall i,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{r}_{ij} = \mathbf{r}_{j}-\mathbf{r}_{i}$ is the displacement between cells $i$ and $j$, $\nu$ is the drag coefficient applied to all cell centres, $M_i$ the neighbouring cells of cell $i$, $k_{ij}^{sp}$ the spring constant between cells $i$ and $j$ (here taken to be constant so ), and $s_{ij} = s_{ij}(t)$ is the length separation between cells $i$ and $j$, which has the form: $$\begin{aligned}
s_{ij}(t) = \begin{cases}
\varepsilon + \tau_i(1-\varepsilon) , &\tau_i \le 1,\\
1, &\text{otherwise},
\end{cases} \label{Eq_Sij}\end{aligned}$$ with $\varepsilon >0$ being the initial separation between daughter cells, and $\tau_i \ge 0$ the age of cell $i$ at time $t$. All parameters are given in Table \[table:parameter\_values\]. Note all distances are measured in cell diameters (cd) which we take to be the average size of a crypt epithelial cell 10$\mu m$ [@dallon2004cellular].
### Cell Population Turnover
Our aim is to get a cell turnover rate of $\gamma$ divisions (and deaths) per hour per cell. In order to do this we model each cell to have its own cell cycle duration, $T$, which is sampled from a Uniform distribution[^1]: $$\begin{aligned}
T \sim \mathbf{U}\left(\frac{3}{4\gamma} , \frac{5}{4\gamma} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is the target cell turnover rate. When a cell reaches its cell cycle duration, it is labelled the parent cell, with position $\mathbf{r}^p$, and subsequently proliferates into two daughter cells, with positions $\mathbf{r}_i$ and $\mathbf{r}_j$, displaced at a separation $\varepsilon>0$ apart, along a randomly directed unit normal $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{r}_i &= \mathbf{r}^p + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \hat{\mathbf{n}}, \qquad \mathbf{r}_j = \mathbf{r}^p - \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \hat{\mathbf{n}}.\end{aligned}$$ To represent a turnover of cells, and to maintain a fixed number of cells in the tissue, whenever a cell divides we randomly select a cell to be removed in the same timestep.
Biochemical Model
-----------------
The model of intracellular signalling we employ was initially described by @collier1996pattern [@collier1996pattern]. @collier1996pattern consider a simplified model of a cell, focusing on the Delta-Notch pathway, where inhibited cells have a reduced ability to inhibit other cells. The key mechanisms of the Delta-Notch pathway are the Notch receptors and Delta ligands, both of which are transmembrane proteins. The pathway is activated when Delta ligands on one cell bind to Notch receptors of neighbouring cells. As a response, intracellular reactions are triggered, which in turn allows target gene expression, and thus leads to cell differentiation [@bray2006notch]. The biochemical model assumptions are summarised by the following:
1. Only cells in direct contact may interact via Delta-Notch signalling.
2. The rate of Notch production is an increasing function of the amount of Delta present in neighbouring cells.
3. The rate of Delta production is a decreasing function of the amount of Notch within the same cell.
4. The rate of both Notch and Delta decay obey exponential laws, with rates $\mu$ and $\rho$ respectively.
5. A cell’s fate is determined by the amount of Notch within the cell.
These model assumptions give rise to the following (non-dimensional) mathematical model, for cell $i$, with Notch level $N_i$ and Delta level $D_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d N_i}{dt} &= \mu \frac{{\bar{D}}^k_i}{a + {\bar{D}}^k_i} - \mu N_i ,\qquad \forall i,\\
\frac{d D_i}{dt} &= \rho \frac{1}{1 + b {N}_i^h} - \rho D_i , \qquad \forall i.\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is the Notch affinity constant (which dictates how readily Delta ligands bind to Notch receptors), and $b$ the Delta affinity constant (which dictates how readily Delta ligands are produced), and $k$ and $h$ the exponent for Notch and Delta synthesis respectfully. Lastly, $\bar{D}_i$ is the mean level of Delta within neighbouring cells (of cell $i$). On cell division the level of Delta and Notch in the daughter cells are assigned to be the same as the parent cell.
Tissue Geometry and Initial Conditions
--------------------------------------
We constrain the tissue to lie in a domain of size $L_{x} \times L_{y}$, where , with horizontally and vertically periodic boundaries (a toroidal domain). Due to the honeycomb structure of centre based cells in equilibrium it is more informative to describe the tissue size by referring to the number of horizontally and vertically stacked cells, $C_{x} \times C_{y}$, where . The relation between the number of cells horizontally stacked ($C_{x}$), and the horizontal length ($L_{x}$) is . However, because we initialise the tissue on a honeycomb, hexagonal lattice, which is the equilibrium state for our biomechanical model [@thompson1942growth], the relation between the number of cells vertically stacked ($C_{y}$), and the vertical length ($L_{y}$) is . We treat each cell as a distinct agent, which interacts with it’s neighbouring cells. These neighbouring cells are determined by a Delaunay Triangulation between cell centres. The shape of each cell is given by a Voronoi tessellation, which is the natural dual of the Delaunay Triangulation. Figure \[tissue\_struct\] shows a typical tissue geometry with $L_{x}=6$cd and $L_{y}=3\sqrt{3}$cd ($C_{x}=C_{y}=6$).
Unless stated otherwise, the initial conditions we use for the biochemical model are uniform homogeneous. That is, for cell $i$, the initial levels of Notch and Delta within the cell are: $$\begin{aligned}
N_i(0) = N^0, \quad D_i(0) = D^0, \quad \forall i,\end{aligned}$$ where $0 \leq N^0 \leq 1$ and $0 \leq D^0 \leq 1$.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
We first consider the behaviour of a static tissue (i.e. cells have no turnover rate). Therefore, cells remain stationary and only interact with a fixed set of six neighbouring cells. In Section \[sec:dynamic\] we relax this assumption and allow cells to proliferate, undergo apoptosis and move.
Tissue Geometry and Biochemical Initial Conditions Support Patterning
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In their 1996 paper [@collier1996pattern], @collier1996pattern explained that a default patterning of one primary cell (low Notch level) for every two secondary cells (high Notch level) is the dominant ordering of cells at steady state, as shown in Figure \[fig:pat\_9b8\]. This ordering is such that the neighbouring set of each primary cell is exactly six secondary cells (see Figure \[fig:primary\_cell\]), while the neighbouring set of each secondary cell consists of three primary and three secondary cells in an alternating fashion (see Figure \[fig:secondary\_cell\]).\
[.08]{}
[.45]{} **Steady State Notch**
[.45]{} **Intracellular Notch Solution**
![ \[fig:PATTERN\] *In silico* experiments with parameter values $a=0.1$, $b=100$, $\mu=\rho=10$, $k=h=2$, $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, $\nu=1$ and $k^{sp}=50$. , , , and show the steady state Notch patterning for differing initial conditions of Notch. , , , and show the associated time series solutions of intracellular Notch. Note includes inset of early time solutions to show initial heterogeneity. Videos of these simulations can be found in SI Movie 1 – SI Movie 5. shows a primary cell, and shows a secondary cell in a default patterning.](notch_hom.png){height="0.13\textheight"}
[.08]{}
[.45]{}
![ \[fig:PATTERN\] *In silico* experiments with parameter values $a=0.1$, $b=100$, $\mu=\rho=10$, $k=h=2$, $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, $\nu=1$ and $k^{sp}=50$. , , , and show the steady state Notch patterning for differing initial conditions of Notch. , , , and show the associated time series solutions of intracellular Notch. Note includes inset of early time solutions to show initial heterogeneity. Videos of these simulations can be found in SI Movie 1 – SI Movie 5. shows a primary cell, and shows a secondary cell in a default patterning.](pat_9b8.png){height="0.13\textheight"}
[.45]{}
![ \[fig:PATTERN\] *In silico* experiments with parameter values $a=0.1$, $b=100$, $\mu=\rho=10$, $k=h=2$, $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, $\nu=1$ and $k^{sp}=50$. , , , and show the steady state Notch patterning for differing initial conditions of Notch. , , , and show the associated time series solutions of intracellular Notch. Note includes inset of early time solutions to show initial heterogeneity. Videos of these simulations can be found in SI Movie 1 – SI Movie 5. shows a primary cell, and shows a secondary cell in a default patterning.](9b8_n_3.png){height="0.13\textheight"}
[.08]{}
[.45]{}
![ \[fig:PATTERN\] *In silico* experiments with parameter values $a=0.1$, $b=100$, $\mu=\rho=10$, $k=h=2$, $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, $\nu=1$ and $k^{sp}=50$. , , , and show the steady state Notch patterning for differing initial conditions of Notch. , , , and show the associated time series solutions of intracellular Notch. Note includes inset of early time solutions to show initial heterogeneity. Videos of these simulations can be found in SI Movie 1 – SI Movie 5. shows a primary cell, and shows a secondary cell in a default patterning.](pat_rand_p.png){height="0.13\textheight"}
[.45]{}
![ \[fig:PATTERN\] *In silico* experiments with parameter values $a=0.1$, $b=100$, $\mu=\rho=10$, $k=h=2$, $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, $\nu=1$ and $k^{sp}=50$. , , , and show the steady state Notch patterning for differing initial conditions of Notch. , , , and show the associated time series solutions of intracellular Notch. Note includes inset of early time solutions to show initial heterogeneity. Videos of these simulations can be found in SI Movie 1 – SI Movie 5. shows a primary cell, and shows a secondary cell in a default patterning.](notch_rand_p.png){height="0.13\textheight"}
[.08]{}
[.45]{}
![ \[fig:PATTERN\] *In silico* experiments with parameter values $a=0.1$, $b=100$, $\mu=\rho=10$, $k=h=2$, $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, $\nu=1$ and $k^{sp}=50$. , , , and show the steady state Notch patterning for differing initial conditions of Notch. , , , and show the associated time series solutions of intracellular Notch. Note includes inset of early time solutions to show initial heterogeneity. Videos of these simulations can be found in SI Movie 1 – SI Movie 5. shows a primary cell, and shows a secondary cell in a default patterning.](pat_rand.png){height="0.13\textheight"}
[.45]{}
![ \[fig:PATTERN\] *In silico* experiments with parameter values $a=0.1$, $b=100$, $\mu=\rho=10$, $k=h=2$, $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, $\nu=1$ and $k^{sp}=50$. , , , and show the steady state Notch patterning for differing initial conditions of Notch. , , , and show the associated time series solutions of intracellular Notch. Note includes inset of early time solutions to show initial heterogeneity. Videos of these simulations can be found in SI Movie 1 – SI Movie 5. shows a primary cell, and shows a secondary cell in a default patterning.](notch_rand.png){height="0.13\textheight"}
[.08]{}
[.45]{}
![ \[fig:PATTERN\] *In silico* experiments with parameter values $a=0.1$, $b=100$, $\mu=\rho=10$, $k=h=2$, $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, $\nu=1$ and $k^{sp}=50$. , , , and show the steady state Notch patterning for differing initial conditions of Notch. , , , and show the associated time series solutions of intracellular Notch. Note includes inset of early time solutions to show initial heterogeneity. Videos of these simulations can be found in SI Movie 1 – SI Movie 5. shows a primary cell, and shows a secondary cell in a default patterning.](10b8_p.png){height="0.13\textheight"}
[.45]{}
![ \[fig:PATTERN\] *In silico* experiments with parameter values $a=0.1$, $b=100$, $\mu=\rho=10$, $k=h=2$, $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, $\nu=1$ and $k^{sp}=50$. , , , and show the steady state Notch patterning for differing initial conditions of Notch. , , , and show the associated time series solutions of intracellular Notch. Note includes inset of early time solutions to show initial heterogeneity. Videos of these simulations can be found in SI Movie 1 – SI Movie 5. shows a primary cell, and shows a secondary cell in a default patterning.](10b8_n.png){height="0.13\textheight"}
[0.08]{}
[0.44]{}
![ \[fig:PATTERN\] *In silico* experiments with parameter values $a=0.1$, $b=100$, $\mu=\rho=10$, $k=h=2$, $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, $\nu=1$ and $k^{sp}=50$. , , , and show the steady state Notch patterning for differing initial conditions of Notch. , , , and show the associated time series solutions of intracellular Notch. Note includes inset of early time solutions to show initial heterogeneity. Videos of these simulations can be found in SI Movie 1 – SI Movie 5. shows a primary cell, and shows a secondary cell in a default patterning.](primary_cel_2.png){height="0.035\textheight"}
[0.44]{}
![ \[fig:PATTERN\] *In silico* experiments with parameter values $a=0.1$, $b=100$, $\mu=\rho=10$, $k=h=2$, $\gamma\rightarrow\infty$, $\nu=1$ and $k^{sp}=50$. , , , and show the steady state Notch patterning for differing initial conditions of Notch. , , , and show the associated time series solutions of intracellular Notch. Note includes inset of early time solutions to show initial heterogeneity. Videos of these simulations can be found in SI Movie 1 – SI Movie 5. shows a primary cell, and shows a secondary cell in a default patterning.](secondary_cel_2.png){height="0.035\textheight"}
However, we see that the initial conditions of Delta and Notch influence the final pattern formed within the tissue (i.e. when the tissue is at steady state). Specifically, for homogeneous initial conditions of Delta and Notch, homogeneity is maintained as per Figure \[fig:pat\_hom\]. Time series solution are prtesented in Figure \[fig:notch\_hom\], which shows that the intracellular Notch levels across the tissue adjust to a homogeneous level (see for a video of the simulation). However, if even a single cell is initialised away from this homogeneous value (tested down to variations of $10^{\,-16}$) then the default Notch patterning was obtained, see Figure \[fig:pat\_9b8\]. Moreover, looking at the time series solutions for the default patterned tissue (Figure \[fig:notch\_9b8\]), we can see that the patterning propagates from the initially seeded cell (see for a video of the simulation). It should be noted, that the system is quite sensitive to initial conditions of Delta and Notch. This can be seen by running two simulations from different initial random initial conditions, Figures \[fig:pat\_rand\_p\] (\[fig:notch\_rand\_p\], see for a video of the simulation)) and \[fig:pat\_rand\] (\[fig:notch\_rand\], (see for a video of the simulation)). The particular random conditions used in Figure \[fig:pat\_rand\_p\] are able to achieve the default Notch patterning, and we see from the time series solution Figure \[fig:notch\_rand\_p\] that the tissue is able to reorient itself and establish distinct patterning. However, those random initial conditions used within Figure \[fig:pat\_rand\] are suitable, resulting instead in a partly patterned tissue, containing unresolved errors, as we see from the time series solution Figure \[fig:notch\_rand\], the tissue does attempt to achieve the default patterned state, but distinct (stable) errors occur (see for a video of the simulation).
Patterning initiates from irregularities within the Delta and Notch levels of cells, this irregularity then propagates radially. If we were to consider infinite tissue structures, then the default patterning shown in Figure \[fig:pat\_9b8\] would emerge, referred to as a period 3 pattern [@collier1996pattern]. However, when considering periodic boundary conditions, which is often the case in *in silico* experiments [@osborne2010hybrid; @fletcher2013implementing], combined with the understanding of how irregularities propagate, we find that the patterning present in Figure \[fig:pat\_9b8\] is not always possible. We see from simulations on different tissue geometries starting with a single seeded cell (the most stable initial condition for patterning) that patterning is not possible on domains of arbitrary size. For example, Figure \[fig:10b8\_p\] shows the pattern generated on a tissue of $10\times8$ cells ($C_{x}=10$ and $C_{y}=8$), which show errors in the patterning. The time series solutions, Figure \[fig:10b8\_n\] shows that initially, the patterning propagates from the initial irregularity. However, as this propagation meets up with itself, a discrepancy occurs which results in the error shown down the middle of the tissue.
To determine the suitable geometry size, $C_{x}$ and $C_{y}$, such that the tissue supports a default pattern, we first observe that the patterning is a period 3 pattern, meaning that if we start at a given cell, and we move away from it in a straight line, then as we move, we would notice that the pattern repeats itself every 3 cells. Due to the packing of hexagonal lattices with periodic boundary conditions, we require that the number of vertical cells be $C_{y} = 2n$, where $n \in \mathbb{N}$. We note that there are three axes of symmetry on hexagonal lattices: the horizontal axis, another at $60^o$ to the horizontal, and another at $120^o$ to the horizontal. Due to the periodicity of the tissue, we now define what is called a torus knot [@livingston1993knot], but on a lattice: if we start at a given location, and move along one of the axes of symmetry, we will always end up back where we started. For the tissue to support patterning, we require that the length of all torus knots along each of the 3 axes of symmetry be divisible by three. The easiest and most obvious torus knot is horizontal and is shown in Figure \[fig:trivial\_knot\], which for a general tissue has size $C_{x} \times 2n$. Requiring that the length of this knot be divisible by 3, means we must have $C_{x} = 3m$, where $m \in \mathbb{N}$, resulting in tissue sizes of $3m \times 2n$. However, it is not immediately obvious that the length of the non-trivial knots, shown by Figures \[fig:non\_trivial\_knot\] and \[fig:non\_trivial\_knot\_2\], are also divisible by 3. The length of these knots can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{knot length} & = \frac{\text{size of tissue}}{\text{number of disjoint knots}}.\end{aligned}$$ For a tissue of $3m \times 2n$ cells, the size of the tissue is simply $6mn$. To find the number of disjoint knots, we first observe that for every $2n$ steps we traverse diagonally, we advance $n$ rows horizontally, due to periodicity. Therefore, the number of disjoint knots which can be supported on a tissue of size $3m \times 2n$ is going to be given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{number of disjoint knots} = \gcd \left(3m, n\right),\end{aligned}$$ which gives the length of the knots as: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{knot length} & = \frac{6mn}{\gcd \left(3m, n\right)},\end{aligned}$$ which is always divisible by 3.
[0.32]{} ![ Examples of knots on a $6 \times 6$ size tissue. shows an example of a trivial knot. shows an example of a non-trivial knot. shows another example of a non-trivial knot. \[fig:torus\_knots\] ](Trivial_Knot.pdf "fig:"){width="75.00000%"}
[0.32]{} ![ Examples of knots on a $6 \times 6$ size tissue. shows an example of a trivial knot. shows an example of a non-trivial knot. shows another example of a non-trivial knot. \[fig:torus\_knots\] ](Non_Trivial_Knot_1.pdf "fig:"){width="75.00000%"}
[0.32]{} ![ Examples of knots on a $6 \times 6$ size tissue. shows an example of a trivial knot. shows an example of a non-trivial knot. shows another example of a non-trivial knot. \[fig:torus\_knots\] ](Non_Trivial_knot_2.pdf "fig:"){width="75.00000%"}
Therefore, we can say that only tissues of sizes $3m \times 2n$ cells, where $m,n \in \mathbb{N}$ will support a default Notch pattern shown in Figure \[fig:pat\_9b8\]. Tissues of other sizes cannot support a default patterning, but rather a partly patterned tissue with errors, analogues to that shown by Figure \[fig:pat\_rand\]. The simulations presented in Figures \[fig:pat\_9b8\] and \[fig:10b8\_p\] (along with other geometries, not shown for brevity) confirm this.
Affinity Constants $a, b$ Control Cell Patterning
-------------------------------------------------
In previous work, @collier1996pattern stated that the affinity constants of both Notch and Delta control the existence of cell fate patterning, but did not state how. By further analysing the multicellular system, we are able to describe the effects that the affinity constants have on the existence of cell fate patterning, specifically we can say which parameter values allow patterning. By considering a static tissue which exhibits a default patterned state, such as that of Figure \[fig:pat\_9b8\], we observe that there are at most two different cell configurations, up to rotation. The first is that of the primary fate cell, shown in Figure \[fig:primary\_cell\], and the second is the secondary fate cell, shown in Figure \[fig:secondary\_cell\]. We therefore can write down the governing Notch and Delta equations of a primary fate cell in terms of $N_p$ and $D_p$, and similarly those for a secondary fate cell in terms of $N_s$ and $D_s$ as follows: $$\label{eq:original_DEs}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{d N_p}{dt} &= \mu \left( \frac{\bar{D}_p^k}{a+\bar{D}_p^k} - N_p\right), \quad & \frac{d N_s}{dt} =& \mu \left( \frac{\bar{D}_s^k}{a+\bar{D}_s^k} - N_s\right),\\
\frac{d D_p}{dt} &= \rho \left( \frac{1}{1+b N_p^h} - D_p\right), \quad & \frac{d D_s}{dt} =& \rho \left( \frac{1}{1+b N_s^h} - D_s\right).
\end{aligned}$$ We then make the observation from Figure \[fig:primary\_cell\] that the neighbours of all primary cells, consist of six secondary cells, to then write $\bar{D}_p$ as the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Dp}
\bar{D}_p &= \frac{1}{6}\sum_{j \in M_p} D_j = \frac{1}{6}\left( 6 D_s\right) = D_s.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the neighbours of all secondary cells consists of three primary and three secondary cells, arranged in an alternating fashion, to then write $\bar{D}_s$ as the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ds}
\bar{D}_s &= \frac{1}{6}\sum_{j \in M_s} D_j = \frac{1}{6}\left( 3 D_p+3 D_s\right) = \frac{1}{2}\left( D_p+D_s\right).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting Equations (\[Dp\]) and (\[Ds\]), into Equation (\[eq:original\_DEs\]), leads to the simplified system: $$\label{eq:simplified_DEs}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{d N_p}{dt} &=\mu\left( \frac{{D_s}^k}{a+{D_s}^k} - N_p\right), \,\, & \frac{d N_s}{dt} &= \mu \left( \frac{\left[ \frac{1}{2}\left(D_p+D_s\right) \right]^k}{a+\left[ \frac{1}{2}\left(D_p+D_s\right) \right]^k} - N_s\right), \\
\frac{d D_p}{dt} & = \rho \left( \frac{1}{1+b{N_p}^h} - D_p\right), \,\, &\frac{d D_s}{dt} &= \rho \left( \frac{1}{1+b {N_s}^h} - D_s\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Using the above set of equations, we were able to efficiently numerically determine how the affinity values affect the existence of cell fate patterning. Steady states for Equation (\[eq:simplified\_DEs\]) are shown, for varying affinity parameters, in Figures \[fig:ss\_notch\_w\_a\] and \[fig:ss\_notch\_w\_b\] .
[0.49]{} **Steady State Notch with $a$, $b=100$** ![ and shows the steady state Notch levels of the primary cells (blue), secondary cells (red) and the homogeneous level (black). Solid lines show the stable equilibrium and dashed lines show the unstable equilibrium, not numerically observed. shows the Notch levels with varying affinity rate $a$, and shows the Notch level with varying affinity rate $b$. shows the relationship between the critical values $a_{\text{crit}}$ and $b_{\text{crit}}$ and the region within parameter space where patterning is permitted. The red solid line is results obtained from the simplified equations, and the blue markers are results obtained from multicellular simulations. Parameter values of $k=h=2$ and $\mu = \rho = 1$.\[fig:ss\_algebraic\_eq\] ](ss_notch_w_a_2.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.49]{} **Steady State Notch with $b$, $a=0.01$** ![ and shows the steady state Notch levels of the primary cells (blue), secondary cells (red) and the homogeneous level (black). Solid lines show the stable equilibrium and dashed lines show the unstable equilibrium, not numerically observed. shows the Notch levels with varying affinity rate $a$, and shows the Notch level with varying affinity rate $b$. shows the relationship between the critical values $a_{\text{crit}}$ and $b_{\text{crit}}$ and the region within parameter space where patterning is permitted. The red solid line is results obtained from the simplified equations, and the blue markers are results obtained from multicellular simulations. Parameter values of $k=h=2$ and $\mu = \rho = 1$.\[fig:ss\_algebraic\_eq\] ](ss_notch_w_b_2.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.8]{} **Relationship between $a_{\text{crit}}$ and $b_{\text{crit}}$** ![ and shows the steady state Notch levels of the primary cells (blue), secondary cells (red) and the homogeneous level (black). Solid lines show the stable equilibrium and dashed lines show the unstable equilibrium, not numerically observed. shows the Notch levels with varying affinity rate $a$, and shows the Notch level with varying affinity rate $b$. shows the relationship between the critical values $a_{\text{crit}}$ and $b_{\text{crit}}$ and the region within parameter space where patterning is permitted. The red solid line is results obtained from the simplified equations, and the blue markers are results obtained from multicellular simulations. Parameter values of $k=h=2$ and $\mu = \rho = 1$.\[fig:ss\_algebraic\_eq\] ](Robust_Pat_2.pdf "fig:"){width="99.00000%"}
We define the critical values $a_{\text{crit}}$ and $b_{\text{crit}}$ to be the bifurcation points in $a$ and $b$ respectfully where Notch patterning ceases to exist. For example, considering Figure \[fig:ss\_notch\_w\_a\], for a fixed Delta affinity of $b=100$, the critical Notch affinity is $a_{\text{crit}} \approx 1.7538$ and considering Figure \[fig:ss\_notch\_w\_b\], for a fixed Notch affinity of $a=0.01$, the critical Delta affinity is $b_{\text{crit}} \approx 22.4304$. The relationship between $a_{\text{crit}}$ and $b_{\text{crit}}$ can be found by solving the simplified system, given in Equation (\[eq:simplified\_DEs\]), invoking the steady state condition, and equating $N_p = N_s$ and $D_s = D_p$. The result is a polynomial in both the critical values $a_{\text{crit}}$ and $b_{\text{crit}}$, which can then be solved numerically. The relationship is shown in Figure \[fig:an\_ab\_6\_cells\] by the red solid line. The same relationship may also be found by solving the full multicellular system to steady state, and performing a parameter sweep to identify both $a_{\text{crit}}$ and $b_{\text{crit}}$, also shown in Figure \[fig:an\_ab\_6\_cells\] with blue markers.
From the results shown in Figure \[fig:ss\_algebraic\_eq\] and the above discussion, we can therefore say that the affinity constants, $a$, which controls how readily Delta ligands bind to Notch receptors, and $b$, which controls how readily Delta is produced, completely govern the existence of Notch patterning on appropriate domains (i.e. domains where patterning is possible). When Delta-Notch binding events do not readily occur, or Delta is not easily expressed, then cells cannot differentiate.
Excessive Cell Turnover Inhibits Patterning {#sec:dynamic}
-------------------------------------------
We now consider how a finite cell turnover rate, $\gamma$, affects the patterning (and therefore differentiation) of the tissue in a dynamic steady state. We fix the biomechanical and biochemical parameter values of the model to those of Table \[table:parameter\_values\]. Note that the affinity parameters are chosen to allow patterning.
Parameter Description Value
---------------------- -------------------------------- -------
$\mu$ Rate of notch degradation 10
$\rho$ Rate of delta degradation 10
$a$ Notch affinity 0.01
$b$ Delta affinity 100
$k$ Notch synthesis exponent 2
$h$ Delta synthesis exponent 2
$\nu$ Drag coefficient 1
$k_{ij}^{\text{sp}}$ Spring strength 50
$\varepsilon$ initial cell separation 0.001
$I_p$ Notch primary cell threshold 0.1
$I_s$ Notch secondary cell threshold 0.6
: Biomechanical, biochemical and patterning proportion parameter values.[]{data-label="table:parameter_values"}
To quantify the patterning throughout the tissue, we specify a Notch threshold for differentiated cells, $I_p$, for primary cells and $I_s$ for secondary cells, with $I_p < I_s$. We then categorise each of the cells within the tissue as either primary ($N_i \leq I_p$), secondary ($N_i \ge I_s$), or undifferentiated ($I_p < N_i < I_s $). These threshold values can be determined by solving Equation (\[eq:simplified\_DEs\]) to steady state for a specified set of parameters (see Table \[table:parameter\_values\]). One then chooses $I_p$ and $I_s$ suitably. For example, considering the biochemical parameter values of $a=0.01$, $b=100$, $k=h=2$, then the steady state Notch values for primary cells is $N_p \approx 0.0113$, and for secondary cells is $N_s \approx 0.9614$. We therefore choose the threshold values of $I_p = 0.1$ and $I_s=0.6$ for primary and secondary cells respectively.
The proportion of the tissue which is in a patterned (differentiated) state, $\Omega(t)$, is then given by the total number of differentiated cells, divided by the total number of cells within the tissue at time $t$. However, due to the dynamic nature of the system, we further consider a moving average of the instantaneous pattering, $\Omega(t)$, as: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\Omega}\left(t; \delta \right) = \frac{1}{\delta}\int_{t-\delta}^{t} \Omega(\tau) d\tau .\end{aligned}$$ Where $0<\delta<t$ is the length of the interval we sample. Figure \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\] shows an example of two tissues evolving over time with different cell turnover rates of $\gamma = 0.1$ and $\gamma= 1$ respectively. Figure \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\_sub\] shows the instantaneous (blue) and average (red) proportion of patterning throughout the tissue. We observe that the cell turnover rate, $\gamma$ influences the proportion of patterning within the tissue. Specifically larger levels of cell turnover result in less patterning (differentiation).
[.08]{}
[.20]{} ![ \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\] Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma =0.1$ divisions per hour per cell (see SI Movie 6 for a video of the simulation). Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 1$ division per hour per cell (see SI Movie 7 for a video of the simulation). Figure shows the corresponding evolution of the patterning for both $\gamma= 0.1$ (top) and $\gamma= 1$ (bottom), on a tissue size of $L_{x} = 12$cd and $L_y=6\sqrt{3}$cd.. The blue lines show the instantaneous patterning, while the red shows the moving average.](torus_evo_01_t0.png "fig:"){width="0.1175\textheight"}
[.20]{} ![ \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\] Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma =0.1$ divisions per hour per cell (see SI Movie 6 for a video of the simulation). Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 1$ division per hour per cell (see SI Movie 7 for a video of the simulation). Figure shows the corresponding evolution of the patterning for both $\gamma= 0.1$ (top) and $\gamma= 1$ (bottom), on a tissue size of $L_{x} = 12$cd and $L_y=6\sqrt{3}$cd.. The blue lines show the instantaneous patterning, while the red shows the moving average.](torus_evo_01_t40.png "fig:"){width="0.125\textheight"}
[.20]{} ![ \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\] Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma =0.1$ divisions per hour per cell (see SI Movie 6 for a video of the simulation). Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 1$ division per hour per cell (see SI Movie 7 for a video of the simulation). Figure shows the corresponding evolution of the patterning for both $\gamma= 0.1$ (top) and $\gamma= 1$ (bottom), on a tissue size of $L_{x} = 12$cd and $L_y=6\sqrt{3}$cd.. The blue lines show the instantaneous patterning, while the red shows the moving average.](torus_evo_01_t80.png "fig:"){width="0.125\textheight"}
[.20]{} ![ \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\] Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma =0.1$ divisions per hour per cell (see SI Movie 6 for a video of the simulation). Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 1$ division per hour per cell (see SI Movie 7 for a video of the simulation). Figure shows the corresponding evolution of the patterning for both $\gamma= 0.1$ (top) and $\gamma= 1$ (bottom), on a tissue size of $L_{x} = 12$cd and $L_y=6\sqrt{3}$cd.. The blue lines show the instantaneous patterning, while the red shows the moving average.](torus_evo_01_t120.png "fig:"){width="0.125\textheight"}
[.08]{} ![ \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\] Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma =0.1$ divisions per hour per cell (see SI Movie 6 for a video of the simulation). Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 1$ division per hour per cell (see SI Movie 7 for a video of the simulation). Figure shows the corresponding evolution of the patterning for both $\gamma= 0.1$ (top) and $\gamma= 1$ (bottom), on a tissue size of $L_{x} = 12$cd and $L_y=6\sqrt{3}$cd.. The blue lines show the instantaneous patterning, while the red shows the moving average.](cbar_f.png "fig:"){height="0.15\textheight"}
\
[.08]{}
[0.91]{} **Patterning of Tissue with Time** ![ \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\] Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma =0.1$ divisions per hour per cell (see SI Movie 6 for a video of the simulation). Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 1$ division per hour per cell (see SI Movie 7 for a video of the simulation). Figure shows the corresponding evolution of the patterning for both $\gamma= 0.1$ (top) and $\gamma= 1$ (bottom), on a tissue size of $L_{x} = 12$cd and $L_y=6\sqrt{3}$cd.. The blue lines show the instantaneous patterning, while the red shows the moving average.](torus_evo.png "fig:"){width="98.00000%"}
\
[.08]{}
[.2]{} ![ \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\] Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma =0.1$ divisions per hour per cell (see SI Movie 6 for a video of the simulation). Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 1$ division per hour per cell (see SI Movie 7 for a video of the simulation). Figure shows the corresponding evolution of the patterning for both $\gamma= 0.1$ (top) and $\gamma= 1$ (bottom), on a tissue size of $L_{x} = 12$cd and $L_y=6\sqrt{3}$cd.. The blue lines show the instantaneous patterning, while the red shows the moving average.](torus_evo_1_t0.png "fig:"){width="0.1175\textheight"}
[.2]{} ![ \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\] Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma =0.1$ divisions per hour per cell (see SI Movie 6 for a video of the simulation). Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 1$ division per hour per cell (see SI Movie 7 for a video of the simulation). Figure shows the corresponding evolution of the patterning for both $\gamma= 0.1$ (top) and $\gamma= 1$ (bottom), on a tissue size of $L_{x} = 12$cd and $L_y=6\sqrt{3}$cd.. The blue lines show the instantaneous patterning, while the red shows the moving average.](torus_evo_1_t40.png "fig:"){width="0.125\textheight"}
[.2]{} ![ \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\] Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma =0.1$ divisions per hour per cell (see SI Movie 6 for a video of the simulation). Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 1$ division per hour per cell (see SI Movie 7 for a video of the simulation). Figure shows the corresponding evolution of the patterning for both $\gamma= 0.1$ (top) and $\gamma= 1$ (bottom), on a tissue size of $L_{x} = 12$cd and $L_y=6\sqrt{3}$cd.. The blue lines show the instantaneous patterning, while the red shows the moving average.](torus_evo_1_t80.png "fig:"){width="0.125\textheight"}
[.2]{} ![ \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\] Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma =0.1$ divisions per hour per cell (see SI Movie 6 for a video of the simulation). Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 1$ division per hour per cell (see SI Movie 7 for a video of the simulation). Figure shows the corresponding evolution of the patterning for both $\gamma= 0.1$ (top) and $\gamma= 1$ (bottom), on a tissue size of $L_{x} = 12$cd and $L_y=6\sqrt{3}$cd.. The blue lines show the instantaneous patterning, while the red shows the moving average.](torus_evo_1_t120.png "fig:"){width="0.125\textheight"}
[.08]{} ![ \[fig:torus\_patterning\_evo\] Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma =0.1$ divisions per hour per cell (see SI Movie 6 for a video of the simulation). Figures - show a typical *in silico* experiment of a toroidal tissue, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 1$ division per hour per cell (see SI Movie 7 for a video of the simulation). Figure shows the corresponding evolution of the patterning for both $\gamma= 0.1$ (top) and $\gamma= 1$ (bottom), on a tissue size of $L_{x} = 12$cd and $L_y=6\sqrt{3}$cd.. The blue lines show the instantaneous patterning, while the red shows the moving average.](cbar_f.png "fig:"){height="0.15\textheight"}
To Further investigate the influence of the cell turnover rate on tissue patterning, we performed multiple *in silico* experiments, with varying cell turnover rates of $\gamma \in \left[10^{\, -3} , 10^{\, 1}\right]$, results are shown in Figure \[fig:Torus\_prol\], on a tissue size of $L_{x} = 12$cd and $L_y=6\sqrt{3}$cd. As the cell turnover rate, $\gamma$, is increased the Delta-Notch patterning is inhibited and cell differentiation suffers as a result. This is because as $\gamma$ increases, the neighbouring cells any given cell interacts with changes more rapidly, preventing the cell from achieving chemical equilibrium, which results in undifferentiated cells and hence inhibited Notch patterning. Specifically, as we increase the cell turnover rate from $\gamma = 10^{\, -3}$, to $\gamma = 0.1$, the tissue remains in a patterned state. Increasing the cell turnover rate from $\gamma = 0.1$ to $\gamma = 2$, the tissue transitions from being in a patterned state to a homogeneous state, exhibiting no distinct cell fates. Further increases in $\gamma$ simply results in the homogeneous state.
**Effects of Cell Turnover Rate on Patterning**
Discussion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Throughout this paper, we have presented a mathematical model for cell fate selection on a dynamic tissue. We couple the model of cell signalling via contact inhibition of @collier1996pattern [@collier1996pattern], with the model of cell dynamics of @meineke2001cell [@meineke2001cell].
On static tissues, we extended the work of @collier1996pattern [@collier1996pattern] to observe that both the tissue geometry, and initial Delta-Notch conditions govern the steady state distribution within the tissue. Specifically, we see that both can disrupt regular patterning, and even inhibit patterning altogether. We further observed that the affinity constants, $a$ (affinity for Delta ligands to bind to Notch receptors) and $b$ (affinity for Delta expression) completely govern Notch patterning on appropriate domains. Through an exploration of the parameter space, we determined the critical thresholds, $a_{\text{crit}}$ and $b_{\text{crit}}$ which permit Notch patterning. These results suggest that when the Delta-Notch binding event does not occur readily, then cells do not become differentiated and cell fate selection does not occur. Similar results occur when Delta ligands are not readily produced.
Moreover, by observing a rotational symmetry of the steady state Notch patterning, we were able to deduce a reduced system of ordinary differential equations which is capable of capturing the steady state behaviour of the system, while significantly reducing the computational complexity in comparison to the full multicellular system. We were then able to find an algebraic expression relating the bifurcation parameters $a_{\text{crit}}$ and $b_{\text{crit}}$.\
Lastly, we looked at how cell turnover rate affects Notch patterning within dynamic tissues. We found that a fast cell turnover rate inhibits Notch patterning, resulting in a homogeneous tissue. For cell turnover rates ranging from $\gamma = 0.1$ divisions per hour, to $\gamma = 2$ divisions per hour, the tissue transitions from being almost fully patterned to a homogeneous tissue, with no distinct Notch patterning. These results suggest that the cell turnover rate plays a crucial role in maintaining healthy tissues, with higher uncontrolled cell turnover rates leading to a malignant, unhealthy epithelium.\
Future avenues of study include an analysis of how realistic tissue geometries, such as those of the colonic crypt, behave. Specifically, within the crypts, it is known that the level of Wnt signalling a cell receives governs cell proliferation within the crypt [@gregorieff2005wnt]. It is further known that Wnt signalling is known to be greatest at the base of the crypt, and decreases up the crypt axis [@gregorieff2005wnt]. One possible way to model this phenomenon in 2D would be to consider a cylindrical geometry, with a section near the base which is allowed to proliferate and cell sloughing near the top, similar to those presented in [@osborne2010hybrid; @vanLeeuwen2009cell]. This geometry could then determine how cell differentiation evolves as cells migrate towards the top of the crypt There is also a known cross-talk between the Notch and the Wnt pathways within the cell [@kay2017role]. Including these dynamics would further allow us to obtain full, realistic model of cellular signalling. Finally, the above model naturally resides on a 2D tissue. However, the development and dynamics of real biological systems is rarely captured with 2D projections, but rather reside as 2D surfaces in 3D space. Thus the development of a 3D model which is capable of describing realistic tissue deformations is needed [@dunn2013computational].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship (awarded to DPJG).
Supplementary Information {#supplementary-information .unnumbered}
=========================
: [Video of simulation from Figures \[fig:pat\_hom\] and \[fig:notch\_hom\], which shows how homogeneous Notch initial conditions lead to a homogeneous tissue.\
`SI_Movie_1.mp4`]{}
: [Video of simulation from Figures \[fig:pat\_9b8\] and \[fig:notch\_9b8\], which shows how a perturbation away from homogeneous Notch initial conditions lead to a patterned tissue. This also shows how the patterning radially propagates from the perturbed cell.\
`SI_Movie_2.mp4`]{}
: [Video of simulation from Figures \[fig:pat\_rand\_p\] and \[fig:notch\_rand\_p\], which shows random initial Notch conditions may lead to a patterned tissue.\
`SI_Movie_3.mp4`]{}
: [Video of simulation from Figures \[fig:pat\_rand\_p\] and \[fig:notch\_rand\_p\], which shows random initial Notch conditions may lead to only a partially a patterned tissue. This shows how Notch patterning is sensitive to initial conditions.\
`SI_Movie_4.mp4`]{}
: [Video of simulation from Figures \[fig:pat\_rand\_p\] and \[fig:notch\_rand\_p\], which shows how the tissue size effects the final patterned tissue. Here, the tissue size is not suitable, resulting in a mismatch in patterning as the patterning propagation meets up with itself, due to periodicity.\
`SI_Movie_5.mp4`]{}
: [Video of simulation from Figures \[fig:torus\_evo\_01\_t0\] – \[fig:torus\_evo\_01\_t120\], which shows a dynamic tissue evolving over time, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 0.1$, from times $t=0$hrs to $t=20$hrs. Here, we can see that the tissue reaches mostly patterned state.\
`SI_Movie_6.mp4`]{}
: [Video of simulation from Figures \[fig:torus\_evo\_1\_t0\] – \[fig:torus\_evo\_1\_t120\], which shows a dynamic tissue evolving over time, with a cell turnover rate of $\gamma = 1$, from times $t=0$hrs to $t=20$hrs. Here, we can see that the tissue reaches a partially patterned state, as the cell do not sufficiently inhibit their neighbours.\
`SI_Movie_7.mp4`]{}
[^1]: similar results can be obtained by sampling from a Gamma distribution of $ T \sim \mathbf{ \Gamma}\left( 48, 48 \gamma \right)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a Fourier-based approach for optimization of several clustering algorithms. Mathematically, clusters data can be described by a density function represented by the Dirac mixture distribution. The density function can be smoothed by applying the Fourier transform and a Gaussian filter. The determination of the optimal standard deviation of the Gaussian filter will be accomplished by the use of a convergence criterion related to the correlation between the smoothed and the original density functions. In principle, the optimal smoothed density function exhibits local maxima, which correspond to the cluster centroids. Thus, the complex task of finding the centroids of the clusters is simplified by the detection of the peaks of the smoothed density function. A multiple sliding windows procedure is used to detect the peaks. The remarkable accuracy of the proposed algorithm demonstrates its capability as a reliable general method for enhancement of the clustering performance, its global optimization and also removing the initialization problem in many clustering methods.'
author:
- |
Soheil Mehrabkhani\
\
`[email protected]`\
title: |
Fourier Transform Approach to\
Machine Learning II: Fourier Clustering\
---
0.5in
Introduction
============
The performance of several successful wide-spread clustering algorithms like K-Means \[1-3\] and Gaussian mixture method \[1-3\] depends on the assumption of the number of clusters and the position of their centroids. The a priori information of the number of clusters is a fundamental assumption for many clustering methods and without such information, the clustering computational complexity increases. Furthermore, the well-known initialization problem affects the performance and the global optimization of some clustering methods \[2\].\
The challenging task of the acquisition of a priori information can be converted to the much simpler task of peak detection if we use the concept of the density function described by the Dirac mixture distribution applied in \[4-10\] together with the computational power and flexibility of the function smoothing by the Fourier transform (FT) \[11\]. The description of the clustering data set by a density function is a powerful tool, which provides us with a mathematically more accessible formulation of the data set.\
Recently, we developed a Fourier-based algorithm, which works very well as a smoothing approach for supervised learning \[12\]. In this work, the idea of applying the Fourier transform for model training and smoothing the corresponding function will be applied to the density function represented by the Dirac mixture distribution to train a model describing the cluster data. However, there are essential differences between the supervised and the unsupervised approaches because, in our unsupervised algorithm, we do not have any known response, which would use as training data. Thus, we use a different approach based on the convolution convergence between the original and the smoothed density function to determine the optimal model. In the next section, we explain in-depth the mathematical formulation of the problem and how the algorithm works.
0.1in
Clustering Optimization by a Fourier-based Algorithm {#sec:headings}
=====================================================
Consider a data set $\{(x_i,y_i): i=1,2,...,N\}$ with $N$ distinct data points and two predictor variables $x$, $y$. Mathematically, we can define a corresponding density function by the Dirac mixture Distribution as follows:
$$\ \rho(x,y)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta(x-x_i,y-y_i),$$
where $\delta(x-x_i,y-y_i)$ is the Dirac delta function \[13\] located at the point $(x_i,y_i)$ and $\rho(x,y)$ is the density function, which contents the complete available information (positions) of the sampled data set. The meaning of the density function can be easily understood if we integrate it over an arbitrary space subset $\Omega \in \rm I\!R^2$ ($\rm I\!R$ the set of real numbers) as follows:
$$\ \iint \limits_{\Omega}dxdy\rho(x,y)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\iint \limits_{\Omega}dxdy\delta(x-x_i,y-y_i)=N_{\Omega},$$
where $N_{\Omega}$ is the number of the data points included in the ${\Omega}$. The density function $\rho(x,y)$ results from $N$ sampled data points, thus it is just a rough estimate of the original density function. Basically, the smoothness constraint must be imposed on the $\rho(x,y)$, which is valid in many real-world problems. Consequently, the spectrum of the $\rho(x,y)$ should be filtered by a Gaussian filter \[14\]. The spectrum of the density function is the result of applying the Fourier transform (FT) on the $\rho(x,y)$: $$\ \tilde{\rho}(f_x,f_y)=\mathcal{F}\{{\rho}(x,y)\}=\iint \limits_{x,y=-L/2}^{x,y=+L/2}dxdy\rho(x,y)e^{-2\pi i(x f_x+y f_y)},$$
where $\mathcal{F}$ is the FT operator and $(f_x,f_y)$ is the frequency pair. The $L$ is the width of the spatial space enclosing the sampled data set ${(x_i,y_i)}$. Multiplying the spectrum of the density function $\tilde{\rho}(f_x,f_y)$ by a Gaussian distribution with the standard deviation $\tilde{\sigma}$ results in the spectrum of the smoothed density function $\tilde{\rho}_s(f_x,f_y)$: $$\ \tilde{\rho}_s(f_x,f_y)=\tilde{\rho}(f_x,f_y) \frac{1}{2\pi \tilde{\sigma}^2}e^{- (f_x^2+f_y^2)/2 \tilde{\sigma}^2}.$$ The smoothed density function ${\rho}_s$ is calculated by applying inverse FT (IFT) on Eq. (4): $$\ {\rho}_s(x,y)=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\{\tilde{\rho}_(f_x,f_y) \frac{1}{2\pi \tilde{\sigma}^2}e^{- (f_x^2+f_y^2)/2 \tilde{\sigma}^2}\},$$ where $\mathcal{F}^{-1}$ is the IFT operator. Equation (5) can be converted to an equivalent equation in the spatial space by the use of the convolution theorem \[15\]: $$\ {\rho}_s(x,y)={\rho}(x,y)*e^{-2\pi^2 \tilde{\sigma}^2(x^2+y^2)},$$
where $*$ is the convolution operator. As can be seen in Eq. (6), the IFT of the Gaussian distribution is again a Gaussian function with a standard deviation $\sigma=1/(2\pi \tilde{\sigma})$. In principle, the convolution of the density function with the Gaussian function is responsible for the desired smoothness. From plugging Eq. (1) in Eq. (6) and considering the definition of the Dirac Delta function follows:\
$$\ {\rho}_s(x,y)=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta(x-x_i,y-y_i)*e^{-2\pi^2 \tilde{\sigma}^2(x^2+y^2)}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}e^{-2\pi^2 \tilde{\sigma}^2[(x-x_i)^2+(y-y_i)^2]},$$
which shows, that basically, the smoothed density function is a summation of $N$ Gaussian functions (with the standard deviation $\sigma$) placed at the $N$ data points $(x_i,y_i)$. However, Eq. (7) computationally is very inefficient, thus, in the algorithm, the $\rho_s(x,y)$ will be obtained by the use of FT and IFT in Eqs. (3) and (5), which are much more efficient:
$$\ {\rho}_s(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi \tilde{\sigma}^2}\mathcal{F}^{-1}\{\mathcal{F}\{\sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta(x-x_i,y-y_i)\} e^{- (f_x^2+f_y^2)/2 \tilde{\sigma}^2}\},$$
The Equation (8) is our estimate to the original density function corresponding to the total data. The standard deviation $\tilde{\sigma}$ is the most significant unknown parameter, which still must be found by the algorithm. Due to the applying the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) \[16\] in the algorithm, the minimum spacing in the frequency space $df$ is $1/L$, thus, it is also used as the minimum value of the standard deviation in the frequency space. Consequently, the start value for the $\tilde{\sigma}$ is $1/L$ and its value in the $n$-th iteration is defined as follows: $$\ \tilde{\sigma}_n=\frac{n}{L}.$$
The algorithm should find the best $\tilde{\sigma}_n$ value for the optimal model. Clearly, for very low values of the $\tilde{\sigma}_n$, the number of significant frequencies contributing to the density function would be too low, thus the density function could not represent the significant variations in the sampled data, which are responsible for resolving the clusters. In such cases, some or all clusters would merge together and create bigger clusters or one single cluster. In other words, the corresponding model would be too simple and underfit. In contrast, overfitting the model could happen if it includes too high frequencies, which are basically responsible for extreme fine variations in the data distribution. However, resolving the too fine structures is not desirable because the clusters would split into insignificant tiny sub-clusters, which actually should belong to one single unified cluster. To determine the best $\tilde{\sigma}_n$, the corresponding model will be evaluated by the correlation value between the ${\rho}(x,y)$ and ${\rho}_s(x,y)$. However, as may be expected, it increases monotonically with $\tilde{\sigma}_n$. But if we consider its changes, the influence of the underfitting and overfitting may compensate for a $\tilde{\sigma}_n$. Thus, the algorithm stops where the difference in the correlation in two successive iterations reaches the minimum value of $\epsilon$: $$\mid corr(\rho_s,\rho_s^{(n)})-corr(\rho_s,\rho_s^{(n-1)})\mid< \epsilon.$$ Inequality (10) is the convergence criterion for the algorithm and the $\epsilon$ is the convergence parameter, which practically is highly independent of the data sets and it can be fixed and for the most applications set to the value 0.01.\
The FT and IFT in Eq. (8) will be accomplished by the use of a fast Fourier transform (FFT) \[17\], which is a fast algorithm for implementation of the DFT. The standard DFT requires a uniform sampled data, however, in general, the given sampled data points $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$ are randomly distributed. Therefore, they must be mapped to an equidistant mesh. Consider the sets of both predictor values $\{x_i\}$ and $\{y_i\}$, which are sorted in ascending order. The distance between $i$-th and $(i+1)$-th successive points in each set can be easily calculated: $$dx_i=x_{i+1}-x_i \quad , \quad dy_i=y_{i+1}-y_i.$$ Now we take the $M$ ($<1M<N$) first data points and define the minimum of the mean values corresponding to each predictor as the spatial spacing of both predictors for the equidistant mesh: $$dx=dy=min(\frac{1}{M} \sum_{i=1}^{M}dx_i,\frac{1}{M} \sum_{i=1}^{M}dy_i).$$
The reason for the condition $1<M<N$ is the fact that the spacing must theoretically be sufficiently small to prevent deviations between the original predictor values and their new values caused by the mapping to the equidistant mesh. However, too small values of the spacing increase the number of the mesh points and consequently increase the computational complexity of the FFT. In many cases, an appropriate value for $M$ is about $5\%$ of the $N$. Now, each data point $\{(x_i,y_i)\}$ will be mapped to the nearest mesh point. In principle, it is probable, that some data points have to be mapped to the same mesh point. The mesh points actually are the centers of the pixels with the area $dxdy$ and each pixel represents one single data point like a data point in the continuous space. Thus, for each mesh point, only one of the data points will be considered. It must be mentioned, that the Dirac delta function in the discrete form will be converted to the Kronecker delta function \[16\]. Consequently, the density value for pixels including a data point will be one and for other points is zero.\
In principle, the locations of the local maximum points of the calculated smoothed density function ${\rho}_s(x,y)$ are the estimates for the desired cluster positions. To find the local maxima points, the space with the width and length $L$ will be segmented into tiny squares. If the segments are enough small that there is solely one maximum point inside them, the maximum point can be easily found by comparing the values of the ${\rho}_s(x,y)$ in each segment. If the maxima points do not lie on the boundary they are local maxima and their locations must be saved. To minimize the computational complexity, it is required to minimize the number of segments, which means maximizing the size of the segments. The maximum size of the segments can be estimated by the fact that there is a lower limit for the distance between the local maxima. As shown in Eq. (7), the ${\rho}_s(x,y)$ is composed of many Gaussian functions. Basically two Gaussian functions will merge together if the distance between their maxima is smaller than a critical distance and their superposition will have a single maximum. It can be easily shown, that the critical distance for two identical Gaussian functions with the same standard deviation $\sigma$ is equal to the $2 \sigma$. We want to use this value as an estimate for the minimum distance between the local maxima of the smoothed density function and consequently the minimum required width $w_c$ of the sliding windows is: $$\ w_c= 2 \sigma_n= \frac{1}{\pi \tilde{\sigma}_n}.$$
In principle, some of the local maxima can be on the edges of the sliding windows. To find such points, the sliding windows with three different widths can be applied so that no local maximum point can lie at the same time on the edges of all three window groups. One choice for three window sizes $w_1$, $w_2$ and $w_3$ is: $$\ w_1 m=w_2(m+1)=w_3(m+2) , \quad w_1,w_2,w_3 \leq w_c,$$
The smoothing procedure can cause some invalid local maxima, which typically exhibit very small density values. To exclude such points, too small values of the ${\rho}_s(x,y)$ will be set to zero before the sliding process starts. A reliable estimate of the allowed minimum density value for the local maxima is $0.1$. This parameter will be sufficiently independent of the data if the ${\rho}_s(x,y)$ is shifted so that its minimum is set to zero and it is normalized.
Results
=======
The proposed algorithm is applied to the data set presented in Fig. 1. Both predictors $x$ and $y$ are normalized. The data is composed of 6 clusters generated by 2-dimensional asymmetric Gaussian distributions with different standard deviations and different numbers of the cluster data points.
![The data set is composed of 6 different clusters related to two normalized predictors $x$ and $y$.[]{data-label="fig:soheil3"}](clusters){width="7cm"}
Table 1 shows the coordinates $(\mu_x,\mu_y)$ of the cluster centroids, which have to be found by the use of the algorithm.
1 2 3 4 5 6
--------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
$\mu_x$ 0.26 0.22 0.80 0.62 0.44 0.75
$\mu_y$ 0.27 0.73 0.71 0.42 0.60 0.23
: Original coordinates of the centroids
\[tab:table\]
Figure 2 shows the data set mapped to the equidistant mesh with the computed spacing for the spatial space $dx=dy=0.0033$ and pixel number $N_x=N_y=303$. The total number of the data points related to all clusters is $N_{clsuter}=3350$ and after mapping $154$ data points are removed.
![The data set mapped to the equidistant mesh[]{data-label="fig:soheil1"}](mapped_data){width="8cm"}
The computed smoothed density function after removing the invalid local maxima with the parameter 0.1 is shown in Fig. (3). The algorithm satisfied the convergence criterion (Inequality (10)) after only $4$ iterations with the convergence parameter $\epsilon=0.01$.
![Smoothed density function[]{data-label="fig:soheil2"}](smoothed_density_function){width="8cm"}
The sliding windows with three different sizes $w_1=0.077, w_2=0.071, w_3=0.067 $ have been applied to localize the local maxima. As presented in Table 2, exactly $6$ local maxima are found and their computed locations remarkably conform to the original values shown in Table 1. To evaluate the algorithm performance and its accuracy in the finding the cluster centroids, the root-mean-square error (RMSE) \[18\] between the values in Table 1 and 2 is calculated. The RMSE value is only $0.012$, which demonstrates the reliability of the proposed algorithm.\
\
\
\
1 2 3 4 5 6
--------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
$\mu_x$ 0.28 0.21 0.79 0.62 0.44 0.75
$\mu_y$ 0.27 0.71 0.70 0.44 0.59 0.24
: Computed coordinates of the centroids
\[tab:table\]
Conclusion
==========
We presented a Fourier-based algorithm for finding the number and locations of clusters. The algorithm can be used as a pre-processing step in the K-Means and Gaussian mixture method and in general for each clustering algorithm, which requires a priori information concerning the number of clusters or initialization of cluster centroids. The algorithm converges very fast and it accurately computes the position and number of the clusters. By the use of the developed method, the typical initialization problem in the K-Means method can be solved. Because of the use of a fast Fourier algorithm, the computational complexity of the algorithm is very low. The only used parameters in the algorithm are convergence criterion, the parameter for excluding the invalid local maxima and the parameter, which is used to determine the minimum spacing in the spatial space. However, practically both first parameters are insensitive to the data and with very high reliability both parameters can be fixed to the proposed values. The parameter related to the mesh generation is fundamentally not inevitable but it can easily set to the minimum calculated spacing of both predictors. In other words, it is only required to reduce computational time, however, the proposed value of $5\%$ can be used without any significant dependence on the data sets. Without loss of generality, three parameters can be considered as rather invariant parameters. This unique property reasonably protects the algorithm against fatal errors related to the parameter choice. To our view, the accuracy and overall feasibility of the algorithm demonstrate that it can be applied in clustering problems for finding the number of clusters and as a powerful general solution for initialization issue in clustering algorithms.
[1]{}
T. Hastie and R. Tibshirani and J. Friedman. Springer press, 2th Edition 2008.
C. M. Bishop. Springer, 2006.
M. Sugiyama. Elsevier, 2014.
I. Gilitschenski, J. Steinbring, U. D. Hanebeck, and M. Simandl. Deterministic Dirac Mixture Approximation of Gaussian Mixtures. In [*Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion 2014)*]{}, Salamanca, Spain, 2014.
O. C. Schrempf, D. Brunn, and U. D. Hanebeck. Density Approximation Based on Dirac Mixtures with Regard to Nonlinear Estimation and Filtering. In [*Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC 2006)*]{}, San Diego, California, Dec. 2006.
O. C. Schrempf, D. Brunn, and U. D. Hanebeck. Dirac Mixture Density Approximation Based on Minimization of the Weighted Cramer-von Mises Distance. In [*Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI 2006)*]{}, Heidelberg, Germany, pages 369-394, Sep. 2006.
O. C. Schrempf and U. D. Hanebeck. Recursive Prediction of Stochastic Nonlinear Systems Based on Dirac Mixture Approximations. In [*Proceedings of the 2007 American Control Conference (ACC 2007)*]{}, New York, New York, pages 1768–1774, July 2007.
I. Gilitschenski and U. D. Hanebeck. Efficient deterministic dirac mixture approximation. In [*Proceedings of the 2013 American Control Conference (ACC 2013)*]{}, Washington D. C., USA, June 2013.
U. D. Hanebeck and O. C. Schrempf. Greedy Algorithms for Dirac Mixture Approximation of Arbitrary Probability Density Functions. In [*Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC 2007)*]{}, pages 3065–3071, New Orleans, Louisiana, Dec. 2007.
U. D. Hanebeck, M. F. Huber, and V. Klumpp. Dirac mixture approximation of multivariate gaussian densities. In [*Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC 2009)*]{}, Shanghai, China, December 2009.
R. N. Bracewell. McGraw-Hill, 3th Edition, 2000
S. Mehrabkhani. Fourier Transform Approach to Machine Learning. In [*arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.00368*]{}, 2019.
D. W. Kammler Cambridge University Press, 2007.
E. Davies Academic Press, Elsevier, 2012.
R. J. Marks II. Baylor University, 2006
I. Amidror. Springer, 2013
E. Brigham. Pearson, 1988
P. Dangeti. Packt Publishing, 2017
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study an $SU(3)^2$ axigluon model introduced by Frampton, Shu, and Wang to explain the recent Fermilab Tevatron observation of a significant positive enhancement in the top quark forward-backward asymmetry relative to standard model predictions. First, we demonstrate that data on neutral $B_d$-meson mixing excludes the region of model parameter space where the top asymmetry is predicted to be the largest. Keeping the gauge couplings below the critical value that would lead to fermion condensation imposes further limits at large axigluon mass, while precision electroweak constraints on the model are relatively mild. Furthermore, by considering an extension to an $SU(3)^3$ color group, we demonstrate that embedding the model in an extra-dimensional framework can only dilute the axigluon effect on the forward-backward asymmetry. We conclude that axigluon models are unlikely to be the source of the observed top quark asymmetry.'
author:
- 'R. Sekhar Chivukula'
- 'Elizabeth H. Simmons'
- 'C.-P. Yuan'
title: 'Axigluons cannot explain the observed top quark forward-backward asymmetry'
---
Introduction
============
Recent measurements of the forward-backward asymmetry ($A^t_{FB}$) in top quark pair production at the Fermilab Tevatron have shown a significant positive deviation from the small value predicted in the standard model. The value reported by CDF, based on $3.2 fb^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, is [@CDFvalue] $$A^t_{FB} = 0.193 \pm 0.065 {\rm(stat)} \pm 0.024 {\rm (syst)}\,.$$ This is consistent with previous measurements from D0 [@:2007qb] and CDF [@Aaltonen:2008hc], and is noticeably (about $2\sigma$) larger than the value of $A^t_{FB} = 0.051$ given by NLO QCD calculations [@Antunano:2007da; @Bowen:2005ap; @Kuhn:1998kw; @Kuhn:1998jr; @Almeida:2008ug]. A subsequent measurement by CDF with 5.3 $fb^{-1}$ continues to report an approximately $2\sigma$ deviation from QCD at NLO [@ICHEP2010].
Numerous models have been proposed to explain this discrepancy [@Sehgal:1987wi; @Choudhury:2007ux; @Djouadi:2009nb; @Martynov:2009en; @Jung:2009jz; @Cheung:2009ch; @Shu:2009xf; @Arhrib:2009hu; @Ferrario:2009ee; @Dorsner:2009mq; @Jung:2009pi; @Cao:2009uz; @Barger:2010mw; @Cao:2010zb; @Xiao:2010hm; @Martynov:2010ed; @Ferrario:2010hm; @Rodrigo:2010gm]. Among them is an intriguing axigluon [@Frampton:1987dn] model, based on an $SU(3) \times SU(3)$ gauge group, proposed by Frampton, Shu, and Wang [@Frampton:2009rk]. They write down a complete low-energy form of the model and suggest that it could conceivably arise from an extra-dimensional theory at higher energies. They calculate the size of the effect on $A^t_{FB}$ and find a region of model parameter space where the model predicts an asymmetry value that is enhanced with respect to the QCD value, though its best level of agreement with the CDF measurement is at the $1\sigma$ level. They also note that an axigluon producing such an effect would be light enough that the value of the asymmetry as a function of invariant top-pair mass would show a characteristic rise below and fall above the axigluon mass.
We explore the phenomenology of this model and find some significant constraints on the allowed values of the axigluon mass $M_C$ and the mixing angle, $\theta$, between the two strong gauge couplings. First, we find that bounds imposed by data on neutral $B_d$-meson mixing exclude the region of parameter space where the top asymmetry showed the greatest agreement with the data.[^1] Second, requiring the $SU(3)$ gauge couplings to remain below the critical value that would induce fermion condensation implies $\theta > 14^\circ$, which is slightly stronger than the criterion of “perturbativity" adopted by [@Frampton:2009rk]; this would tend to rule out some areas of visible top asymmetry at larger axigluon masses. A similar bound is obtained by requiring the axigluon’s width to be no larger than its mass. Precision electroweak constraints from $\Delta\rho$ and $Z\bar{b}_L b_L$ in this model are relatively mild and do not impact the region of large $A^t_{FB}$. Our results suggest that the axigluon model cannot produce as large an enhancement of $A^t_{FB}$ as previously supposed, while remaining consistent with other data. Moreover, we find that the $A^t_{FB}$ distributions as a function of $M_{t\bar{t}}$-edge do not obviously resemble the CDF data.
In this context, it is useful to consider whether an extension toward an extra dimensional model in the continuum limit would enhance the size of the axigluon effect, for a given axigluon mass. Towards this end, we consider extending the gauge symmetry to $SU(3) \times SU(3) \times SU(3)$. We demonstrate that such an extension, which would be the first step in “un-blocking" or “un-deconstructing" [@ArkaniHamed:2001ca; @Hill:2000mu] the model towards a five-dimensional $SU(3)$ gauge theory, can only [*dilute*]{} the size of the axigluon effect on the top forward-backward asymmetry, regardless of how the quarks are charged under the various $SU(3)$ gauge groups.
We conclude that axigluon models (or their coloron [@Chivukula:1996yr] and topgluon [@Hill:1991at] cousins) are unlikely to be the source of the observed top quark asymmetry.
The Model
=========
Gauge Sector
------------
![Sketch of the color sector of the axigluon model in Moose notation [@Georgi:1985hf], showing the two gauge groups $SU(3)_i$, their associated gauge couplings $h_i$, and the condensate that breaks the color symmetries to their diagonal subgroup.[]{data-label="fig:twosite"}](two-site-moose.eps){width="2.5in"}
We will describe the essential features of the model here; further details are given in [@Frampton:2009rk]. At high energies, the color sector of the model has an $SU(3)_{1} \otimes SU(3)_{2}$ gauge symmetry, with gauge couplings $h_1$ and $h_2$; the electroweak gauge sector is as in the standard model. The extended color group breaks to its diagonal subgroup, which we associate with $SU(3)_{QCD}$, when a Higgs field transforming as a $\left(3,\bar{3}\right)$ acquires a diagonal vev of strength $u$. The color sector of the model is summarized in Fig. \[fig:twosite\] in Moose notation [@Georgi:1985hf]. The mass-squared matrix for the colored gauge-bosons is then $$\frac{u^2}{4}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
h_1^2&-h_1h_2\\
-h_1h_2&h_2^2\\
\end{array}
\right)~.
\label{MassMatrix}$$ Defining $\sin{\theta} \equiv h_1/\sqrt{h_1^2 + h_2^2}$ and $\cos{\theta} \equiv h_2/\sqrt{h_1^2 + h_2^2}$, we obtain for the mass eigenstates $C_\mu^A$ (massive axigluons) and $G_\mu^A$ (massless fields identified with the QCD gluons), the relations $$C^A_{\mu} = - \sin{\theta} \, A^A_{1 \mu} + \cos{\theta} \, A^A_{2 \mu}
\qquad\qquad G^A_{\mu} = \cos{\theta} \, A^A_{1 \mu} + \sin{\theta} \, A^A_{2 \mu} .
\label{MassEigenstates}$$ The mass of the axigluon is $$M_C \,=\,\frac{u}{\sqrt{2}} \sqrt{h_1^2 + h_2^2} ~,
\label{primeMassesC}$$ and the coupling strength of the gluon ($g_S$) is given by $$g_S \equiv \frac{h_1 h_2}{\sqrt{h_1^2+h_2^2}} = h_1\cos\theta = h_2 \sin\theta ~.
\label{eq:gcouplS}$$ The axigluon and gluon couple, respectively, to $$g_S J^\mu_C \equiv g_S (- J^\mu_1 \tan\theta + J^\mu_2 \cot\theta) \qquad\qquad g_S J^\mu_G \equiv g_S (J^\mu_1 + J^\mu_2)\,,$$ where $J^\mu_i$ is the current of quarks charged under color group $SU(3)_i$. At energies below the axigluon mass, axigluon exchange induces the following four-fermion interaction among quarks: $${\cal L}_{FF}^{2} = - \frac{g_S^2}{2 M_C^2} J^\mu_C J_{C\,\mu}\,.$$ Applying Eqs. (\[primeMassesC\]) and (\[eq:gcouplS\]) reveals the alternative, and also useful, form $${\cal L}_{FF}^{2} = - \frac{1}{u^2}(J^\mu_2 - \cos^2\theta J^\mu_G)^2 \, .
\label{eq:Lff2}$$
Quark Charge Assignments
------------------------
Our discussion of fermion charge assignments employs the weak gauge eigenstate fermions. To avoid tree-level flavor-changing neutral currents (FCNC) in the first and second generations, we assume that the $u$, $d$, $c$, and $s$ quarks have the same color charges, and denote them by $q$; FCNC for the third generation are discussed in Section III. Because the model is intended to explain the measured value of $A^t_{FB}$, the quark charge assignments under the color groups must enable the axigluon coupling to the fermions to satisfy $g^t_A g^q_A < 0$, the condition required [@Ferrario:2009bz] to increase $A^t_{FB}$ with respect to the standard model value without significantly altering the invariant top-pair mass.
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}}$ $ SU(3)_1 $ $\ \ \ \ \ SU(3)_2$
-------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------------
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}} $ Pattern 1$\ \ $ $\ \ \ (t,b)_L,\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ q_L, \ \ \ $ $\ \ \ t_R, b_R,\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ q_R\ \ \ $
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}} $ Pattern 2$\ \ $ $\ \ \ q_R\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ (t,b)_L,\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ q_L, \ \ \ $ $\ \ \ t_R, b_R\ \ \ $
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}} $ Pattern 3$\ \ $ $\ \ \ t_R, b_R\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ (t,b)_L,\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ q_L, \ \ \ $ $\ \ \ q_R\ \ \ $
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}} $ Pattern 4$\ \ $ $\ \ \ q_L \ \ \ $ $\ \ \ (t,b)_L,\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ t_R, b_R,\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ q_R\ \ \ $
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}} $ [**Pattern 5**]{}$\ \ $ $\ \ \ $[**q**]{}$_{\bf L}, \ \ \ $ $\ \ \ $[**t**]{}$_{\bf R}$, [**b**]{}$_{\bf R}\ \ \ $ [**(t,b)**]{}$_{\bf L},\ \ \ $ [**q**]{}$_{\bf R}\ \ \ $
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}} $ Pattern 6$\ \ $ $\ \ \ q_L,\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ q_R\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ (t,b)_L,\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ t_R, b_R\ \ \ $
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}} $ Pattern 7$\ \ $ $\ \ \ t_R, b_R,\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ q_R\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ (t,b)_L,\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ q_L \ \ \ $
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}} $ Pattern 8$\ \ $ $\ \ \ q_L, \ \ \ $ $\ \ \ t_R, b_R,\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ q_R\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ (t,b)_L\ \ \ $
: Distinct patterns of possible quark color assignments; all others are equivalent via exchange of the color groups. A quark listed under a given group transforms as a fundamental under that group; if not listed, it is a singlet under that group. Only pattern 5 can lead to an enhancement of $A^t_{FB}$.
\[tab:one\]
Since there are two gauge groups and four sets of SM quarks ($q_L$; $\ q_R$; $\ (t,b)_L$; $\ t_R$, $b_R$) there are only eight distinct patterns for assigning the fermion charges[^2]; all others are equivalent to these via exchange of $SU(3)_1 \leftrightarrow SU(3)_2$. These patterns are shown in Table \[tab:one\].
Any assignment for which the two chirality components $f_L$ and $f_R$ of a fermion $f$ transform under the same $SU(3)$ is vectorial, ensuring that $g^f_A = 0$; this applies to patterns 1-4, 6, and 8, so that none of these assignment schemes is relevant for enhancing $A^t_{FB}$. Flavor-universal coloron models [@Chivukula:1996yr] conform to pattern 1, while topcolor models [@Hill:1991at] fall under pattern 6. While pattern 7 does not yield a purely vectorial coupling for any fermion, it is flavor-universal, so $g^t_A = g^q_A$; this is the traditional axigluon [@Frampton:1987dn] charge assignment. As discussed in [@Sehgal:1987wi; @Choudhury:2007ux; @Antunano:2007da], for the classic axigluon model where $g_1 = g_2$, the value of $A^t_{FB}$ can only be more negative than in the standard model; if $g_1 \neq g_2$, the squared-amplitude from axigluon exchange can generate a modest positive value of $A^t_{FB}$ [@Martynov:2009en; @Martynov:2010ed] but only at the expense of a significant alteration of the invariant top-pair mass [@Ferrario:2009bz]. The only pattern of possible interest is pattern 5; this is one chosen by [@Frampton:2009rk] and the one we investigate here. From the form of the four-fermion interaction (\[eq:Lff2\]) one can see immediately $$g^t_L,\ g^q_R\ \propto\ 1 - \cos^2\theta \qquad\qquad g^t_R,\ g^q_L\ \propto\ - \cos^2\theta \, ,$$ so that $g^t_A g^q_A < 0$ is satisfied. More specifically, one finds that the vector and axial couplings of the axigluon to the fermons are [@Frampton:2009rk]: $$g^t_V = g^q_V = - g_S \cot{2\theta} \qquad\qquad g^t_A = - g^q_A = g_S \csc{2\theta} \, .
\label{eq:couplingss}$$ Spectator fermions will be needed to cancel gauge anomalies, and [@Frampton:2009rk] employs a fourth generation of quarks for this purpose. The Yukawa couplings for the quarks (but not the leptons) will need to be modified because the different quark chiralities are charged under different $SU(3)$ groups. Finally, while the full range of $\theta$ is from $0$ to $90^\circ$, the model’s phenomenology is symmetric under the exchange $\theta \to 90^\circ - \theta$.
Low-energy Phenomenology
========================
The gauge sector of the model includes two more parameters than the standard model gauge sector (a gauge coupling and a vacuum expectation value), so the phenomenology associated with the new physics may be summarized within the $M_C$ v.s. $\theta$ plane. Fig. \[fig:one\] contains such a summary; it starts with a figure from [@Frampton:2009rk] indicating shaded regions of relatively large $A^t_{FB}$ and overlays the new phenomenological bounds we derive in this section (regions above the black curves are allowed). Angle $\theta$ is shown in units of degrees; since the model has a \[$\theta \leftrightarrow 90^\circ - \theta$\] symmetry, only angles up to $45^\circ$ are shown. The shaded regions, calculated in [@Frampton:2009rk], indicate where the predicted value of $A^t_{FB}$ in the axigluon model agrees with data[^3] to within $1\sigma$ (small dark blue region, $\sim 68\%$CL), $1.28\sigma$ (medium green region, $\sim 80\%$CL), or $1.64\sigma$ (large pale pink region $\sim 90\%$CL). We have added curves showing our bounds from $B_d$-meson mixing (solid black curve, 95%CL), $\Delta\rho$ (dotted black curve, 95%CL), and fermion condensation (horizontal black line); the regions above our curves/lines are allowed. Note that our limit from $B_d$-meson mixing excludes the region where $A^t_{FB}$ showed the greatest agreement with the data. The two crosses show the approximate locations of the sample points for the distributions discussed in section III.E.
![Figure originally from [@Frampton:2009rk] showing the $M_C$ v.s. $\theta$ plane, with our new phenomenological bounds overlaid (regions above the black curves are allowed). Angle $\theta$ is shown in units of degrees; since the model has a \[$\theta \leftrightarrow 90^\circ - \theta$\] symmetry, only angles up to $45^\circ$ are shown. The shaded regions, calculated in [@Frampton:2009rk], indicate where the predicted value of $A^t_{FB}$ in the axigluon model agrees with data to within $1\sigma$ (small dark \[blue\] shaded region), $1.28\sigma$ (medium \[green\] shaded region), or $1.64\sigma$ (large pale \[pink\] shaded region). We have added curves showing our bounds from $B_d$-meson mixing (solid black curve, 95% CL), $\Delta\rho$ (dotted black curve, 95%CL), and fermion condensation (horizontal black line); the regions above our curves/lines are allowed. Note that our limit from $B_d$-meson mixing excludes the region where $A^t_{FB}$ showed the greatest agreement with the data . The two crosses show the approximate locations of the sample points for the distributions discussed in section III.E.[]{data-label="fig:one"}](newfigure-plus.eps){width="4in"}
Neutral $B_d$-meson Mixing
--------------------------
The flavor-changing four-fermion interactions induced by axigluon exchange will alter the predicted rate of $B_d$-meson mixing. Since the fermion charge assignments discussed above are for the weak gauge eigenstate fields, which are related to the mass eigenstate fields through the CKM matrix $V_{ij}$, the operator of particular concern in the axigluon model is (adapting the analysis of [@Braam:2007pm]): $$\frac{8 \pi \alpha_s}{3 M_c^2 \sin^2(2\theta)} (V_{td}^* V_{tb})^2 (\bar{b}_L \gamma^\mu d_L) (\bar{b}_L \gamma_\mu d_L)\,.$$ The UTFit Collaboration has derived [@Bona:2007vi] constraints on general $\Delta F = 2$ four-fermion operators that affect neutral meson mixing, including the effects of running from the new physics scale down to the meson scale and interpolating between quark and meson degrees of freedom. For a model like the axigluon model, with tree-level FCNC and a flavor structure like that of the SM, Ref. [@Bona:2007vi] writes the applicable operator as $$\frac{(V_{td}^* V_{tb})^2}{\Lambda^2} (\bar{b}_L \gamma^\mu d_L) (\bar{b}_L \gamma_\mu d_L) \\$$ and they obtain the 95% CL limit $\Lambda > 1.8$ TeV. Since $(8 \pi \alpha_s / 3) \approx 1$, the UTFit bound implies $$M_c \sin(2\theta) > 1.8\ {\rm TeV}$$ at 95%CL which means that the region above the solid black curve in Fig. \[fig:one\] is still allowed. Clearly, this FCNC bound excludes the region where the value of $A^t_{FB}$ predicted by the axigluon model comes closest to agreement with the data.
Fermion Condensation
--------------------
In the model proposed by [@Frampton:2009rk], it is important that the couplings $h_i$ never become strong enough to cause fermions charged under group $SU(3)_i$ to condense. Obtaining $g^t_V = -g^q_A \neq 0$ depends on having the $t_L$ and $t_R$ charged under different $SU(3)$ (so that top will have a non-zero axial coupling) and having $t_L$ and $q_R$ charged under the same $SU(3)$ (yielding the relative minus sign). If the coupling of the $SU(3)$ group under which $t_L$ and $q_R$ are charged became strong, a $\bar{t}_L q_R$ condensate would form, effectively re-defining which right-handed state was part of the massive top quark and removing the prediction of a positive enhancement of $A^t_{FB}$. To avoid this, we must ensure that $h_1$ and $h_2$ each lie below the critical value at which condensation would occur.
At energies well below the mass of the axigluon, the self-consistent dynamical generation of masses for the fermions charged under $SU(3)_2$ occurs, in the Nambu–Jona-Lasinio approximation [@Nambu:1961fr; @Nambu:1961tp], when the gap equation $$m_f = \frac{3 m_f \alpha_s \cot^2\theta }{2\pi} \left[1-\left(\frac{m_f}{M_{C}}\right)^2 \ln{\left(\frac{M^2_{C}}{m_f^2}\right)}\right],
\label{mf}$$ has a solution for $m_f > 0$. Accordingly we expect that condensation will not occur if $\alpha_s \cot^2\theta < 2 \pi / 3$. A more complete analysis including QCD effects via the gauged NJL model [@Appelquist:1988vi; @Yamawaki:1988na; @Kondo:1988qd; @Miransky] yields the slightly stronger condition $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_s\cot^2\theta < \frac{2}{3} \pi - \frac{4}{3} \alpha_S \end{aligned}$$ This implies that one must have $\theta > 14^\circ$ to avoid condensation of the fermions charged under $SU(3)_2$ and, likewise $\theta < 76^\circ$ to avoid condensation of fermions charged under group $SU(3)_1$. These are stronger than the bounds on $\theta$ employed in [@Frampton:2009rk]; as indicated by Fig. \[fig:one\], for axigluon masses $M_c {\stackrel{<}{\sim}}3$ TeV, this bound on $\theta$ excludes some of the parameter space where the model predicts a $1.64\sigma$ agreement with the measured $A^t_{FB}$.
Axigluon Width
--------------
If one assumes, following the authors of [@Frampton:2009rk], that the heavy axigluon decays only to the standard model quarks, then its decay width is (ignoring corrections of order $(m_t / M_C)^2$): $$\Gamma_C = \frac{M_C}{24\pi} \cdot 6 \left[(g^t_V)^2 + (g^t_A)^2\right]$$ where the factor of 6 arises because the magnitude of $g_V$ (or $g_A$) is the same for all quark flavors (see Eq. (\[eq:couplingss\])). Hence, if one requires the axigluon to satisfy $ \Gamma _C/ M_C {\stackrel{<}{\sim}}1$ so that it is clearly a distinct resonance, then $\theta$ is constrained to lie within essentially the same bounds as are required for avoiding fermion condensation ($12^\circ {\stackrel{<}{\sim}}\theta {\stackrel{<}{\sim}}78^\circ$).
Precision Electroweak Constraints
---------------------------------
Exchange of massive axigluons across the top and bottom quark loops in $W$ and $Z$ vacuum polarization diagrams alters the predicted value of $\Delta\rho$. Updating the related limit [@Chivukula:1995dc; @Chivukula:1996yr] on the effect of colorons with recent experimental constraints [@Amsler:2008zzb] on $\Delta\rho$ yields the 95%CL lower bound: $$M_c > \cot\theta * 700\, {\rm GeV}$$ The model parameter space where $A^t_{FB}$ is enhanced meets this constraint, as shown by the fact that it lies above the dotted black curve in Fig. \[fig:one\].
Because the third-generation fermions are treated differently than the light quarks, one should consider whether the $Z\bar{b}_L b_L$ coupling will be affected. However, axigluon exchange across the $Z\bar{b}_L b_L$ vertex leads only to effects proportional to $m_b^2$ (because the resulting triangle diagram has no interior top quarks), and these are negligible.
Asymmetry Distributions
-----------------------
Having determined the region of parameter space that satisfies the phenomenological bounds discussed above, we have generated plots of $A^t_{FB}$ as a function of the invariant top-pair mass $M_{t\bar{t}}$ and as a function of the $M_{t\bar{t}}$ edge distribution. Ref. [@Frampton:2009rk] presented similar plots for a sample point located at the region of greatest predicted asymmetry ($M_C = 1525\, {\rm GeV}; \theta = 27^\circ$). Since that point is excluded by the data on $B_d\bar{B}_d$ mixing, we use two new sample points that lie within the allowed region (at the 90% CL): one at a relatively low mass and high angle ($M_C
= 2000\, {\rm GeV}; \theta = 35^\circ$) and the other at a higher mass and lower angle ($M_C = 2850\, {\rm GeV}; \theta = 20^\circ$) as marked by crosses in Fig. \[fig:one\].
We follow the prescription given in Ref. [@Frampton:2009rk] for calculating various distributions with CTEQ6L parton distribution functions [@Pumplin:2002vw], and both the factorization and renormalization scales are set to be equal to the top quark mass. As in Ref. [@Frampton:2009rk], the top quark mass is set to be 175 GeV and both the quark-antiquark ($q \bar q$) and gluon-gluon ($gg$) scattering processes are considered at the leading order. In the $q \bar q \rightarrow t \bar t$ channel, the complete gauge invariant set of Feynman diagrams, with gluon or axigluon propagator, is included, Since there is no direct triple coupling of $g-g-C$, the $gg \rightarrow t \bar t$ contribution is not modified at the leading order.
Fig. \[fig:mtt\] shows $A^t_{FB}$ as a function of $M_{t\bar{t}}$ for our two sample points. We find that the shape of this distribution is monotonically increasing with invariant mass, unless theta is relatively low. Hence, the distinctive “peaked" shape of this distribution discussed in [@Frampton:2009rk] in relation to their sample point is not a general characteristic of the model in the allowed region. Furthermore, the inclusive forward-backward asymmetry $A^t_{FB}$ is found to be $0.040$ and $0.032$ for $M_C=2000$ and $2850$, respectively. The corresponding forward-backward asymmetry defined in the center-of-mass frame of the $t \bar t$ system, via the polar angle of $t$ relative to the proton beam direction, is $0.055$ and $0.044$, respectively.
![Top-quark forward-backward asymmetry as a function of $M_{t\bar{t}}$ for our two sample points in the region allowed by $B_d$-meson mixing. Left: $M_C = 2000 {\rm GeV}; \theta = 35^\circ$. Right: $M_C = 2850 {\rm GeV}; \theta = 20^\circ$. The peaked structure shown at right occurs only for low values of the mixing angle $\theta$.[]{data-label="fig:mtt"}](fig2_rap_2000_35.eps){width="3.25in"}
Fig. \[fig:mttedge\] shows $A^t_{FB}$ for the top pair events above (or below) a given $M_{t\bar{t}}$ threshold; again, one distribution is shown for each of our sample points. Ref. [@Frampton:2009rk] noted that such an $M_{t\bar{t}}$-edge distribution can be directly compared with the CDF data [@CDF-public]. More precisely, our model curves show the new-physics contribution to $A^t_{FB}$; one can compare this with the difference between the data and the NLO QCD theory curve shown in [@CDF-public]. We see that neither curve in the left-hand plot resembles the difference between data and standard model theory; nor does the “below” curve in the right-hand plot; the “above” curve in the right-hand plot might arguably be consistent with the data within its large error-bars, but is not obviously of the same shape as the difference between data and standard model theory.
![Top-quark forward-backward asymmetry for events above (or below) the shown $M_{t\bar{t}}$ value for our two sample points in the region allowed by $B_d$-meson mixing. Left: $M_C = 2000 {\rm GeV}; \theta = 35^\circ$. Right: $M_C = 2850 {\rm GeV}; \theta = 20^\circ$. Neither of the “below-edge” curves resemble the data [@CDF-public]; nor does the“above-edge” curve at left; the “above-edge” curve at right might arguably be consistent with the data within its large error-bars, but is not obviously of the same shape.[]{data-label="fig:mttedge"}](fig2_rap2_2000_35.eps){width="3.5in"}
Extension To A Larger Color Group
=================================
An $SU(3)^3$ Model
------------------
We now consider whether an extension toward an extra dimensional model in the continuum limit would enhance the size of the axigluon effect on the top asymmetry, for a given axigluon mass. Towards this end, we consider extending the gauge symmetry to $SU(3)^3$. Such an extension would be the first step in “un-blocking" or “un-deconstructing" [@ArkaniHamed:2001ca; @Hill:2000mu] the model towards a a five-dimensional $SU(3)$ gauge theory.
Let us consider an $SU(3)_1 \times SU(3)_2 \times SU(3)_3$ extended color group, as shown in Fig. \[fig:threesite\] with associated gauge couplings $$h_1 = \frac{g_s}{\sin\theta} \qquad\qquad h_2 = \frac{g_s}{\cos\theta\sin\phi} \qquad\qquad h_3 = \frac{g_s}{\cos\theta\cos\phi}\,,$$ and fermion currents $J^\mu_i$. We assume that symmetry breaking now proceeds via the expectation values of two effective Higgs fields in bi-fundamental color representations: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_a {\rm\ transforms\ as\ a\ } (3, \bar{3}, 1) & {\rm and\ its\ vev\ is\ } \langle\Phi_a\rangle = \frac{u}{\cos\omega} \cal{I}\\
\Phi_b {\rm \ transforms\ as\ a\ } (1, 3, \bar{3}) & {\rm and\ its\ vev\ is\ } \langle\Phi_b\rangle = \frac{u}{\sin\omega} \cal{I}\, .\end{aligned}$$ When the fields acquire their vacuum expectations values, $\langle\Phi_a\rangle$ breaks $SU(3)_1\times SU(3)_2$ down to the diagonal subgroup $SU(3)_{1+2}$, while $\langle\Phi_b\rangle$ breaks $SU(3)_2\times SU(3)_3$ down to the diagonal subgroup $SU(3)_{2+3}$; with this pattern, $SU(3)_C \equiv SU(3)_{1+2+3}$ remains unbroken.
![Sketch of the extended axigluon model in Moose notation, showing the three gauge groups $SU(3)_i$, their associated gauge couplings $h_i$, and the two condensates that break pairs of color symmetries to their diagonal subgroups.[]{data-label="fig:threesite"}](three-site-moose.eps){width="3in"}
The mass matrix for the gauge bosons may be written as: $${\cal M}^2= \frac{g_S^2 u^2}{4} \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta \, \cos^2\omega} & -\frac{1}{\sin\theta\cos\theta\sin\phi\,\cos^2\omega} & 0 \\
-\frac{1}{\sin\theta\cos\theta\sin\phi\,\cos^2\omega} & \frac{1}{\cos^2\theta \sin^2\phi\,\cos^2\omega \sin^2\omega} & -\frac{1}{\cos^2\theta \sin\phi \cos\phi\,\sin^2\omega}\\
0 & -\frac{1}{\cos^2\theta \sin\phi \cos\phi\,\sin^2\omega} & \frac{1}{\cos^2\theta \cos^2\phi\,\sin^2\omega}
\end{pmatrix} \, .
\label{eq:mmatr}$$ To analyze this system, it is convenient to change to the basis[^4] $$\begin{aligned}
G^\mu & = \sin \theta A^\mu_1 + \cos\theta\sin\phi A^\mu_2 + \cos\theta A^\mu_3\\
C^\mu_a & = -\cos\theta A^\mu_1 + \sin\theta \sin\phi A^\mu_2 + \sin\theta \cos\phi A^\mu_3\\
C^\mu_b & = -\cos\phi A^\mu_2 + \sin\phi A^\mu_3~,\end{aligned}$$ where $A^\mu_{1,2,3}$ are the gauge bosons of the groups $SU(3)_{1,2,3}$ respectively. This basis is convenient because $G^\mu$ is the massless eigenstate field associated with the unbroken color group $SU(3)_C$, and couples to fermion currents $$g_S J^\mu_G \equiv g_S ( J^\mu_1 + J^\mu_2 + J^\mu_3)\,,$$ just like the gluon. The fields $C^\mu_{a,b}$ couple to the currents $$\begin{aligned}
g_S {J}_a^\mu &= \frac{g_S}{\cos\theta \sin\theta}\left(J^\mu_2+J^\mu_3-\cos^2\theta J^\mu_G\right)\\
g_S {J}^\mu_b &= \frac{g_S}{\cos\theta \cos\phi \sin\phi}\left(\sin^2\phi J^\mu_3-\cos^2\phi J^\mu_2\right)~.\end{aligned}$$ At low energies, exchange of the massive colored bosons gives rise to four-fermion interactions of the form $${\cal L}_{FF}^3 = - \frac{g_S^2}{4} \begin{pmatrix} J^\mu_a\,, & J^\mu_b \end{pmatrix}
\left( {\cal M}^2_{2\times 2} \right)^{-1}
\begin{pmatrix} J^\mu_a\\ J^\mu_b \end{pmatrix} \,,$$ where ${\cal M}^2_{2 \times2} $ is the portion of the mass matrix (\[eq:mmatr\]) restricted to the 2-dimensional space spanned by $C^\mu_{a,b}$, $${\cal M}^2_{2\times 2}=
\frac{u^2 g_S^2 }{4 \cos^2\theta \cos^2\omega}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta} & -\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta} \frac{\cos^\phi}{\sin\phi} \\
-\frac{1}{\sin^2\theta} \frac{\cos^\phi}{\sin\phi} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & (\frac{1}{\cos^2\phi\sin^2\phi}\frac{\cos^2\omega}{\sin^2\omega} + \frac{\cos^2\phi}{\sin^2\phi})
\end{pmatrix}~.$$ After some simplification, the four-fermion interactions emerge in the following streamilined form: $${\cal L}_{FF}^3 = - \frac{\cos^2\omega}{u^2} \left(
J^\mu_2+J^\mu_3-\cos^2\theta J^\mu_G\right)^2 -
\frac{\sin^2\omega}{u^2} \left(
J^\mu_3-\cos^2\phi \cos^2\theta J^\mu_G\right)^2~.
\label{eq:l3ff}$$
Quark Charge Assignments and $A^t_{FB}$
---------------------------------------
Our underlying question is whether the quark charges under the $SU(3)^3$ gauge group can be assigned so as to increase $A^t_{FB}$ relative to the prediction in the $SU(3)^2$ axigluon model. To help us think about this, we should recall that the enhancement arises when the four-fermion operators of Eq. (\[eq:l3ff\]) interfere with the QCD amplitude for top-pair production; only when the four-fermion operators contain terms proportional to $g^t_A g^q_A < 0$ does the predicted value of $A^t_{FB}$ increase.
First, consider the situation where $SU(3)_2$ is fermiophobic. In this case, Eq. (\[eq:l3ff\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{FF}^3 &\rightarrow & - \frac{\cos^2\omega}{u^2} \left(J^\mu_3-\cos^2\theta J^\mu_G\right)^2 -\frac{\sin^2\omega}{u^2} \left(
J^\mu_3-\cos^2\phi \cos^2\theta J^\mu_G\right)^2\\
&=& - \frac{1}{u^2} \left(J^\mu_3-\cos^2\theta J^\mu_G\right)^2 - \frac{2 \sin^2\omega}{u^2} \left(\cos^2\theta\sin^2\phi J^\mu_G \right) \left(J^3_\mu - \cos^2\theta J^\mu_G\right) - \frac{\sin^2\omega}{u^2}\left(\cos^2\theta\sin^2\phi J^\mu_G\right)^2
\label{eq:l3ffrewrite}\end{aligned}$$ Once the four-fermion operators are re-written as in Eq. (\[eq:l3ffrewrite\]), it is clear that the last term is purely vectorial and the middle is of the form $g^f_V g^{f'}$; neither term has the $g^t_A g^q_A$ form required to contribute to $A^t_{FB}$. The first term looks familiar: it is effectively identical to the four-fermion operator in the $SU(3)^2$ model from Eq. (\[eq:Lff2\]). Moreover, if all of the fermions are charged under two color groups, then as argued earlier, the only way to get a non-zero contribution to the asymmetry is to use an equivalent of the “pattern 5" charge assignment, as shown in Table \[tab:two\].
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}}$ $ SU(3)_1 $ $\ \ \ SU(3)_2\ \ \ $ $SU(3)_3$
------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}} $ Pattern 5$^\prime\ \ $ $\ \ \ q_L, \ \ \ t_R, b_R \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ $\ \ (t,b)_L,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ q_R \ \ \ $
: This is the only pattern of quark charge assignments under the color groups that both renders $SU(3)_2$ fermiophobic and yields a non-zero contribution to the top asymmetry. A quark listed under a given group transforms as a fundamental under that group; if not listed, it is a singlet under that group.
\[tab:two\]
We conclude that when the fermions transform only under the “outer" two groups in the linear moose, the effect on $A^t_{FB}$ is precisely as in the axigluon model with only two color groups.
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}}$ $ \ \ \ SU(3)_1\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ SU(3)_2\ \ \ $ $\ \ \ SU(3)_3\ \ \ $
------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}} $ Pattern A$\ \ $ $f_R$ $f_L$
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}} $ Pattern B$\ \ $ $f_L, f_R$
$\phantom{\dfrac{\strut}{\strut}} $ Pattern C$\ \ $ $f_L$ $f_R$
: Patterns of possible quark charge assignments under the color groups for either $q$ or $t$ when $SU(3)_2$ is not fermiophobic. A quark listed under a given group transforms as a fundamental under that group; if not listed, it is a singlet under that group.
\[tab:three\]
Now consider the effect of allowing a fermion to be charged under group $SU(3)_2$. Its chiral partner must be charged under one of the three $SU(3)$ groups, giving rise to three possible patterns as shown in Table \[tab:three\] (exchanging $L \leftrightarrow R$ makes no difference).If one chooses pattern A, note that the second four-fermion operator in ${\cal L}_{FF}^3$ (see Eq. (\[eq:l3ff\])) treats fermions charged under groups 1 and 2 identically and does not include an axial coupling for the fermion; only the first operator can contribute to $A^t_{FB}$, and it has a suppression factor of $\cos^2\omega$ relative to ${\cal L}^2_{FF}$ (see Eq. (\[eq:Lff2\])). If one selects pattern B, the fermion’s couplings are entirely vectorial, $g^f_A = 0$. If one elects pattern C, we have the opposite situation to pattern A: the first operator in ${\cal L}_{FF}^3$ treats fermions charged under groups 2 and 3 the same, so only the second operator, which is suppressed by $\sin^2\omega$ contributes to $A^t_{FB}$. Since the top asymmetry depends on the product on the top and light-quark axial charges, this argument applies equally well for $t$ and $q$. In other words, in the $SU(3)^3$ having any fermion charged under the middle group of the linear moose instead of the outer groups leads to a reduction of $A^t_{FB}$, relative to the $SU(2)^2$ case.
Extending this to an extra-dimensional language, one would say that localizing the quarks on the branes leads to the maximum enhancement of the top asymmetry; allowing fermions to delocalize into the bulk can only reduce the effect. Hence, extending the $SU(3)^2$ model of [@Frampton:2009rk] into an extra-dimensional framework will not increase the predicted value of the top asymmetry.
Conclusions
===========
We have studied the axigluon model proposed by Frampton, Shu, and Wang [@Frampton:2009rk] in response to the experimentally observed enhancement of the forward-backward asymmetry in top quark production. We find that limits from data on $B_d$ mixing exclude the region in axigluon mass vs. gauge mixing parameter space in which the enhancement of $A^t_{FB}$ comes closest to agreement with experiment, and that bounds from the requirement that the gauge couplings be weak enough to prevent fermion condensation rule out a further region of larger axigluon masses. Our results suggest that the axigluon model cannot produce even as large an enhancement of $A^t_{FB}$ as previously supposed and that the $A^t_{FB}$ distributions as a function of $M_{t\bar{t}}$-edge do not obviously resemble the CDF data.
We have seen that the pattern of quark charge assignments chosen by [@Frampton:2009rk] is the only one for which a positive enhancement of $A^t_{FB}$ occurs in an $SU(3)^2$ model; other coloron, axigluon, or topcolor models based on $SU(3)^2$ gauge groups give null or wrong-sign effects. Moreover, we have demonstrated that extending the color sector to $SU(3)^3$, which would be the first step in “un-deconstructing" the model towards a a five-dimensional $SU(3)$ gauge theory, can only [*dilute*]{} the size of the axigluon effect on the top forward-backward asymmetry, regardless of how the quarks are charged under the various $SU(3)$ gauge groups.
We conclude that axigluon models (or their coloron [@Chivukula:1996yr] and topgluon [@Hill:1991at] cousins) are unlikely to be the source of the observed top quark asymmetry. Finally, we note that [*any*]{} theory of massive colored bosons invoked to explain the anomalous top quark forward-backward asymmetry must satisfy the flavor constraints we have discussed in this note.
Acknowledgements
================
This work was supported in part by the US National Science Foundation under grants PHY-0354226, PHY-0854889, and PHY-0855561. RSC and EHS gratefully acknowledge the support of the Aspen Center for Physics where part of this work was completed. CPY thanks K. Wang for helpful discussions.
[199]{}
CDF Collaboration, Conf. Note 9724 (March 2009). http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/top/2009/tprop/Afb/
V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[D0 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 142002 (2008) \[arXiv:0712.0851 \[hep-ex\]\]. T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 202001 (2008) \[arXiv:0806.2472 \[hep-ex\]\].
J. H. Kuhn and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 49 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9802268\]. J. H. Kuhn and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 054017 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9807420\]. M. T. Bowen, S. D. Ellis and D. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 014008 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0509267\]. O. Antunano, J. H. Kuhn and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 014003 (2008) \[arXiv:0709.1652 \[hep-ph\]\]. L. G. Almeida, G. Sterman and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 014008 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.1885 \[hep-ph\]\]. “Measurement of the Inclusive Forward-Backward Asymmetry and its Rapidity Dependence $A^{fb}(Æy)$ in $\bar{t} t$ Production in 5.3 $fb^{?1}$ of Tevatron Data", The CDF Collaboration, CDF/ANAL/TOP/PUBLIC/10224 Version 1.0, July 14, 2010.
L. M. Sehgal and M. Wanninger, Phys. Lett. B [**200**]{}, 211 (1988). D. Choudhury, R. M. Godbole, R. K. Singh and K. Wagh, Phys. Lett. B [**657**]{}, 69 (2007) \[arXiv:0705.1499 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Djouadi, G. Moreau, F. Richard and R. K. Singh, arXiv:0906.0604 \[hep-ph\]. M. V. Martynov and A. D. Smirnov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**24**]{}, 1897 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.4525 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Jung, H. Murayama, A. Pierce and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 015004 (2010) \[arXiv:0907.4112 \[hep-ph\]\]. K. Cheung, W. Y. Keung and T. C. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B [**682**]{}, 287 (2009) \[arXiv:0908.2589 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Shu, T. M. P. Tait and K. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 034012 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.3237 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik and C. H. Chen, arXiv:0911.4875 \[hep-ph\].
P. Ferrario and G. Rodrigo, JHEP [**1002**]{}, 051 (2010) \[arXiv:0912.0687 \[hep-ph\]\]. I. Dorsner, S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik and N. Kosnik, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 055009 (2010) \[arXiv:0912.0972 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. W. Jung, P. Ko, J. S. Lee and S. h. Nam, arXiv:0912.1105 \[hep-ph\]. J. Cao, Z. Heng, L. Wu and J. M. Yang, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 014016 (2010) \[arXiv:0912.1447 \[hep-ph\]\]. V. Barger, W. Y. Keung and C. T. Yu, arXiv:1002.1048 \[hep-ph\]. Q. H. Cao, D. McKeen, J. L. Rosner, G. Shaughnessy and C. E. M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 114004 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.3461 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. Xiao, Y. k. Wang and S. h. Zhu, arXiv:1006.2510 \[hep-ph\]. M. V. Martynov and A. D. Smirnov, arXiv:1006.4246 \[hep-ph\]. P. Ferrario and G. Rodrigo, arXiv:1006.5593 \[hep-ph\]. G. Rodrigo and P. Ferrario, arXiv:1007.4328 \[hep-ph\].
P. H. Frampton and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B [**190**]{}, 157 (1987).
P. H. Frampton, J. Shu and K. Wang, Phys. Lett. B [**683**]{}, 294 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.2955 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. H. Chen and G. Faisel, arXiv:1005.4582 \[hep-ph\].
N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen and H. Georgi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4757 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0104005\]. C. T. Hill, S. Pokorski and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 105005 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0104035\].
R. S. Chivukula, A. G. Cohen and E. H. Simmons, Phys. Lett. B [**380**]{}, 92 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9603311\]. C. T. Hill, Phys. Lett. B [**266**]{}, 419 (1991).
H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B [**266**]{}, 274 (1986). P. Ferrario and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 051701 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.5541 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. Braam, M. Flossdorf, R. S. Chivukula, S. Di Chiara and E. H. Simmons, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 055005 (2008) \[arXiv:0711.1127 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Bona [*et al.*]{} \[UTfit Collaboration\], JHEP [**0803**]{}, 049 (2008) \[arXiv:0707.0636 \[hep-ph\]\].
Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. [**124**]{}, 246 (1961). Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. [**122**]{}, 345 (1961). T. Appelquist, [*In \*Baltimore 1988, Proceedings, TeV physics\* 171-178. (see Conference Index)*]{}
K. Yamawaki, [*In \*Baltimore 1988, Proceedings, TeV physics\* 179-196. (see Conference Index)*]{}
K. i. Kondo, H. Mino and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rev. D [**39**]{}, 2430 (1989). For a review, see V. Miransky, [*Dynamical Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Field Theories*]{}, (World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1993).
R. S. Chivukula, B. A. Dobrescu and J. Terning, Phys. Lett. B [**353**]{}, 289 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9503203\].
C. Amsler [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], Phys. Lett. B [**667**]{}, 1 (2008). J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky and W. K. Tung, JHEP [**0207**]{}, 012 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0201195\].
M. Tecchio, D. Amidei, G. Strycker, T. Schwarz, and R. Erbacher, CDF note 9724 public page http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/new/top/2009/tprop/AfbMtt/
H. Georgi, E. E. Jenkins and E. H. Simmons, Nucl. Phys. B [**331**]{}, 541 (1990).
[^1]: The recent analysis of [@Chen:2010wv] on flavor-physics issues in this axigluon model is rendered invalid by their inconsistent assumptions about the values of the vector and axial quark couplings. Specifically, they set $g_A = -1.155 g_s$ and simultaneously set $g_V = g_A$; as discussed in [@Frampton:2009rk] and our Eq. (\[eq:couplingss\]), the first choice corresponds to a color-group mixing angle $\theta\approx 30^\circ$ while the second is only true for $\theta=0^\circ$.
[^2]: One might, alternatively, assign $b_R$ to transform like the $q_R$, but it would not materially affect the outcome.
[^3]: Agreement with the top pair production cross-section was also required in [@Frampton:2009rk].
[^4]: This choice is motivated by the analysis in [@Georgi:1989xz].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using the link between mod $p$ Galois representations of ${\mathbf{Q}}$ and mod $p$ modular forms established by Serre’s Conjecture, we compute, for every prime $p\leq 1999$, a lower bound for the number of isomorphism classes of continuous Galois representation of ${\mathbf{Q}}$ on a two–dimensional vector space over ${\overline{\f}_p}$ which are irreducible, odd, and unramified outside $p$.'
address: 'Univesität Duisburg–Essen, Fakultät für Mathematik.'
author:
- Tommaso Giorgio Centeleghe
title: Computing the number of certain Galois representations mod $p$
---
Introduction
============
Let $p$ be a prime number and ${\overline{\f}_p}$ an algebraic closure of $\f_p$, the finite field with $p$ elements. Let ${G_{\mathbf{Q}}}$ denote the absolute Galois group of ${\mathbf{Q}}$, with respect to the choice of an algebraic closure $\overline{\mathbf{Q}}$ of ${\mathbf{Q}}$. An important consequence of (the level one case of) Serre’s Modularity Conjecture is the following finiteness theorem
\[fnt\] There are only finitely many isomorphism classes of continuous representations $\rho:{G_{\mathbf{Q}}}\rightarrow\operatorname{GL}_2({\overline{\f}_p})$ that are irreducible, odd, and unramified outside $p$.
Continuity in this context means that $\rho$ has open kernel, compactness of ${G_{\mathbf{Q}}}$ implies that $\rho$ has finite image, and there exists a finite extension $\f(\rho)$ of $\f_p$ for which a model of $\rho$ over $\f(\rho)$ can be found. The statement obtained from the Theorem replacing ${\overline{\f}_p}$ by a finite subfield $\f$ was known to be true classically as a consequence of the Hermite–Minkowski Theorem. The point of Theorem \[fnt\] is that for every prime $p$ one can find a finite subfield $\f$ of ${\overline{\f}_p}$ so that [*all*]{} the representations considered can be realized over $\f$.
Let $R(p)$ denote the non–negative integer defined by Theorem \[fnt\]. From the refined version of Serre’s Conjecture one immediately sees that $R(p)$ is bounded from above by a function $U(p)$ whose behaviour with $p$ is $p^3/48+O(p^2)$ (cf. section \[computations\]). Professor Khare had raised the question of whether this upper bound give the correct asymptotic of $R(p)$ (cf. [@Kh1], §$8$), in our University of Utah thesis we conjectured a positive answer to his question.
The conjecture predicts that congruences modulo $p$ between characteristic zero eigenforms of weight $k\leq p+1$ are “rare" and that, moreover, the mod $p$ Galois representations of ${\mathbf{Q}}$ associated to classical cusp forms of level one tend to be irreducible and wildly ramified at $p$.
In the computations presented here we collected a lower bound $L(p)$ of $R(p)$ for all primes $p\leq 1999$. The table at the end of the paper contains the values of $L(p)$ that we had found, together with the upper bound $U(p)$ and with the ratio $(U(p)-L(p))/p^2$. In the range explored the table shows a tendency for $R(p)$ to remain close to the upper bound $U(p)$.
Using the link between Galois representations and modular forms established by Serre’s Conjecture, we computed $L(p)$ by estimating the number of systems of Hecke eigenvalues arising from modular forms mod $p$ of level one. The method adopted is based on the analysis of a [*single*]{} Hecke operator $T_n$ to deduce information about the mod $p$ arithmetic of the whole Hecke ring $\mathbf{T}^0_k$. The software used to perform the computations is MAGMA.
In section \[gener\] standard results from the theory of modular forms and Galois representations are recalled, the method used in the computations is explained in details in section \[computations\], and the remaining two sections provide the commutative algebra needed for the computations.
The work presented in this paper started within my thesis project, I would like to express my gratitude to professor Khare for suggesting this direction of research as well as for the invaluable attention that I have received from him. This paper benefitted from many interesting conversation and advices that I received from professors Gebhard Böckle and Gabor Wiese during the past year. I am grateful to them for their important help. I would like to thank professor Ulrich Görtz for letting me use the computer Pluto at the Institute for Experimental Mathematics in Essen which performed the computations. I want to thank Craig Citro, who explained to me a lot on computing with modular forms. Finally, the help of Panagiotis Tsaknias with the implementation of the algorithm and the production of the table was vital for me. I heartily thank him for his kindness and availability.
Generalities {#gener}
============
In this preliminary section we adopt a very utilitarian point of view and recall all the results that we need from the theory of modular forms (both classical and mod $p$) and their associated mod $p$ Galois representations. For more details on modular forms on $\operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbf{Z}})$ and their Hecke operators the reader can consult [@La]. For an exposition of classical theorems linking mod $p$ modular forms to Galois representations, as well as some more recent important development, the papers [@Ed] and [@Gr] are standard references. We prefer not to say anything about Serre’s Conjecture here. Instead, we will constantly keep this important theorem in the back of our mind as the motivation for studying systems of Hecke eigenvalues arising from modular forms mod $p$.
Let $\operatorname{M}_k$ denote the space of classical modular forms of weight $k$ on the group $\operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbf{Z}})$, and let $\operatorname{M}_k^0$ be its cuspidal subspace. Denote by $\operatorname{M}_k({\mathbf{Z}})$ (resp. $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\mathbf{Z}})$) the submodule of $\operatorname{M}_k$ (resp. $\operatorname{M}^0_k$) given by forms $f$ whose expansion at infinity has integer coefficients. It is a basic fact that these submodules define integral structures, meaning that the natural inclusions $\operatorname{M}_k({\mathbf{Z}})\subset\operatorname{M}_k$ and $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\mathbf{Z}})\subset\operatorname{M}^0_k$ induce isomorphisms $\operatorname{M}_k({\mathbf{Z}})\otimes{\mathbf{C}}\simeq\operatorname{M}_k$ and $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\mathbf{Z}})\otimes{\mathbf{C}}\simeq\operatorname{M}^0_k$.
Let $p$ be a prime number. Following [@Se6], we define the space $\operatorname{M}_k(\f_p)$ of modular forms mod $p$ of weight $k$ on $\operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbf{Z}})$ to be $\operatorname{M}_k({\mathbf{Z}})/p\operatorname{M}_k({\mathbf{Z}})$, similarly the cuspidal subspace is $\operatorname{M}^0_k(\f_p)=\operatorname{M}^0_k({\mathbf{Z}})/p\operatorname{M}^0_k({\mathbf{Z}})$. If $p>3$, then these definitions agree with the geometric definitions à la Katz ([@Ka], Theorem $1.8.2$).
For an integer $n>0$, the $n$–th Hecke operator on the space $\operatorname{M}_k^0$ is denoted by $T_n$, without reference to the weight $k$. The Hecke operators all commute with each other, and if $\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_r$ are the primes dividing $n$, the operator $T_n$ can be written as a polynomial in the $T_{\ell_1},\ldots,T_{\ell_r}$ with coefficients in ${\mathbf{Z}}$.
By definition, the Hecke ring $\mathbf{T}^0_k$ is the subring of $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbf{C}}(\operatorname{M}_k^0)$ generated by all the operators $T_n$, for $n>0$, and the Hecke algebra ${(\mathbf{T}^0_k)}_{\mathbf{C}}$ is the smallest ${\mathbf{C}}$–subalgebra of $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbf{C}}(\operatorname{M}_k^0)$ containing all the $T_n$’s.
For every $n$, the operator $T_n$ is a semi–simple endomorphism preserving the integral structure $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\mathbf{Z}})$, moreover the algebra ${(\mathbf{T}^0_k)}_{\mathbf{C}}$ acts on $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ with multiplicity one. As a consequence of these two facts one has
\[Heckering\] There exist number fields $K_i$, for $1\leq i\leq r$, with rings of integers $O_i$, and an injective ring homomorphism $$\theta_k:\mathbf{T}^0_k\longrightarrow\prod_{1\leq i\leq r} O_i$$ which has finite cokernel. The rank of $\mathbf{T}^0_k$ as ${\mathbf{Z}}$–module is equal to $\dim_{\mathbf{C}}(\operatorname{M}^0_k)$.
A [*system of eigenvalues*]{} arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ is a collection $(a_\ell)$ of complex numbers, indexed by all the primes $\ell$, so that there exists a nonzero form $f\in\operatorname{M}^0_k$ for which $T_\ell(f)=a_\ell f$, for all $\ell$. One can show that there is a bijection between systems of eigenvalues arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ and ${\rm Hom}_{\rm rings}(\mathbf{T}^0_k,{\mathbf{C}})$.
If $\theta_{k,i}:\mathbf{T}^0_k\rightarrow O_i$ denotes the composition of $\theta_k$ with the projection onto $O_i$, then all the systems of eigenvalues arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ are described by $(\sigma(\theta_{k,i}(T_\ell)))$, where $1\leq i\leq r$ and $\sigma\in{G_{\mathbf{Q}}}$ is any element (each $K_i$ is considered as a subfield of ${\mathbf{C}}$).
Let us remark that in any known example $r$ is equal to $1$ and the systems of eigenvalues arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ form a unique Galois orbit. Maeda’s conjecture is the statement that this happens for all $k$.
The Hecke ring $\mathbf{T}^0_k$ acts naturally on the space $\operatorname{M}^0_k(\f_p)$ and, by extension of scalars, on $\operatorname{M}^0_k(\f_p)\otimes{\overline{\f}_p}$, simply denoted by $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p})$ in what follows. A system of eigenvalues mod $p$ arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p})$ is a collection $\Phi={(a_\ell)}_{\ell\neq p}$ of elements $a_\ell\in{\overline{\f}_p}$, indexed by primes $\ell\neq p$, so that there exists a nonzero form $f\in\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p})$ with $T_\ell(f)=a_\ell f$.
If $\Phi={(a_\ell)}_{\ell\neq p}$ is any system of eigenvalues mod $p$, one can find a nonzero form $f\in\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p})$ giving rise to $\Phi$ that is an eigenvector for $T_p$. Therefore there is a ring homomorphism $\lambda_\Phi:\mathbf{T}^0_k\rightarrow{\overline{\f}_p}$ defined by $T(f)=\lambda_\Phi(T)f$, for $T\in\mathbf{T}^0_k$. The $p$–th eigenvalue $a_p$, and hence the morphism $\lambda_\Phi$, is not unique in general, for this reason we had preferred to not include it in the definition of eigensystem mod $p$. However it can be shown that uniqueness holds if the weight $k$ is not too large with respect to $p$:
\[kleq2p-1\] If $k\leq 2p-1$ then there is a natural bijection between mod $p$ systems of eigenvalues arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p})$ and the set of ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued points of $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbf{T}^0_k)$.
By a classical result of Eichler, Shimura and Deligne, to any mod $p$ system of eigenvalues $\Phi$ one can attach a continuous, semisimple Galois representation $$\rho_\Phi:{G_{\mathbf{Q}}}\longrightarrow\operatorname{GL}_2({\overline{\f}_p}),$$ which is odd, unramified outside $p$, and that is characterized by the equalities $$\label{frob}\operatorname{tr}(\rho_\Phi(\operatorname{Frob}_\ell))=a_\ell,\hphantom{x}
\det(\rho_\Phi(\operatorname{Frob}_\ell))=\ell^{k-1},$$ for all primes $\ell\neq p$, where $\operatorname{Frob}_\ell$ is a Frobenius element of ${G_{\mathbf{Q}}}$ at $\ell$.
If $h\in{\mathbf{Z}}_{\geq 0}$ is a nonnegative integer then it follows from the theory of the $\theta$–operator on mod $p$ modular forms that the collection ${(\ell^{h}a_\ell)}_{\ell\neq p}$ is a system of eigenvalues arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_{k+h(p+1)}({\overline{\f}_p})$, that will be denoted by $\Phi^{(h)}$. We have $$\rho_{\Phi^{(h)}}\simeq\chi_p^h\otimes\rho_\Phi,$$ where $\chi_p:{G_{\mathbf{Q}}}\rightarrow\f_p^*$ is the mod $p$ cyclotomic character, and $\Phi^{(h)}$ is usually called the $h$–fold twist of $\Phi$.
The following theorem is due to Tate and Serre. It has been generalized to higher levels by Jochnowitz (cf. [@Jo1]) and Ash–Stevens (cf. [@AS]).
\[tatetwist\] If $\Phi$ is a system of mod $p$ eigenvalues arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p})$, then there exists a twist $\Phi^{(h)}$ that arises from $\operatorname{M}^0_{k'}({\overline{\f}_p})$, where $2\leq k'\leq p+1$.
In this weight range, and when $\rho_\Phi$ is irreducible, two theorems of Deligne and Fontaine say that the semisimplification of local representation ${(\rho_\Phi)}_p$, obtained by restricting $\rho_\Phi$ to a decomposition subgroup $D_p<{G_{\mathbf{Q}}}$ at $p$, is determined by the (unique) $a_p$ eigenvalue associated to $\Phi$ (cf. [@Ed]). We only point out that $a_p\neq 0$ if and only if ${(\rho_\Phi)}_p$ is reducible.
Let $\Phi$ be a system of eigenvalues mod $p$, and assume that $\rho_\Phi$ is irreducible. Since we are working with modular forms of level one, the local representation ${(\rho_\Phi)}_p$ [*is*]{} ramified and one observes that ${(\rho_\Phi)}_p$ is semisimple if and only if it is tamely ramified. There is a criterion for deciding when this happens.
\[tamramtwist\] Let $\Phi$ be a system of eigenvalues arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p})$, where $2\leq k\leq p+1$, and so that $\rho_\Phi$ is irreducible. Then ${(\rho_\Phi)}_p$ is tamely ramified if and only if one of the following holds
i\) $\Phi^{(2-k)}$ arises from $\operatorname{M}^0_{p+3-k}({\overline{\f}_p})$;
ii\) $\Phi^{(1-k)}$ arises from $\operatorname{M}^0_{p+1-k}({\overline{\f}_p})$.
From the description of ${(\rho_\Phi)}_p$ given by the theorems of Deligne and Fontaine, and from an elementary analysis of the $\theta$–cycle of $\Phi$ (cf. [@Jo]), one sees that condition i) in the theorem is equivalent to ${(\rho_\Phi)}_p$ be irreducible. In the hardest case when $({\rho_\Phi})_p$ is reducible, the criterion was conjectured by Serre and proved by Gross (cf. [@Gr]).
Computations
============
Let $p$ be any prime number, and let $\mathcal{E}^{\rm Irr}(p)$ be the set of all systems $\Phi={(a_\ell)}_{\ell\neq p}$ of Hecke eigenvalues mod $p$ arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p})$, for some $k$, so that the associated Galois representation $\rho_\Phi$ is irreducible. By the level one case of Serre’s Conjecture, proved by Khare in $2005$ (cf. [@Kh]), the cardinalty of $\mathcal{E}^{\rm Irr}(p)$ is equal to the integer $R(p)$ defined in the Introduction.
According to Theorem \[tatetwist\], any eigensystem $\Phi$ admits a twist in the weight range $2\leq k\leq p+1$. Since the number of systems of eigenvalues mod $p$ arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ is bounded from above by $\dim_{{\overline{\f}_p}}(\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p}))=\dim_{\mathbf{C}}(\operatorname{M}^0_k)$, we have the following inequality $$\label{upbou} R(p)=|\mathcal{E}^{\rm Irr}(p)|\leq(p-1)\sum_{2\leq k\leq p+1}\dim_{\mathbf{C}}(\operatorname{M}^0_k).$$ Let $U(p)$ be the upper bound for $R(p)$ given by the inequality above. Using the well–known formulas for $\dim_{\mathbf{C}}(\operatorname{M}^0_k)$, one finds that there is a degree $3$ polynomial $F_\alpha(x)\in{\mathbf{Q}}[x]$, depending only on the residue class $\alpha$ of $p$ mod $12$, and unique if $p>3$, so that $F_\alpha(p)=U(p)$. Letting $p$ grow to infinity, one finds that $$U(p)\sim p^3/48+O(p^2).$$ Professor Khare had raised the question of whether this estimate give the correct asymptotic behaviour with $p$ of $R(p)$ (cf. [@Kh1], §$8$), in our thesis we were led to conjecture a positive answer to his question. The difficulty of this conjecture is in producing lower bounds for $R(p)$. In this direction, the best result known today is due to Serre, who showed in an unpublished correspondence with Khare that $R(p)$ is bounded from below by a function of the type $cp^2+O(p)$, for a constant $c>0$.
In our computation, for all $p\leq 1999$, we obtain a lower bound $L(p)$ for $R(p)$ which is displayed in the table at the end of the paper together with $U(p)$ and with the ratio $(U(p)-L(p))/p^2$. In the range explored the ratio $(U(p)-L(p))/p^2$ is close to zero, putting in evidence the tendency for $R(p)$ to approach $U(p)$.
We are going to explain in details how we computed $L(p)$. The theoretical basis of the method is provided by the commutative algebra explained in the last two sections of this paper. We adopt some of the notation established there. So that, for example, $\delta_R$ denotes the discriminant of a finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring $R$ (cf. section \[discr\]).
Let $k$ be an even integer in the range $\{2,\ldots, p+1\}$ and let $\mathcal{E}(p,k)$ be the set of mod $p$ systems of Hecke eigenvalues $\Phi$ appearing in the space $\operatorname{M}_k^0({\overline{\f}_p})$. Consider the following subsets of $\mathcal{E}(p,k)$, defined in terms of the Galois representations $\rho_\Phi$ associated to $\Phi$.
$\mathcal{E}^{\rm Eis}(p,k)=\{\Phi\in\mathcal{E}(p,k)\hphantom{.}|
\hphantom{.}\rho_\Phi\hphantom{x}{\rm is}\hphantom{x}{\rm reducible}\};$
$\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm tame}(p,k)=\{\Phi\in\mathcal{E}(p,k)-\mathcal{E}^{\rm Eis}(p,k)
\hphantom{.}|\hphantom{.}{(\rho_\Phi)}_p\hphantom{x}
{\rm is}\hphantom{x}{\rm tamely}\hphantom{x}{\rm ramified}\};$
$\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm wild}(p,k)=\{\Phi\in\mathcal{E}(p,k)-\mathcal{E}^{\rm Eis}(p,k)
\hphantom{.}|\hphantom{.}{(\rho_\Phi)}_p\hphantom{x}
{\rm is}\hphantom{x}{\rm wildly}\hphantom{x}{\rm ramified}\};$
$\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm{split}}(p,k)=\{\Phi\in\mathcal{E}(p,k)-\mathcal{E}^{\rm Eis}(p,k)
\hphantom{.}|\hphantom{.}{(\rho_\Phi)}_p\hphantom{x}
{\rm is}\hphantom{x}{\rm decomposable}\};$
$\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm{irr}}(p,k)=\{\Phi\in\mathcal{E}(p,k)-\mathcal{E}^{\rm Eis}(p,k)
\hphantom{.}|\hphantom{.}{(\rho_\Phi)}_p\hphantom{x}{\rm is}
\hphantom{x}{\rm irreducible}\}.$
Notice that there are the following disjoint unions (cf. section \[gener\]): $$\mathcal{E}(p,k)=\mathcal{E}^{\rm Eis}(p,k)\cup\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm tame}(p,k)
\cup \mathcal{E}^{p-\rm wild}(p,k),$$ $$\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm tame}(p,k)=\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm{split}}(p,k)\cup
\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm{irr}}(p,k);$$
and, for $k\leq p+1$, there are natural bijections $$\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm irr}(p,k)\ni\Phi\longleftrightarrow\Phi^{(2-k)}\in\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm irr}(p,p+3-k),$$ $$\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm split}(p,k)\ni\Phi\longleftrightarrow\Phi^{(1-k)}\in\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm split}(p,p+1-k).$$
From Theorem \[tamramtwist\] we deduce the formula $$|\mathcal{E}^{\rm Irr}(p)|=(p-1)\sum_{2\leq k\leq p+1}\left[|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|-|\mathcal{E}^{\rm Eis}(p,k)|-\dfrac{1}{2}|\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm{tame}}(p,k)|\right]$$
In order to estimate $|\mathcal{E}^{\rm Irr}(p)|=R(p)$ from below we compute, for $2\leq k\leq p+1$, the values of $|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|$ and $|\mathcal{E}^{\rm Eis}(p,k)|$, and an upper bound for $|\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm{tame}}(p,k)|$.
Computation of $|\mathcal{E}^{\rm Eis}(p,k)|$
---------------------------------------------
This is the simplest quantity to compute, at least when $k\leq p+1$, thank to the following criterion.
Let $p$ be a prime and $k\leq p+1$ an integer so that $\operatorname{M}_k^0(\f_p)\neq 0$. Then $\mathcal{E}^{\rm Eis}(p,k)$ is not empty if and only if $p$ divides the numberator of the $k$–th Bernoulli number $b_k$. Moreover, if $\mathcal{E}^{\rm Eis}(p,k)$ is not empty then it consists only of the mod $p$ eigensystem $\Phi(E_k)={(1+\ell^{k-1})}_{\ell\neq p}$.
A possible proof can be carried out using a filtration argument. The details can be found in ([@Se6], §$3.2$ i)), where a proof in the case $k< p-1$ is given. The proof there extends to the cases $k\leq p+1$, mainly thank to the fact that $\operatorname{M}_p^0(\f_p)=0$.
Computation of $|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|$
-----------------------------------
Let $k$ be a weight $\leq p+1$, and $n_k$ the integer $\dim_{{\overline{\f}_p}}(\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p}))=\dim_{\mathbf{C}}(\operatorname{M}^0_k)$. Instead of computing directly $|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|$, we find convenient to compute the difference $n_k-|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|$ between the number of characteristic zero eigensystems arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ and that of mod $p$ eigensystems arising from the same space. Such integer can be consider as a measure of the occurrence of mod $p$ congruences between eigenforms in $\operatorname{M}^0_k$. The method used is described in the following application of proposition \[corp\].
\[crit1\] Let $r$ be an integer $>0$, $T_r\in\mathbf{T}^0_k$ the $r$–th Hecke operator, and $h_r(x)\in{\mathbf{Z}}[x]$ its characteristic polynomial as an endomorphism of $\operatorname{M}_k^0({\mathbf{C}})$. Assume that the discriminant $\delta_r$ of $h_r(x)$ is nonzero. Let $f_p^{(r)}$ be the number of ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued points of the spectrum of the ring ${\mathbf{Z}}[T_r]={\mathbf{Z}}[x]/(h_r(x))$, then $$\label{inequ1}|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|\geq f_p^{(r)}\geq n_k-\nu_p(\delta_r).$$ Moreover if $f_p^{(r)}=n_k-\nu_p(\delta_r)$, then $$\label{eqcrit1}
|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|=f_p^{(r)}=n_k-\nu_p(\delta_r).$$ In this case $p$ does not divide the index of ${\mathbf{Z}}[T_r]$ in its integral closure inside ${\mathbf{Z}}[T_r]\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}=\mathbf{T}^0_k\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$. In particular, $p$ does not divide $[\mathbf{T}^0_k:{\mathbf{Z}}[T_r]]$, we have $\nu_p(\delta_{\mathbf{T}^0_k})=\nu_p(\delta_r)$, and the inclusion ${\mathbf{Z}}[T_r]\subset\mathbf{T}^0_k$ induces an isomorphism $$\f_p[x]/(\bar h_r(x))\simeq\mathbf{T}^0_k/p\mathbf{T}^0_k,$$ where $\bar h_r(x)$ denotes the reduction mod $p$ of $h_r(x)$.
Notice that the integer $f^{(r)}_p$ is simply the degree of the largest square–free factor of the reduction mod $p$ of $h_r(x)$.
As stated in the proposition, the subring ${\mathbf{Z}}[T_r]\subset\operatorname{End}_{\mathbf{C}}(\operatorname{M}^0_k)$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbf{Z}}[x]/(h_r(x))$ thank to the fact that $T_r$ is a semisimple endomorphism of $\operatorname{M}^0_k$, and to the assumption $\delta_r\neq 0$.
If the characteristic polynomial $h_r(x)$ of $T_r$ acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ has nonzero discriminant and satisfies the numerical condition $$f_p^{(r)}=n_k-\nu_p(\delta_r)$$ appearing in second part of the proposition, then we will say that the Hecke operator $T_r$, acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_k$, is $p$–good.
Of course the proposition can only be useful if one disposes of an Hecke operator $T_r$ so that $\delta_r\neq 0$, which amounts to the requirement that the eigenvalues of $T_r$ acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ be pairwise distinct. This condition is perhaps not too restrictive since in all known cases $h_r(x)$ is even [*irreducible*]{}, for $r>1$.
Consider all pairs $(p,k)$, where $p$ is a prime number $\leq 1999$, and $k$ is an even integer $\leq p+1$ so that $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ is nonzero. For each such pair, we had looked for the least integer $r$, with $1<r<20$, so that $T_r$ acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ is a $p$–good Hecke operator. In the table below we describe for how many pairs $(p,k)$ a given $r$ with $1<r<20$ had such property.
r 2 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 14 17
--- -------- ----- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
136611 205 28 1 10 2 4 2 1 1
Out of the $136873$ many pairs $(p,k)$ considered, only in $8$ cases there is no integer $r<20$ (and there seem to be no integer at all) so that $T_r$ acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ is $p$–good. It is the ease of finding $p$–good Hecke operators that makes Proposition \[crit1\] efficient for computing the difference $n_k-|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|$. We found that $n_k-|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|$ is always $<3$, and the number of times the values $0, 1$ and $2$ are attained are described by the next table, which gives an idea of how rare congruences are in this setting.
$t$ 0 1 2
-------------------------------------------------- -------- ----- ---
$|\left(n_k-|\mathcal{E}(p ,k)|\right)^{-1}(t)|$ 135703 161 1
The $8$ pairs $(p,k)$ for which we are unable to find a $p$–good Hecke operator acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ are: $(491, 246)$, $(563, 282)$, $(751, 376)$, $(1399, 700)$, $(1423, 712)$, $(1823, 912)$, $(1879, 940)$, $(1931, 916)$. All these pairs are of the form $(p,(p+1)/2)$, and the space $\operatorname{M}^0_{(p+1)/2}$ gives rise to a set of mod $p$ systems of eigenvalues whose associated representations are of dihedral type. We have a good understanding of dihedral systems, and in subsection \[dihecase\] we explain how we computed $|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|$ in these cases. As it turns out, in all the $8$ cases $|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|=n_k$.
Let $\tilde{\mathbf{T}}^0_k$ be the integral closure of the Hecke ring $\mathbf{T}^0_k$ in $\mathbf{T}^0_k\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$. For all the pairs $(p,k)$ considered, $p$ does not divide the index of $\mathbf{T}^0_k$ in $\tilde{\mathbf{T}}^0_k$. This follows from proposition \[crit1\] whenever there exists a $p$–good Hecke operator $T_r$ acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_k$, and it follows from the equality $|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|=n_k$ in the remaining $8$ cases. The conclusion is that, if $k\leq p+1$ and $p\leq 1999$, we have $\operatorname{Hom}_{\rm rin gs}(\mathbf{T}^0_k,{\overline{\f}_p})=\operatorname{Hom}_{\rm rings}(\tilde{\mathbf{T}}^0_k,{\overline{\f}_p})$, and there is no example of a mod $p$ congruence between two distinct eigensystems arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ caused by the fact that the order $\mathbf{T}^0_k$ is not maximal at $p$. In other words, all the mod $p$ congruences between distinct characteristic zero Hecke eigensystems arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ that we had found can be explained in terms of ramification properties above $p$ of the components of $\mathbf{T}^0_k\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$.
An upper bound for $|\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm tame}}(p,k)|$ {#comptam}
------------------------------------------------------
The set $\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm tame}}(p,k)$ is the disjoint union of $\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm split}}(p,k)$ and $\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm irr}}(p,k)$, and we will bound these two sets separately. In order to bound the size of $\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm split}}(p,k)$ (resp. $\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm irr}}(p,k)$) we need to estimate how often there exists a system of eigenvalues $\Phi$ arising from $\operatorname{M}_k^0({\overline{\f}_p})$ so that the eigensystem $\Phi^{(1-k)}$ (resp. $\Phi^{(2-k)}$) arises from $\operatorname{M}_{p+1-k}^0({\overline{\f}_p})$ (resp. $\operatorname{M}_{p+3-k}^0({\overline{\f}_p})$) (cf. Theorem \[tamramtwist\]).
Let $h(x)$ and $j(x)$ be monic polynomials in ${\mathbf{Z}}[x]$ and let $p$ be any prime number. Consider the greatest common divisor $d_p(x)\in\f_p[x]$ of the reduction mod $p$ of $h(x)$ and $j(x)$.
The [*linking number at $p$*]{} of $h(x)$ and $j(x)$ is the degree of $d_p(x)$, it is denoteb by $e_p(h,j)$.
The integer $e_p(h,j)$ is a measure of the congruences mod $p$ between the roots of $h(x)$ and $j(x)$. It is zero if and only if the reduction mod $p$ of $h(x)$ and $j(x)$ have no common roots ${\overline{\f}_p}$.
\[tamram\] Let $\ell\neq p$ be any prime, $h(x)\in{\mathbf{Z}}[x]$ the characteristic polynomial of $T_\ell$ acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_k$, and $j(x)\in{\mathbf{Z}}[x]$ the characteristic polynomial of $\ell^{k-1}T_\ell$ acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_{p+1-k}$. Then $$|\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm split}}(p,k)|\leq e_p(h,j).$$
Let $\Phi$ be a system of eigenvalues arising from $\operatorname{M}_k^0({\overline{\f}_p})$ so that $\rho_\Phi$ is irreducible. By the tameness criterion established by Gross, the restriction of $\rho_\Phi$ to a decomposition group at $p$ is decomposable if and only if there exists a system of mod $p$ eigenvalues $(b_\ell)$ arising from $\operatorname{M}_{p+1-k}^0({\overline{\f}_p})$ so that $$a_q=q^{k-1}b_q,$$ for all primes $q\neq p$. In particular, setting $q=\ell$, we see that $$|\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm split}}(p,k)|\leq e_p(h,j),$$ where $e_p(h,j)$ is the linking number at $p$ of the polynomials $h(x)$ and $j(x)$. The proposition follows.
Similarly we have
\[tamram2\] Let $\ell\neq p$ be any prime, $h(x)\in{\mathbf{Z}}[x]$ the characteristic polynomial of $T_\ell$ acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_k$, and $j(x)\in{\mathbf{Z}}[x]$ the characteristic polynomial of $\ell^{k-2}T_\ell$ acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_{p+3-k}$. Then $$|\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm irr}}(p,k)|\leq e_p(h,j).$$
For any given prime $\ell\neq p$, the two propositions provide an upper bound for $|\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm split}}(p,k)|$ and $|\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm irr}}(p,k)|$. We computed these estimates for $\ell=2$ and $3$ and kept the smallest values so obtained. In the special case where $k=(p+1)/2$ (resp. $k=(p+3)/2$), in order to bound $|\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm split}}(p,k)|$ (resp. $|\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm irr}}(p,k)|$) we used the smallest prime $\ell\neq p$ that is not a quadratic residue mod $p$, for otherwise the characteristic polynomials of $T_\ell$ and $\ell^{k-1}T_\ell$ (resp. $\ell^{k-2}T_\ell$) acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_k$ would have the same mod $p$ reduction and the resulting upper bound would be $\dim_{\mathbf{C}}(\operatorname{M}^0_k)$, the worse possible.
When $p\equiv 3$ mod $4$ and $k=(p+1)/2$, if $h$ is the class number of ${\mathbf{Q}}(\sqrt {-p})$, it can be shown that the set $\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm split}}(p,k)$ contains precisely $(h-1)/2$ eigensystems $\Phi$ so that $\Phi=\Phi^{(p-1)/2}$. These are the eigensystems whose associated representations are of dihedral type (cf. subsection \[dihecase\]). Let $\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm split}, {\rm nd}}(p,k)$ be the subset of $\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm split}}(p,k)$ of all the eigensystems $\Phi$ so that $\Phi\neq\Phi^{(p-1)/2}$. Out of the $136873$ pairs $(p,k)$ considered, we found that $\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm split}, {\rm nd}}(p,k)$ is empty in $136706$ cases, furthermore its cardinality never exceeds $3$.
Of the $299$ many primes $p$ with $11\leq p\leq 1999$, we found that for $224$ many of them there are no mod $p$ Galois representations that are irreducible, odd, $2$–dimensional, unramified outside $p$, non–dihedral and so that the local representation at $p$ is decomposable.
For what concerns the other class of tamely ramified representations, we report that $|\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm{irr}}(p,k)|$ is zero in $136696$ cases, and it is always $<5$. In the range considered, for $218$ many primes $p$ there are no mod $p$ Galois representations of the type considered so that the local representation at $p$ is irreducible.
If $p$ is a prime for which we know that $\mathcal{E}^{p-{\rm split}, {\rm nd}}(p,k)$ and $\mathcal{E}^{p-\rm{irr}}(p,k)$ are empty for all $k\leq p+1$, then our method lead to the exact value of $R(p)$. This happens for $164$ many primes, they appear in the table with the symbol $\sp*$ typed next to the corresponding value $L(p)$ in the second column.
The dihedral case {#dihecase}
-----------------
Let $\Phi$ be a system of mod $p$ eigenvalues arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p})$ so that $\rho_\Phi$ is of [*dihedral type*]{}, meaning that the projective image $G$ of $\rho_\Phi$ in $\operatorname{PGL}_2({\overline{\f}_p})$ is isomorphic to a dihedral group $C_n\rtimes{\mathbf{Z}}/2{\mathbf{Z}}$, where $C_n$ is a cyclic group of order $n\geq 2$ and the nontrivial element of ${\mathbf{Z}}/2{\mathbf{Z}}$ acts on $C_n$ by inversion. Since $\rho_\Phi$ is, by definition, semisimple, it follows that any representation $\rho_\Phi$ of dihedral type acts on ${\overline{\f}_p}^2$ irreducibly.
Representations of dihedral type fit in the class of “small–image” representations and are among them the easiest to understand and classify. It can be shown that
Let $\Phi$ be an eigensystem arising from $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p})$, with $2\leq k\leq p+1$. The representation $\rho_\Phi$ is of dihedral type if and only if $\Phi=\Phi^{(p-1)/2}$. In this case we have
i\) $\rho_\Phi$ is tamely ramified at $p$;
ii\) $p\equiv 3$ mod $4$, $k=(p+1)/2$;
iii\) the local representation ${(\rho_\Phi)}_p$ is described by the sum of the trivial character and the quadratic character $\chi_p^{(p-1)/2}$, where $\chi_p$ denotes the mod $p$ cyclotomic character of $G_p=G(\overline{\mathbf{Q}}_p/{\mathbf{Q}}_p)$;
iv\) the image of $\rho_\Phi$ is isomorphic to $C_n\rtimes{\mathbf{Z}}/2{\mathbf{Z}}$, with $n$ odd;
v\) $\rho_\Phi={\rm Ind}_K^Q(\Psi)$, where $K={\mathbf{Q}}{(\sqrt{-p})}$, and $\Psi:G_K\rightarrow{\overline{\f}_p}^*$ is a continuous, everywhere unramified character.\
Furthermore, there are precisely $(h-1)/2$ distinct isomorphism classes of such $\rho_\Phi$, where $h$ is the class number of the imaginary quadratic field ${\mathbf{Q}}(\sqrt{-p})$.
The last statement of the proposition is essentially a modularity result for dihedral representations. This case of Serre’s Conjecture was known much earlier thank to the work of Hecke.
For a prime $p\equiv 3$ mod $4$, a consequence of the proposition is that if $\ell$ is a prime that is not a quadratic residue mod $p$, then the characteristic polynomial $\bar h_\ell(x)\in\f_p[x]$ of the Hecke operator $T_\ell$ acting on $\operatorname{M}^0_k({\overline{\f}_p})$ is divisible by $x^{(h-1)/2}$. Using this simple fact we succeed in computing the value of $|\mathcal{E}(p,k)|$ in the few cases where we were not able to apply the criterion of Proposition \[crit1\].
Discriminants of $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–rings {#discr}
=======================================
In the next two sections we describe the theoretical basis of our computations by working in an axiomatic setting. In this section we introduce a special class of rings generalizing orders of number fields and recall definition and basic properties of their discriminant.
A ring $R$, commutative with identity, is called a [*finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring*]{} if the following conditions are satisfied:
i\) $R$ is finite and free as ${\mathbf{Z}}$–module;
ii\) $R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$ is isomorphic to a product of fields.\
The [*rank*]{} of $R$ is its rank as ${\mathbf{Z}}$–module.
Condition ii) can be replaced by
ii)’ $R$ is reduced;\
without affecting the notion just introduced. Our motivation for considering finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–rings is that the Hecke ring $\mathbf{T}^0_k$ is of this type (cf. Theorem \[Heckering\]).
It is clear at once that if $R$ is a finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring, and $R'\subset R$ is a subring of finite index, then $R'$ is itself a finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring of the same rank as $R$. Furthermore, the product of finitely many finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–rings is also a finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring. If $h(x)\in{\mathbf{Z}}[x]$ is a monic polynomial, then $R_h={\mathbf{Z}}[x]/(h(x))$ is a finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring if and only if it is reduced, i.e. if and only if $h(x)$ is square free.
Let $R$ be any finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring of rank $n$, and regard it as a subring of $R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$ via the injection $a\rightarrow a\otimes 1$. The Artin ring $R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$ decomposes as the product finitely many local Artin rings $$R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}\simeq\prod_{1\leq i\leq r}K_i,$$ and the factors of the decomposition are in correspondence with its prime ideals. By assumption, every $K_i$ is a field, necessarily finite over ${\mathbf{Q}}$; we have $$n=\sum_{1\leq i\leq r}[K_i:{\mathbf{Q}}].$$ The ring extension ${\mathbf{Z}}\subset R$ is finite and therefore integral. It follows that the integral closure $\tilde R$ of $R$ in $R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$ coincides with that of ${\mathbf{Z}}$. Therefore, if $R_i$ denotes the ring of integers of $K_i$, we see that $$\tilde R=\prod_{1\leq i\leq r}R_i.$$ Moreover $R$ has finite index in $\tilde R$, since the ranks of both rings equal to $\dim_{\mathbf{Q}}(R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}})$. We have shown
Any finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring $R$ is isomorphic to a finite index subring of the product of the rings of integers $R_i$’s of finitely many number fields $K_i$’s.
The [*discriminant*]{} $\delta_R$ of a finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring $R$ is defined to be the determinant of the bilinear form $$R\times R\ni(x,y)\longrightarrow\operatorname{tr}(xy)\in{\mathbf{Z}},$$ where, for $a\in R$, $\operatorname{tr}(a)$ denotes the trace of the ${\mathbf{Q}}$–linear map $$l_a:R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}\longrightarrow R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$$ given by multiplication by $a\otimes 1$. It is easy to show that $$\operatorname{tr}(a)=\sum_{\sigma}\sigma(a),$$ where the sum is extended to all the ring homomorphisms $\sigma:R\rightarrow\overline{\mathbf{Q}}$.
If $R$ is the ring of integers of a number field $K$, then $\delta_R$ coincides with the discriminant $\delta_K$ of $K$.
The discriminant is multiplicative on any finite products of finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–rings, and if $R'\subset R$ is a subring of finite index $d$, then $\delta_{R'}=\delta_Rd^2$. In particular $\delta_R\neq 0$ for any finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring $R$, since $\delta_K\neq 0$ for any number field $K$. If $h(x)\in{\mathbf{Z}}[x]$ is a monic, square free polynomial of discriminant $\delta_h$, then $\delta_{R_h}=\delta_h$ (cf. [@Ma], Theorem $8$).
Discriminants and ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued points of $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ {#secu}
===============================================================================
The goal of this section is to prove Theorem \[prop\] which, for a finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring $R$, gives a lower bound for the number of ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued points of $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$, in terms of the $p$–adic valuation of the discriminant of $R$. We also obtain a criterion (Proposition \[corp\]) which gives a sufficient condition for the index of a monogenic subring ${\mathbf{Z}}[T]\subset R$ to be prime to $p$.
For a prime number $p$, let $\nu_p$ denote the additive $p$–adic valuation of ${\mathbf{Q}}_p$, normalized so that $\nu_p(p)=1$.
\[lemu\] Let $R$ be the ring of integers of a number field $K$ of degree $n$ over ${\mathbf{Q}}$ and of discriminant $\delta_K$. If $p$ is any prime, let $f_p$ be the number of ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued points of $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$. Then $$f_p\geq n-\nu_p(\delta_K).$$ Moreover, equality holds if and only if $p$ is tamely ramified in $R$.
For a prime $\p$ of $K$ above $p$, let $f_\p$ and $e_\p$ denote, respectively, the inertial degree and ramification index associated to $\p$. There is the well–known formula (cf. [@Se], I §$5$, Prop. $10$) $$\label{localglobal} \sum_\p e_\p f_\p=n$$ where the sum is extended to all the primes of $R$ above $p$.
Let $K_\p$ be the completion at $\p$ of $K$ and $\p^{r_\p}$ be the different of the local extension $K_\p/{\mathbf{Q}}_p$. We know that $$\label{tamely} r_\p\geq e_\p-1,$$ and equality holds if and only if $\p$ is tamely ramified (Serre, loc. cit. III, §$6$). The $p$–part of the discriminant $\delta_K$ is the product of the norms of the fractional ideals $\p^{r_\p}$ of $K$, as $\p$ ranges among the prime ideals of $R$ above $p$ (Serre, loc. cit. III, §$5$). Therefore we have $$\nu_p(\delta_K)=\sum_\p f_\p r_\p.$$ Taking in account formula \[localglobal\] and the inequality \[tamely\], we have $$\sum_\p f_\p r_\p\geq \sum_\p f_\p (e_\p-1)=n-\sum_\p f_\p.$$ Moreover, equality holds if and only if every $\p$ is tamely ramified above $p$, that is if and only if $p$ is tamely ramified in $K$. Observing that $\sum_\p f_\p=f_p$ concludes the proof of the lemma.
We deduce two corollaries that follow from the proof of lemma \[lemu\].
\[coru\] If $\nu_p(\delta_K)\leq p-1$ then $p$ is tamely ramified in $R$. In particular $f_p=n-\nu_p(\delta_K)$.
Assume that $p$ is not tamely ramified in $K$, then there exists a prime $\p_0$ of $R$ above $p$ so that $p|e_{\p_0}$ and, in the notation used in the proof of lemma \[lemu\], $r_{\p_0}>e_{\p_0}-1$. In particular $$r_{\p_0}>e_{\p_0}-1\geq p-1.$$ By the proof of lemma \[lemu\], we obtain $$\nu_p(\delta_K)=\sum_\p f_\p r_\p>p-1,$$ which completes the proof of the corollary.
\[cord\] If $\nu_p(\delta_K)=1$ then there exists exactly one prime $\p_0$ of $R$ that lies above $p$ and that is ramified. We have $e_{\p_0}=2$, $f_{\p_0}=1$, and $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ has exactly $n-1$ distinct ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued points.
By assumption $\nu_p(\delta_K)=1\leq p-1$, therefore corollary \[coru\] ensures that $p$ is tamely ramified in $R$. Applying lemma \[lemu\] we obtain that the number $f_p$ of distinct ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued points of $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ is $$f_p=n-\nu_p(\delta_K)=n-1,$$ and the last part of the corollary follows. To see the first part, observe that $f_p$ is equal to the sum $\sum f_\p$ of the inertial degrees of the primes of $R$ of residual characteristic $p$. But since $f_p=n-1$, we easily see that formula \[localglobal\] forces the existence of exactly one ramified prime above $p$, say $\p_0$, and for which, moreover, we must have $e_{\p_0}=2$ and $f_{\p_0}=1$.
In order to prove theorem \[prop\] we need the following
\[fini\] Let $R'\subset R$ be an extension of finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–rings so that $R'$ has finite index $d$ in $R$. Let $f_p$ and $f_p'$ be the numbers of ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued points of, respectively, $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ and $\operatorname{Spec}(R')$. Then $$f_p\geq f_p'\geq f_p-\nu_p(d).$$
The extension $R'\subset R$ is finite, therefore integral, and any ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued point of $\operatorname{Spec}(R')$ can be lifted to one of $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ (cf. [@AM] Theorem $5.16$), and the first inequality $f_p\geq f_p'$ readily follows.
To see the other inequality, note that the inclusion $R'\subset R$ induces an injective ring homorphism $$\iota:R'/I\hookrightarrow R/pR,$$ where $I=pR\cap R'$ is the ideal of $R'$ given by the contraction of $(p)\subset R$, and $R'/I$ may be identified with an $\f_p$–subalgebra of $R/pR$.
The cokernel of $\iota$ is an abelian group isomorphic to $(R/R')/p(R/R')$, we have $$|(R/pR)/(R'/I)|=|(R/R')/p(R/R')|\leq p^{\nu_p(d)}.$$ If $n$ (resp. $n'$) is the dimension of $R/pR$ (resp. $R'/I$) over $\f_p$, then the previous inequality implies $$n-n'\leq\nu_p(d).$$ Let $\sqrt{0}$ (resp. $\sqrt{0}'$) be the nilradical ideal of $R/pR$ (resp. $R'/I$), and let ${\left(\vphantom{R'}R/pR\right)}_{{\rm red}}$ (resp. ${\left(R'/I\right)}_{{\rm red}}$) be the reduced ring associated to $R/pR$ (resp. $R'/I$). We have the following exact sequences of $\f_p$–vector spaces: $$0\longrightarrow\sqrt{0}\longrightarrow R/p
\longrightarrow{\left(\vphantom{R'}R/pR\right)}_{{\rm red}}\longrightarrow 0,$$ $$0\longrightarrow\sqrt{0}'\longrightarrow R'/I
\longrightarrow{\left(R'/I\right)}_{{\rm red}}\longrightarrow 0.$$ Now, the injection $R'/I\hookrightarrow R/p$ induces the inclusions $$\sqrt{0}'\subset\sqrt{0}\hphantom{x}\textrm{and}\hphantom{x}
{\left(R'/I\right)}_{{\rm red}}\subset {\left(\vphantom{R'}R/pR\right)}_{{\rm red}}.$$ Therefore there is a natural morphism between the exact sequences above, from the lower to the upper one, described by three inclusions. If $r$ (resp. $r'$) is the dimension of $\sqrt{0}$ (resp. $\sqrt{0}'$), then we have $$f_p'+r'-n'=f_p+r-n=0,$$ since $r'\leq r$, we obtain $$f_p'=f_p - (n-n')+(r-r')\geq f_p - \nu_p(d),$$ and this completes the proof of the lemma.
Lemma \[lemu\] generalizes as follows
\[prop\] Let $R$ be a finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring of rank $n$ as ${\mathbf{Z}}$–module. If $p$ is any prime number, let $f_p$ denote the number of ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued points of $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$. Then $$f_p\geq n-\nu_p(\delta_R).$$ Moreover, equality holds if and only if the index of $R$ in its integral closure $\tilde R$ in $R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$ is prime to $p$ and $p$ is tamely ramified in each component of $R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$.
By lemma \[lemu\], the inequality expressed by the proposition is satisfied when $R$ is the ring of integers of a number field $K$. Note that the integers $f_p$ and $\nu_p(\delta_R)$, viewed as functions of $R$, are additive with respect to finite product of $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–rings. Therefore the inequality $$f_p\geq n-\nu_p(\delta_R)$$ holds for any finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring $R$ that is isomorphic to a finite product of rings of integers $R_i$ of number fields $K_i$, i.e. the inequality of the proposition is proved for any finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring $R$ that is integrally closed in $R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$. In this case the second part of the proposition follows immediately from Lemma \[lemu\].
Let now $R$ be any finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring, let $\tilde R\subset R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$ be its itegral closure, and let $d$ be the (finite) index $[\tilde R:R]$. If $\tilde f_p$ denote the number of ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued points of $\operatorname{Spec}(\tilde R)$, then lemma \[fini\] applied to the extension $R\subset\tilde R$ says that $$f_p\geq \tilde f_p-\nu_p(d).$$ We have seen that the proposition holds for $\tilde R$, therefore $$f_p\geq n-\nu_p(\delta_{\tilde R})-\nu_p(d).$$ Since $\delta_R=\delta_{\tilde R}d^2$ we have $$\label{ineqdiscr}-\nu_p(\delta_{\tilde R})-\nu_p(d)\geq -\nu_p(\delta_R),$$ and therefore $$f_p\geq n-\nu_p(\delta_{R}),$$ completing the proof of the first part of the proposition. Now if $p$ divided $d$, then inequality (\[ineqdiscr\]) would certainly be strict and, consequently, $f_p$ would be strictly greater than $n-\nu_p(\delta_{R})$.
The following proposition is a consequence of Theorem \[prop\] and Lemma \[fini\] and gives a criterion for counting the number of ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued points of $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ in terms of numerical data encoded in the characteristic polynomial of an element $T\in R$ that generates a finite index subring ${\mathbf{Z}}[T]\subset R$. It will be useful in our computations when $R$ is a Hecke ring $\mathbf{T}^0_k$ and $T$ is an Hecke operator $T_\ell$.
\[corp\] Let $R$ be a finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$–ring of rank $n$, $T\in R$ any element, and $h(x)\in{\mathbf{Z}}[x]$ its characteristic polynomial. Assume hat the discriminant $\delta_h$ of $h(x)$ is nonzero. Let $f_p$ be the number of ${\overline{\f}_p}$–valued points of $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ and $f_p^{(h)}$ that of the spectrum of ${\mathbf{Z}}[T]={\mathbf{Z}}[x]/(h(x))$, then $$f_p\geq f_p^{(h)}\geq n-\nu_p(\delta_h).$$ Moreover if $f_p^{(h)}=n-\nu_p(\delta_h)$, then $$\label{fundeq}
f_p= f_p^{(h)}= n-\nu_p(\delta_h).$$ In this case $p$ does not divide the index ${\mathbf{Z}}[T]$ in its integral closure in ${\mathbf{Z}}[T]\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}=R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$. In particular, $p$ does not divide the index $[R:{\mathbf{Z}}[T]]$, we have $\nu_p(\delta_R)=\nu_p(\delta_h)$, and the inclusion ${\mathbf{Z}}[T]\subset R$ induces an isomorphism $${\mathbf{Z}}[T]/p{\mathbf{Z}}[T]\simeq R/pR.$$
The characteristic polynomial $h(x)$ of $T\in R$ alluded to in the proposition is the monic characteristic polynomial of the endomorphism of the ${\mathbf{Q}}$–vector space $R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$ given by multiplication by $T\otimes 1$.
Notice that $f_p^{(h)}$ is simply the number of distinct roots in ${\overline{\f}_p}$ of the reduction mod $p$ of $h(x)$, and $n$ is the degree of $h(x)$. Thus the equality $f_p^{(h)}=n-\nu_p(\delta_h)$ is a numerical condition on $h(x)$.
The ring $R$ is a finite $S_{\mathbf{Q}}$-ring and has no nilpotent elements. It follows that the endomorphism of $R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$ given by multiplication by $T\otimes 1$ is semisimple, meaning that its minimal polynomial is square free. Moreover, by assumption, the characteristic polynomial $h(x)$ of $T$ is square free and we conclude that $h(x)$ is equal to the minimal polynomial of $T$. It follows that the subring ${\mathbf{Z}}[T]$ has rank $n$ as an abelian group, hence the index $[{\mathbf{Z}}[T]:R]=d$ is finite.
Lemma \[fini\] says that $$f_p\geq f_p^{(h)}\geq f_p-\nu_p(d),$$ from which the the first part of the Proposition follows. Theorem \[prop\] implies that $$f_p\geq n-\nu_p(\delta_R),$$ and, since $\delta_h=\delta_rd^2$, putting together the two inequalities yields to $$\label{chainin} f_p\geq f_p^{(h)}\geq f_p-\nu_p(d)\geq n-\nu_p(\delta_R)-\nu_p(d)\geq n-\nu_p(\delta_h).$$ Notice that the last inequality to the right is [*strict*]{} if $p$ divides $d$.
Now if $f_p^{(h)}=n-\nu_p(\delta_h)$, then the last three inequalities of (\[chainin\]) are forced to be equalities. This immediately implies that $\nu_p(d)=0$ and $f_p=f_p^{(h)}$, and we see that (\[fundeq\]) of the Proposition holds.
To complete the proof of the Proposition we are only left with showing that $p$ does not divide the index of ${\mathbf{Z}}[T]$ is its integral closure, provided that the equality $f_p^{(h)}=n-\nu_p(\delta_h)$ holds. We had just shown that $p$ does not divide the index $[R:{\mathbf{Z}}[T]]$. Replacing $R$ by its integral closure $\tilde R$ and reasoning as above we easily see that $p$ does not divide $[\tilde R:{\mathbf{Z}}[T]]$, and the Proposition follows.
If there exists $T\in R$ so that $\nu_p(\delta_h)\leq 1$, then one knows that the equality $f_p^{(h)}=n-\nu_p(\delta_h)$ is automatically satisfied. This is clear if $\nu_p(\delta_h)=0$, since in that case the reduction mod $p$ of $h(x)$ is square free, and therefore $f_p^{(h)}=n$. In the case where $\nu_p(\delta_h)=1$, we have that $h(x)$ has multiple roots when reduced mod $p$, therefore $n> f_p^{(h)}$. On the other hand, by Theorem \[prop\], we have $f_p^{(h)}\geq n-\nu_p(\delta_h)=n-1$, therefore $f_p^{(h)}=n-1$ and the equality $f_p^{(h)}=n-\nu_p(\delta_h)$ holds. In this last case, namely when $\nu_p(\delta_R)=1$, a complete description of the ramification of the components of $R\otimes{\mathbf{Q}}$ can be given: all of them but one are unramified above $p$, moreover the ramification above $p$ in the ramified component is that described in corollary \[cord\].
$p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$ $p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$ $p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$
----- --------- ------- ------------- ----- ---------- -------- ------------- ----- ----------- -------- -------------
11 10 \* 10 0 83 10373 \* 10414 0.005951 179 111784 112318 0.016666
13 12 \* 12 0 89 12848 \* 12936 0.011109 181 115920 \* 116100 0.005494
17 48 \* 48 0 97 16896 \* 16896 0 191 136040 136990 0.02604
19 108 \* 108 0 101 19100 \* 19200 0.009802 193 140928 141312 0.010309
23 143 \* 154 0.020793 103 22236 \* 22440 0.019228 197 150528 \* 150528 0
29 336 \* 336 0 107 22737 23002 0.023146 199 162756 \* 163152 0.009999
31 555 \* 570 0.015608 109 24300 \* 24300 0 211 194355 \* 194460 0.002358
37 720 \* 756 0.026296 113 27104 \* 27216 0.008771 223 229215 229770 0.01116
41 1080 \* 1080 0 127 42084 \* 42210 0.007812 227 231424 \* 232102 0.013157
43 1554 \* 1554 0 131 42510 43030 0.030301 229 237576 238260 0.013043
47 1656 \* 1702 0.020823 137 49368 \* 49368 0 233 250792 \* 251256 0.008546
53 2496 \* 2496 0 139 54717 55338 0.032141 239 270725 \* 271558 0.014583
59 3393 3538 0.041654 149 63788 \* 63936 0.006666 241 277680 278400 0.012396
61 3900 \* 3900 0 151 70575 71100 0.023025 251 314875 \* 315250 0.005952
67 5940 \* 6072 0.029405 157 74256 \* 75036 0.031644 257 337664 338688 0.015503
71 6195 \* 6370 0.034715 163 89100 \* 89424 0.012194 263 362084 363394 0.018939
73 6840 \* 6912 0.01351 167 90387 \* 90802 0.01488 269 388332 389136 0.01111
79 9906 10062 0.024995 173 100620 101136 0.01724 271 411345 412830 0.02022
$p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$ $p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$ $p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$
----- ------------ --------- ------------- ----- ------------ --------- ------------- ----- ------------ --------- -------------
277 425040 425316 0.003597 389 1190772 \* 1191936 0.007692 499 2581383 2582628 0.004999
281 444360 \* 444360 0 397 1266804 1267596 0.005025 503 2590320 2593834 0.013888
283 468825 470094 0.015844 401 1306000 \* 1306800 0.004975 509 2688336 \* 2688336 0
293 503408 \* 504576 0.013605 409 1386792 \* 1387200 0.002439 521 2883400 \* 2884440 0.003831
307 598995 600372 0.01461 419 1491006 1492678 0.009523 523 2972268 \* 2973834 0.005725
311 602485 604810 0.024038 421 1513260 1514100 0.004739 541 3230820 3231900 0.00369
313 616200 616512 0.003184 431 1623250 1625830 0.013888 547 3400761 \* 3402672 0.006386
317 640532 \* 640848 0.003144 433 1646352 1648512 0.01152 557 3528376 \* 3529488 0.003584
331 751245 752730 0.013554 439 1755723 1758132 0.012499 563 3643446 3645694 0.007092
337 771456 \* 771456 0 443 1766232 \* 1766674 0.002252 569 3763000 3764136 0.003508
347 842164 843202 0.00862 449 1839040 \* 1839936 0.004444 571 3869730 \* 3870870 0.003496
349 857472 \* 857820 0.002857 457 1939824 \* 1940736 0.004366 577 3924288 3926016 0.00519
353 886336 888096 0.014124 461 1992260 \* 1992720 0.002164 587 4132765 \* 4135402 0.007653
359 933127 \* 934738 0.012499 463 2061213 2062830 0.007543 593 4263584 \* 4264176 0.001683
367 1025898 \* 1026630 0.005434 467 2070205 \* 2072302 0.009615 599 4389918 4395898 0.016666
373 1049040 1049412 0.002673 479 2233216 2237518 0.018749 601 4438800 4440000 0.003322
379 1128897 1130598 0.011842 487 2399625 \* 2400840 0.005122 607 4648626 \* 4651050 0.006578
383 1135686 \* 1137214 0.010416 491 2406880 2411290 0.018292 613 4712400 \* 4713012 0.001628
$p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$ $p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$ $p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$
----- ------------ --------- ------------- ----- ------------- ---------- ------------- ----- ------------- ---------- -------------
617 4804184 \* 4806648 0.006472 739 8394012 \* 8395488 0.002702 859 13187031 \* 13188318 0.001744
619 4929786 4932258 0.006451 743 8414280 8419474 0.009408 863 13215322 \* 13220494 0.006944
631 5222070 \* 5225220 0.007911 751 8806875 8811750 0.008643 877 13874964 \* 13876716 0.002277
641 5393280 \* 5393280 0 757 8904924 \* 8906436 0.002638 881 14066800 \* 14068560 0.002267
643 5527941 5528904 0.002329 761 9047800 9049320 0.002624 883 14324121 14325444 0.001696
647 5541065 5547202 0.01466 769 9337344 9338880 0.002597 887 14352314 \* 14359402 0.009008
653 5701088 5703696 0.006116 773 9484792 9486336 0.002583 907 15524763 15526122 0.001651
659 5861135 \* 5863438 0.005303 787 10140186 \* 10140972 0.001269 911 15553265 15561910 0.010416
661 5914260 \* 5916900 0.006042 797 10401332 \* 10402128 0.001253 919 16145325 16151292 0.007065
673 6245568 \* 6246912 0.002967 809 10878912 \* 10881336 0.003703 929 16504480 \* 16506336 0.00215
677 6357780 \* 6359808 0.004424 811 11094165 11097810 0.005541 937 16937856 \* 16937856 0
683 6529468 \* 6531514 0.004385 821 11373400 \* 11375040 0.002433 941 17156880 \* 17156880 0
691 6859980 \* 6862740 0.00578 823 11596776 \* 11598420 0.002427 947 17487756 \* 17488702 0.001054
701 7063700 7064400 0.001424 827 11624711 \* 11627602 0.004227 953 17822392 \* 17824296 0.002096
709 7309392 \* 7310100 0.001408 829 11712060 \* 11712060 0 967 18812367 18817680 0.005681
719 7619057 7625878 0.013194 839 12133402 12143458 0.014285 971 18853405 \* 18857770 0.004629
727 7990356 \* 7993260 0.005494 853 12762960 12763812 0.00117 977 19210608 \* 19210608 0
733 8080548 8082012 0.002724 857 12943576 12945288 0.00233 983 19558985 19568314 0.009654
$p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$ $p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$ $p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$
------ ------------- ---------- ------------- ------ ------------- ---------- ------------- ------ ------------- ---------- -------------
991 20249460 20254410 0.00504 1103 27672873 \* 27678934 0.004981 1237 39081084 \* 39083556 0.001615
997 20418996 \* 20418996 0 1109 28134336 \* 28134336 0 1249 40234272 40235520 0.000799
1009 21164976 21168000 0.00297 1117 28747044 28749276 0.001788 1259 41206419 41213338 0.004365
1013 21422016 \* 21422016 0 1123 29474940 29477184 0.001779 1277 43008856 43011408 0.001564
1019 21800470 21806578 0.005882 1129 29684448 29688960 0.003539 1279 43544655 \* 43552962 0.005078
1021 21935100 \* 21935100 0 1151 31449050 \* 31465150 0.012152 1283 43618127 \* 43622614 0.002725
1031 22580175 \* 22588930 0.008236 1153 31627008 \* 31629312 0.001733 1289 44237648 \* 44238936 0.000775
1033 22720512 \* 22720512 0 1163 32459889 \* 32462794 0.002147 1291 44782350 44790090 0.004643
1039 23336835 \* 23343582 0.006249 1171 33420465 \* 33422220 0.001279 1297 45067104 \* 45069696 0.00154
1049 23795888 23796936 0.000952 1181 33992260 33998160 0.00423 1301 45485700 \* 45489600 0.002304
1051 24159450 24161550 0.001901 1187 34513786 34520902 0.00505 1303 46045881 46051740 0.00345
1061 24622740 24625920 0.002824 1193 35047184 \* 35048376 0.000837 1307 46118125 \* 46124002 0.00344
1063 24992577 24999480 0.006109 1201 35756400 35760000 0.002495 1319 47392644 \* 47409778 0.009848
1069 25187712 25188780 0.000934 1213 36846012 \* 36846012 0 1321 47622960 47625600 0.001512
1087 26728632 26731890 0.002757 1217 37208384 \* 37213248 0.003284 1327 48638343 \* 48644310 0.003388
1091 26776940 \* 26782390 0.004578 1223 37757967 \* 37768354 0.006944 1361 52097520 \* 52097520 0
1093 26927628 26929812 0.001828 1229 38325880 38328336 0.001626 1367 52778142 \* 52791802 0.007309
1097 27224640 27227928 0.002732 1231 38820645 38829870 0.006087 1373 53486048 53491536 0.002911
$p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$ $p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$ $p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$
------ ------------- ---------- ------------- ------ ------------- ---------- ------------- ------ -------------- ----------- -------------
1381 54429960 54434100 0.00217 1499 69649510 \* 69658498 0.003999 1621 88134480 \* 88136100 0.000616
1399 56991567 57002052 0.005357 1511 71329380 71349010 0.008597 1627 89664957 89669022 0.001535
1409 57820928 \* 57822336 0.000709 1523 73062849 \* 73066654 0.00164 1637 90775096 90778368 0.001221
1423 59981382 59987070 0.002808 1531 74704545 74711430 0.002937 1657 94151880 94153536 0.000603
1427 60066685 60073102 0.003151 1543 76473177 76483200 0.004209 1663 95744496 95756130 0.004206
1429 60321576 60325860 0.002097 1549 76879872 76881420 0.000645 1667 95868304 \* 95873302 0.001798
1433 60835656 \* 60835656 0 1553 77474288 77480496 0.002574 1669 96213576 96218580 0.001796
1439 61588821 61605358 0.007986 1559 78363505 \* 78384538 0.008653 1693 100438812 \* 100438812 0
1447 63065121 \* 63074520 0.004488 1567 80103249 \* 80108730 0.002232 1697 101152832 101154528 0.000588
1451 63159100 \* 63163450 0.002066 1571 80206590 \* 80212870 0.002544 1699 102106683 102110928 0.00147
1453 63423360 63424812 0.000687 1579 81958164 81962898 0.001898 1709 103315212 103320336 0.001754
1459 64651365 \* 64656468 0.002397 1583 82056758 \* 82069414 0.00505 1721 105513400 \* 105516840 0.001161
1471 66256575 \* 66266130 0.004415 1597 84262416 84270396 0.003128 1723 106495368 106500534 0.00174
1481 67169800 67172760 0.001349 1601 84905600 \* 84907200 0.000624 1733 107737328 107744256 0.002306
1483 67895607 67900794 0.002358 1607 85857563 \* 85868002 0.004042 1741 109245900 \* 109245900 0
1487 67980042 \* 67994902 0.00672 1609 86185584 \* 86188800 0.001242 1747 111008934 \* 111014172 0.001716
1489 68266464 68269440 0.001342 1613 86831992 \* 86835216 0.001239 1753 111523560 \* 111525312 0.00057
1493 68822976 \* 68822976 0 1619 87799961 87810478 0.004012 1759 113303979 \* 113318922 0.004829
$p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$ $p$ $L$ $U$ $(U-L)/p^2$
------ -------------- ----------- ------------- ------ -------------- ----------- -------------
1777 116175264 \* 116178816 0.001124 1913 145006080 145011816 0.001567
1783 118012950 118021860 0.002802 1931 149133030 149152330 0.005175
1787 118144793 118156402 0.003635 1933 149612148 \* 149616012 0.001034
1789 118546188 \* 118553340 0.002234 1949 153366040 153369936 0.001025
1801 120958200 120960000 0.000554 1951 154611600 \* 154633050 0.005635
1811 122974115 122991310 0.005242 1973 159108848 159116736 0.002026
1823 125433768 125457454 0.007127 1979 160561183 \* 160576018 0.003787
1831 127802625 \* 127814520 0.003548 1987 163343535 163352472 0.002263
1847 130463281 \* 130488202 0.007305 1993 164011320 \* 164013312 0.000501
1861 133481040 \* 133482900 0.000537 1997 164995348 165005328 0.002502
1867 135499590 \* 135503322 0.00107 1999 166316517 \* 166331502 0.003749
1871 135629230 \* 135651670 0.00641
1873 136086912 \* 136086912 0
1877 136953628 136963008 0.002662
1879 138118449 138134412 0.004521
1889 139610048 \* 139611936 0.000529
1901 142291000 142294800 0.001051
1907 143639972 143649502 0.00262
[I12]{}
M. F. Atiyah, I.G. Macdonald, [*Introduction to Commutative Algebra*]{}, Addison-Wesley, 1969.
A. Ash, G. Stevens, [*Modular Forms in characteristic $\ell$ and special values of their $L$-functions*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**53**]{}, no.3, 849–868 (1986).
B. Edixhoven, [*The weight in Serre’s conjecture on modular forms*]{}, Invent. Math. [**109**]{}, 563–594 (1992),
B. Gross, [*A tameness criterion for Galois representations associated to modular forms (mod $p$)*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**61**]{}, no. 2, 445–517 (1990).
N. Jochnowitz, [*A study of the local components of the Hecke Algebra mod $l$*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc [**270**]{}, no.1, 253–267 (1982).
N. Jochnowitz, [*Congruences between systems of eigenvalues of modular forms*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc [**270**]{}, no.1, 269–285 (1982).
N. Katz, [*p-adic properties of modular schemes and modular forms*]{}, Modular Functions of One Variable III, Lecture Notes in Math. [**350**]{}, Springer–Verlag, 69–190 (1973).
C. Khare, [*Modularity of Galois representations and motives with good reduction properties*]{}, J. Ramanujan Math. Soc. [**22**]{}, No.$1$ $1-26$ $(2007)$.
C. Khare, [*Serre’s modularity conjecture: the level one case*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**134**]{}, no.3, 557–589 (2006).
S. Lang, [*Introduction to Modular Forms*]{}, Springer–Verlag, 1976.
D.A. Marcus, [*Number Fields*]{}, Springer–Verlag, 1977.
J.–P. Serre, [*Congruences et formes modulaires (d’après H.P.F. Swinnerton-Dyer)*]{}, Sém. Bourbaki 1972/72, no. 416.
J.-P. Serre, [*Corps Locaux*]{}, Hermann, Quatrième édition, corrigée (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A model interaction is proposed in which pairing is caused by a[*non-local* ]{}Jahn-Teller (JT) -like instability due to the coupling between planar O states and $k\neq 0$ phonons. Apart from pairing, the interaction is found to naturally allow metallic stripe formation. The consequences of the model for superconductivity in the cuprates are discussed. The model is shown to be consistent with numerous sets of experimental data in quite some detail.'
address: 'Jozef Stefan Institute, Jamova 39, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia'
author:
- 'D.Mihailovic and V.V.Kabanov'
title: 'Finite-wavevector Jahn-Teller-pairing and superconductivity in the cuprates. '
---
Introduction
============
A Jahn-Teller (JT) polaron pairing effect was originally proposed as a possible explanation for the superconductivity in La$_{2-x}$Ba$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ by Bednorz and Müller[@BednorzMuller]. Since then the JT effect has been discussed by a number of authors in different contexts[@Gorkov; @Weger; @Markiewicz; @Kresin; @EgamiJT] and although many features have been observed experimentally supporting the general concept of JT polarons [@Muller; @GuoMeng], so far no generally applicable model has been shown to be compatible with the overall phenomenology observed in the cuprates. One of the major problems is that the single-ion JT energy splitting between Cu $d_{x^{2}-y^{2}}$ states and d$_{3r^{2}-z^{2}}$ states is thought to be of the order of 1 eV or more, too large to play a role in the pseudogap physics, which is believed to be the energy scale of the pairing interaction, which is of the order of 0.1 eV. Nevertheless, the observation of a large isotope effect on both $T_{c}$[@isotopeTc], $T^{\ast }$[@GuoMeng] and penetration depth[@pendep] firmly establishes a role for lattice polarons in the pairing mechanism, while the fact that a depression in the spin susceptibility usually appears at a lower temperature than the ”pseudogap” observed by charge excitation spectroscopies[@Mook; @NMR] suggests that a lattice pairing mechanism is primary and the spin ordering follows.
In this paper we outline a new type of microscopic pairing scenario in La$%
_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ driven by a finite-wavevector JT instability. We find that the proposed model can explain many of the general features both in the underdoped and overdoped regions of the phase diagram and is fundamentally compatible with the overall phenomenology of the cuprates.
The experimental observations on which the present scenario is based are mainly those showing evidence for the existence of dynamic incommensurate lattice distortions associated with doped holes. Inelastic neutron scattering [@Mook; @Egami], neutron PDF[@Sendyka], EXAFS[@Bianconi; @Bozin] and ESR[@Kochelaev] experiments all show the existence of dynamic lattice distortions on timescales relevant for pairing of 10$%
^{-13}-$10$^{-15}$s. The inelastic neutron scattering data[@Egami; @Mook] can be singled out for [*directly*]{} giving not only the energy, but also the wavevector associated with the lattice distortion and its range in $k$-space without any interpretation or modeling. The observed distorted regions appear to be along the ($\zeta ,0,0$) (or ($0,\zeta ,0$)) directions, and have typical dimensions in real space of $2a\times 5a$ $%
(8\times 20$ Å), where $a$ is the lattice constant. A shematic diagram of the distortion derived from an analysis of the data is shown in Figure 1. The energy of the anomaly of $E_{a}=65\sim 85$ meV is of the order of the ”pseudogap” energy, while its width of $\Delta E\simeq 5$ meV corresponds closely to the linewidth expected from the measured pair recombination rate, $h/\pi c\tau \simeq 4$ meV[@Demsar]. At the doping level of $x=0.15$, the 2D volume of the object in Figure 1 contains approximately 1.5 carriers. Taken together, the implication is that the objects can be interpreted as $k$-space ”snapshots” of individual pairs.
Additional experimental observations which we consider important in the present context is evidence for the co-existence of two carrier types in a large part of the phase diagram[@Mullersusc; @Bled], and - in addition to the ”pseudogap” - the appearance of a temperature-dependent superconducting gap $\Delta _{c}(T)$ which closes at $T_{c}$[@Norman; @Demsar] which is particularly well observed at higher doping levels and has a magnitude at $T=0$ of $\Delta _{c}(0)\lesssim \Delta _{p}$.
JT pairs and stripes.
=====================
Before proceeding with the analysis of the [*e-p*]{} coupling for the case of general $k$, let us briefly discuss the $\Gamma -$ point coupling ($k=0$) in the tetragonal group $D_{4h}^{17}$ (I4/mmm) applicable to La$_{2-x}$Sr$%
_{x}$CuO$_{4}.$ The symmetrised cross product of the representations at the $%
\Gamma $ point is $$\lbrack E_{u}\times E_{u}]=[E_{g}\times E_{g}]=A_{1g}+B_{1g}+B_{2g},$$ which contains no degenerate representations. On the other hand, the lattice vibrations at the $\Gamma -$point transform as: $$\Gamma =2A_{1g}+4A_{2u}+B_{2u}+2E_{g}+5E_{u}.$$ Since there are no $B_{1g}$ and $B_{2g}$ representations at the $\Gamma $ point, electrons can couple only with $A_{1g}$ phonon modes. In $D_{4h}$ there are two such modes associated with apex oxygens or La ions. However, the experiments show that the modes involved in the intraction are those of in-plane O atoms, which do not couple at the $\Gamma $ point. This leads us to the main conjecture of the proposed pairing model, namely the existence of [*intersite* ]{}pairs which form via a $k\neq 0$ interaction.
The existence of intersite pairs in cuprate superconductors is inferred from their very short coherence length. Given that the pair dimensions $l_{p}$ cannot exceed the coherence length, i.e. $l_{p}\lesssim \xi $, we may infer that any possible lattice distortions associated with pairing have a finite range $\sim l_{p}.$ The effect of such lattice distortions should also be evident in reciprocal space, with an anomaly centered around a wavevector $%
k\simeq 1/l_{p}$. Following the inelastic neutron scattering data [@Egami] which shows an anomaly approximately at $k_{0}\simeq \lbrack \pm \pi
/2a,0,0]$ extending over almost half the Brillouin zone (BZ) $\Delta k\sim
1/2a,$ we can write the electron-phonon interaction for such an object in the form: $$g(k_{0},k)=g_{0}/((k-k_{0})^{2}+\gamma ^{2})$$ where $g_{0}$ is a constant describing the strength of coupling, $k_{0}\,$defines the wavevector associated with the interaction and its range in $k$-space, which - neglecting fluctuations - also defines its extent in real space (inter-hole spacing) as $l_{p}\sim k_{0}^{-1}$. $\gamma =\Delta k$ defines its width in $k$-space and gives the width of the distribution of inter-carrier distances within the interacting pair. This is related to the average size of the deformation of each particle in real space $\gamma ^{-1}$.
We now proceed with an analysis of the $e-p$ coupling using group theory for $k\neq 0\,\ $intersite pairing and first discuss the relevant phonon modes. The BZ corresponding to the tetragonal space group $D_{4h}^{17}$ applicable for La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ is shown in Figure 2. To consider local pairs and/or stripes forming along the Cu-O bond direction or along 45$%
^{\circ }$ to it, we need to consider the general wavevector $\Sigma $ and the $\Delta $ points, corresponding to the ($\zeta ,0,0)$ and ($\zeta ,\zeta
,0)$ directions respectively. (The special symmetry points ($\Gamma ,X$ and $%
M$ etc.) give rise to commensurate distortions which will be discussed later.) The relevant lattice deformation associated with the neutron mode at 75 meV [@Egami] (Fig. 1) is of $\tau _{1}$ - symmetry, where $\tau _{1}$ is the irreducible representation of the little group corresponding to the $%
\Sigma $ direction in the BZ as shown in Figure 3. Since in principle all modes of $\tau _{1}$ symmetry can couple to electrons, for completeness we show all the possible modes with $\tau _{1}$ symmetry in Figure 3. However, the most relevant mode - i.e. the one for which the anomaly is observed to be most pronounced - involves in-plane O1 displacements along the Cu-O bonds (see also Fig.1).
$k\neq 0$ phonon coupling to non-degenerate electronic states$.$
----------------------------------------------------------------
Since the $\Sigma $ point has a four pronged star in $D_{4h}$, the coupling of electrons in single non-degenerate electronic states to $k\neq 0$ phonons can be written as: $$H_{int}=\sum_{{\bf l},s}n_{{\bf l},s}\sum_{k_{0}=1}^{4}\sum_{{\bf k}}g(k_{0},%
{\bf k})\exp {(i{\bf kl})}(b_{-{\bf k}}^{\dagger }+b_{{\bf k}})$$ where ${\bf l}$ is the site label, and $$g(k_{0},{\bf k})=g(\pi \gamma ^{2})^{1/2}/((k-k_{0})^{2}+\gamma ^{2})$$ where $k_{0}$ are the 4 wavevectors corresponding to the prongs of the star associated with the interaction. The nondegenerate electronic states in this interaction allowed by symmetry are associated with $p_{z}$-orbitals of planar oxygens, and transform as $A_{2u}$ or $B_{2u}$ representations of the $D_{4h}$ symmetry group. However, the Hamiltonian (3) above on its own does not lead to symmetry breaking, and thus is not of direct relevance for pair or stripe formation.
$k\neq 0$ phonon coupling to degenerate electronic states (Jahn-Teller-like pairing)$.$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A more interesting case arises when two-fold degenerate levels (for example the two $E_{u}$ states corresponding to the planar O $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ orbitals or the $E_{u}$ and $E_{g}$ states of the apical O) interact with $k%
\not=0$ phonons. We are particularly interested in the phonons which lead to symmetry breaking and allow the formation of intersite pairs or stripes. In Eq. (5) we give the invariant Hamiltonian which couples degenerate electronic states to phonons transforming as the $\tau _{1}$ representations of the group of wave-vector $G_{k}$. Taking into account that $E_{g}$ and $%
E_{u}$ representations are real and Pauli matrices $\sigma _{i}$ corresponding to the doublet of $E_{g}$ or $E_{u}$ transform as $A_{1g}$ ($%
k_{x}^{2}+k_{y}^{2}$) for $\sigma _{0}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array}
\right) $, $B_{1g}$ ($k_{x}^{2}-k_{y}^{2}$) for $\sigma _{3}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{array}
\right) $, $B_{2g}$ ($k_{x}k_{y}$) for $\sigma _{1}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right) $, and $A_{2g}$ ($s_{z}$) for $\sigma _{2}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -i \\
i & 0
\end{array}
\right) $representations respectively, an invariant Hamiltonian is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{int} &=&\sum_{{\bf l},s}\sigma _{0,{\bf l}}\sum_{k_{0}=1}^{4}\sum_{{\bf k}%
}g_{0}(k_{0},{\bf k})\exp {(i{\bf kl})}(b_{-{\bf k}}^{\dagger }+b_{{\bf k}})+
\nonumber \\
&&\sum_{{\bf l},s}\sigma _{3,{\bf l}}\sum_{k_{0}=1}^{4}\sum_{{\bf k}%
}g_{1}(k_{0},{\bf k})(k_{x}^{2}-k_{y}^{2})\exp {(i{\bf kl})}(b_{-{\bf k}%
}^{\dagger }+b_{{\bf k}})+ \\
&&\sum_{{\bf l},s}\sigma _{1,{\bf l}}\sum_{k_{0}=1}^{4}\sum_{{\bf k}%
}g_{2}(k_{0},{\bf k})k_{x}k_{y}\exp {(i{\bf kl})}(b_{-{\bf k}}^{\dagger }+b_{%
{\bf k}})+ \nonumber \\
&&\sum_{{\bf l},s}\sigma _{2,{\bf l}}S_{z,{\bf l}}\sum_{k_{0}=1}^{4}\sum_{%
{\bf k}}g_{3}(k_{0},{\bf k})k_{0}^{2}\exp {(i{\bf kl})}(b_{-{\bf k}%
}^{\dagger }+b_{{\bf k}}) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$g_{i}(k_{0},{\bf k})=g_{i}(\pi \gamma ^{2})^{1/2}/((k-k_{0})^{2}+\gamma ^{2})$$
The first term in (5) describes symmetric coupling and is identical to the non-degenerate case (Eq. (3)). The second and third terms describe the e-p interaction corresponding to the $\Sigma $ and $\Delta $ directions respectively, while the last term describes the [*coupling to spins*]{}[@Khomskii].
The proposed interaction (5) on its own results in a splitting of the degenerate states, breaking the tetragonal symmetry and resulting in a local orthorhombic distortion at $k_{0}$ extending over $\gamma $ in $k$-space. It can therefore lead to the formation of bound intersite pairs and/or stripes with no further interactions. Of course the stability and size of such a distortion will be determined by the balance of short-range attraction, long-range Coulomb repulsion and kinetic energy [@Kuzmartsev].
Now let us discuss the properties of the system governed by this Hamiltonian (Eq. (5)). The importance of the different terms is of course to be determined by experiments. For example, the large 20% anomaly in inelastic neutron scattering at the $\Sigma $ point clearly emphasizes the second ($d$-wave) term, while the absence of strong anomalies at $k=0$ de-emphasizes the symmetric ($s$-wave) term and so the new ground state is expected to be a pair which extends over a few unit cells along the Cu-O bond direction $%
(\pm \zeta ,0,0)$ or $(0,\pm \zeta ,0)$.[@direction] The internal lattice structure within the pair is distorted, so pairing would be associated with a reduced [*local*]{} symmetry within the pair. In other words, the tetragonal or pseudo-tetragonal symmetry of the crystal is broken locally by the formation of a non-local JT pair with a binding energy $%
E_{JT} $ given by the solution to the Hamiltonian (5). We thus associate the pairing energy gap $E_{JT}$ with the experimental observation of a ”pseudogap” at $kT^{\ast }\sim \Delta _{p}=E_{JT}$[@NMR; @Demsar].
To understand these finite-wavevector JT pairs in the context of the phase diagram of the cuprates, we consider the effect of thermal fluctuations as the temperature is reduced through $T^{\ast }$ in the underdoped phase (Fig. 4). For $T>T^{\ast }$ thermal energy prevents the carriers from forming pairs at all levels of doping (shown schematically in the top row in Figure 5). Approaching $T^{\ast },$ JT pairs start to form and exist in equilibrium with unbound carriers according to chemical balance at thermodynamic equilibrium$\ n_{unbound}\sim \exp [-E_{JT}/k_{B}T],$ and shown schematically in the lower panel of Fig. 5b). (The doping dependence of $\Delta _{p}$ which is observed to approximately follow an inverse law $%
\Delta _{p}\sim 1/x$ [@Mullersusc; @Demsar; @Kabanov] is suggested to be a result of screening as discussed by Alexandrov, Kabanov and Mott[@AKM], and will not be discussed further here.)
For such non-local pairs to be stable, the energy gained by the JT pairing must counteract the Coulomb repulsion between two charge carriers within the pair $E_{JT}\gtrsim V_{i}$. The [*upper limit* ]{}for the Coulumb repulsion between two carriers approximately one coherence length apart is given by $%
V_{i}=e^{2}/4\pi \varepsilon r$ $\simeq 0.15$ eV (taking $r=1/k_{0}\simeq 2$ nm $\lesssim \xi _{s}$ and $\varepsilon =4$[@Timusk]). However, since $%
\varepsilon (\omega )\gg 4$ in the relevant frequency range for pairing (1 - 4 THz)[@Timusk], the relevant value of $V_{i}$ can be significantly smaller and can be easily overcome by $E_{JT}$.
Once pre-formed bosonic pairs exist, superconductivity can occur when phase fluctuations between these pairs are sufficiently reduced so that phase coherence can be established between them. This can occur by Bose condensation [@Alexandrov; @Uemura; @BEC] or some form of the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition [@Pokrovsky; @EK]. In both cases the critical transition temperature in the underdoped region of the phase diagram is given by an expression relating $T_{c}$ to the pair density $%
n_{p} $ and effective mass $m^{\ast }$: $$T_{c}\simeq \hbar ^{2}n_{p}^{2/D}/(2m^{\ast })k_{B}$$ where $D$ is the dimensionality of the system[@interactions]. An important issue related to whether Bose condensation occurs or another mechanism is responsible for the formation of the condensate formation is the number of pairs per coherence volume $V_{\xi }$. Using the experimental upper limit of coherence length in La$_{1.85}$S$_{0.15}$CuO$_{4}$ at $T=0$ of $\xi \simeq 20$ Å and assuming for the moment a uniform carrier density in the Cu-O planes, then at a carrier concentration of $x=0.15$ there are approximately 1.5 [*pairs per coherence volume*]{}. Considering the experimental error and uncertainties in geometrical factors involved in determining $\xi $, it is clear that a crossover seems to occur near optimum doping from $n_{p}<1$ per $V_{\xi }$ to $n_{p}>1$ per $V_{\xi },$ implying a crossover from a Bose-condensation to overlapping-pair superconductivity scenario[@Uemura]. Importantly, both are consistent with the finite-wavevector non-local JT-pairing interaction described here. (The detailed mechanism for the formation of a phase-coherent condensate is not the subject of the present paper and will not be discussed further here.)
Stripes
-------
So far, the discussion concerned a intersite pairing-JT effect with two particles involved. If more than two[* *]{}particles are involved in the interaction, the effect of (5) is similar and provided $k_{0}>\gamma $ (Eq. 1), a JT distortion can occur along a stripe, for example. The internal [*lattice* ]{}structure of such stripes is defined by the JT lattice distortion, just as for pairs. The shape of these objects is determined primarily by minimisation of the Coulomb energy, and the formation of 1D stripes is clearly more favourable than 2D clusters in this respect[@Kuzmartsev]. The incommensurability of the dynamic JT distortion given by $%
k_{0}$ means that the number of sites in the stripe is larger than the number of carriers, resulting in a partially filled ground state. The electronic wavefunction inside such stripes is [*extended*]{}, that is, it extends throughout the entire stripe, and the macroscopic transport properties in the normal state are thus expected to be dominated by hopping or tunneling of carries [*between*]{} the stripes, rather than within them. The elementary excitations of such objects are expected to be Fermionic and metallic in character, which makes their statistics different than for the JT pairs, which are Bosons. The JT stripes are expected to [*coexist* ]{}both with JT pairs [*and*]{} unbound particles, with their relative populations determined by chemical balance and the pair binding energy $%
E_{JT}$ compared to the stripe formation energy. A schematic real-space ”snapshot” picture of this phase is shown in Figure 5c). Note that because we have a four-pronged star for the $\Sigma -$point distortions, four different types of stripes can form, each corresponding to one of the four $%
k_{0}$. Since the little group at the $\Sigma -$point does not have inversion symmetry, the stripes can have a local polarisation (i.e have a ferroelectric phase). This may explain the presence of a spontaneous polarisation in these materials and the appearance of a pyroelectric effect in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$[@Pyro1] and other cuprates[@Pyro2].
A most simple and appealing possibility is that superconductivity in the presence of stripes still occurs via the same pre-formed pair scenario as discussed in the previous section. However, the stripes then appear to have a detrimental effect on superconductivity, because they take up carriers and thus reduce the number of pairs.
Overdoped regime
================
As the density of doped holes increases with increasing doping, the spacing between them becomes comparable to the pair size and they start to overlap, so interactions between the pairs and stripes become important, and some kind of collective or cooperative effect which extends over both types of objects needs to be considered.
The Hamiltonian in Eq. (5) introduces a number of length scales (see Fig. 5c)). The first is the mean distance between the charge carriers in the pair (or within the stripe) $l_{p}\simeq 1/k_{0}$. The second is the length of the stripes $l_{s}$ and finally, there is the length scale $l_{c}$ describing the characteristic distance [*between*]{} the pairs or stripes, which is determined simply by the carrier density.
With increasing doping, the distance between the pairs and stripes $l_{c}$ decreases and increased screening reduces Coulomb repulsion, which in turn leads to increased stripe length $l_{s}$. At some point $l_{c}$ becomes comparable to the superconducting coherence length $\xi _{s}$, and the superconducting pairs become [*proximity coupled*]{} to the metallic stripes (Fig. 5c). In other words, superconductivity in the stripes will be induced below $T_{c}$ by a JT pair-gap proximity effect. Above $T_{c}$, there is no proximity coupling and so clearly the superconducting order parameter must be zero in the stripes. Thus it is evident that the superconducting order parameter has to be $T$-dependent within the stripes. Whence an explanation for the experimentally observed [*coexistence*]{} of a $T$-independent pairing gap (”pseudogap”) $E_{JT}$ and a $T$-dependent superconducting gap $\Delta _{s}(T)$ [@Demsar; @Norman; @Claeson] for which $\Delta
_{s}(0)\lesssim E_{JT}.$
The proposed model suggests a simple explanation why $T_{c}$ [*decreases*]{} in the overdoped regime. With increased doping, the stripe length $l_{s}$ increases leading to increased overall metallicity, while at the same time [*the number of pairs decreases*]{}, leading to a decrease in $T_{c}$ according to the formula given by Eq. (8). Eventually in the metallic, nonsuperconducting phase, $l_{c}\lesssim l_{p}$ and the material becomes a homogeneous metal with no pairs and hence the phase no longer supports high-temperature superconductivity.
Above $T^{\ast }$ the crossover from the underdoped to the overdoped phase manifests itself in a change of non-degenerate to degenerate statistics as indicated by region 1 and region 2 respectively in the phase diagram in Fig.4. In principle they should be distinguishable from the temperature dependence of the susceptibility for example, which should be Curie-like in region 1 and Pauli-like in region 2, particularly at low temperatures (see Figure 4). In contrast, the crossover from region 1 to 3 (Fig. 4) is governed by excitations across the pseudogap with the temperature dependence of the susceptibility given by $\chi (T)\propto 1/T^{\alpha }\exp
[E_{JT}/kT] $ [@AKM; @Mullersusc; @NMR].
Discussion
==========
An important issue which needs to be discussed is the effective mass of the non-local JT pairs coupled by $k\neq 0$ wavector phonons. Let us consider - for simplicity - only the most experimentally relevant interaction for $%
\Sigma $ -point coupling, i.e. the ($k_{x}^{2}-k_{y}^{2})$ term of the Hamiltonian Eq.(5). In this case we can apply the Lang-Firsov[@Lang-Firsov] transformation which will give an appropriate estimate of the particle mass [@AKR]. In that case, the effective mass renormalization is exponential:
$$\frac{m^{\ast }}{m_{0}}=\exp {(g_{eff}^{2})}$$
where $m_{0}$ is the bare electron mass, and $$g_{eff}^{2}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{2}}\int d^{2}kg_{k}^{2}[1-\cos {(}ka{)}].$$ For simplicity, here the integration is carried over the Cu-O$_{2}$ plane, so $k$ refers to in-plane momentum. Assuming that the main contribution comes from $k\simeq k_{0}$, ignoring the effect of $\gamma $ and integrating, we obtain: $$g_{eff}^{2}=g^{2}k_{0}^{4}[1-\cos {(}k{_{0}}a{)}]/8\pi$$ This formula can be rewritten in terms of the ground state energy of a single polaron as: $$g_{eff}^{2}=\frac{E_{p}[1-\cos {(}k{{_{0}}}a{)}]}{2\omega }$$ where the polaron binding energy $E_{p}=g^{2}k_{0}^{4}\omega /4\pi $. When compared with the similar expression for the effective mass in the Holstein model which has no $k$-depedence, we find that the effective mass exponent is a factor 2 smaller than the corresponding expression in the Holstein (bi)polaron[@Bonca]. If $k_{0}<\pi /2a,$ the effective mass becomes even smaller, reflecting the fact that for forward scattering the electron-phonon interaction does not increase the mass strongly. Indeed for $%
k_{0}\rightarrow 0$, the effective mass approaches the bare electron mass $%
m^{\ast }\rightarrow $ $m_{0}$. This effect is similar to that discussed by Alexandrov for the case of the Froehlich interaction[@froelich]. However, note that in this case the interaction is weak and there is no pair binding at all for $k=0$, which means that it is not relevant if we are considering pairing, but [*is*]{} relevant if we consider single-electron transport in the normal state. On the other hand if $k_{0}>\pi /2a,$ the mass enhancement becomes more pronounced because of strong backscattering, and so at the zone boundary, corresponding to the special points $X$ and $M$ in the BZ, we expect a very large coupling and a strongly enhanced pair mass. This situation would be relevant to a zone-doubling (for the $M$-point) or quadrupling (for the $X$-point) charge density wave formation and/or the formation of long-range order associated with a structural phase transition. The case [*relevant for pairing*]{} is of course intermediate, as indicated by the wavevector $k_{0}$ in the neutron experiments.
As already discussed, according to the neutron data the interaction in the cuprates appears to take place over a large range of wavevectors $\gamma $ centered near $k_{0}\sim 1/l_{p}$. An interesting case arises at the 1/8 doping level, where the interparticle distance $l=\sqrt{8}a$. If $l$ corresponds exactly to $l=2\pi /k_{0}$ we expect to observe a CDW with a periodicity given by $k_{0}$. (Note that this is different to the simpler case of a zone-boundary CDW discussed in the previous paragraph.)
In the underdoped state the JT model is different from the bipolaronic (BP) models[@Alexandrov; @Bersukher] and other intersite models[@Chakraverty] primarily with regard to the detailed mechanism of bipolaron formation. Whereas the standard bipolaron model usually refers to quantum-chemical calculations[@Chakraverty] and does not necessarily involve a particular JT mode, nor a specific local symmetry change upon pairing, the present intersite JT pairing model does so, and implies a very specific Hamiltonian (Eq. (5)) which is based on the symmetry analysis of experimentally determined local distortions. Eq. (2) at first sight has some common features with the phenomenology of the charge-density wave (CDW) scenario [@DiCastro]. The present model offers a microscopic description for the origin of this interaction as arising from JT-coupling between a $%
k\neq 0$ mode and degenerate electronic states.
The proposed scenario suggests the coexistence of Fermionic excitations in stripes and Bosons (pairs) over the entire phase diagram in different proportion determined by thermodynamic equilibrium. This appears to be born out by the susceptibility data[@Mullersusc] and the 2-component interpretation of the optical conductivity [@Timusk; @MMM] amongst others [@review].
It can also be shown to be consistent with the temperature and doping dependence of angle-resolved photoemission spectra. A pairing JT deformation at the $\Sigma $ point leads to objects which have finite dimensions along the $a$ or $b$ crystal axes. We therefore expect to observe features associated with these objects in $k$-space along the $\Sigma $ direction (i.e. along $\Gamma -M)$ and the appearance of a ”pseudogap” in the ARPES spectra. The range of wavevectors where such a ”pseudogap” appears is given by $\Delta k\sim \gamma $ from Eq. (1). The metallic stripes on the other hand, in which Fermionic excitations exist in the normal state, above $%
T_{c}$ we expect to observe a band which crosses the Fermi-level along the $%
\Sigma $ direction. Importantly, with increased carrier concentration, the increased [*coupling between pairs and stripes*]{} leads to increased 2D order, progressively extending the Fermi surface in the overdoped state. Clearly, the temperature-dependent superconducting gap $\Delta _{s}(T)$ which forms in the stripes will appear in the same regions in $k$-space as the Fermionic band. If we assume that the model can be extended to Bi$_{2}$Sr$_{2}$CaCu$_{2}$O$_{8+\delta }$, the coexistence of a $T$-dependent ”superconducting” gap and a ”pseudogap” along $\Gamma -M$ (i.e. the $%
\Sigma $ direction : see Fig. 2), and especially the apparent ”destruction of the Fermi surface” with underdoping [@Norman] can be understood to be consequences of the Hamiltonian (5).
Reconciling the slight differences in the interpretation of the observed lattice distortions in ESR, EXAFS and inelastic neutron scattering, the $%
\Sigma -$ point symmetry analysis of ionic displacements in La$_{2-x}$Sr$%
_{x} $CuO$_{4}$ shows that the distortion of $\tau _{7}$ symmetry at the zone boundary which was invoked to explain the ESR[@Kochelaev] and EXAFS [@Bianconi] (Figure 6) is in fact the zone-boundary (i.e. short-range) equivalent to the $\tau _{1}$ distortion occuring over a more extended length scale along the $\Sigma $ direction in the BZ and the experiments may be detecting the same mode described by Eq. (5).
We end the discussion by noting that the choice of $k_{0}$ made on the basis of neutron data also determines the symmetry of the pairing channel in Eq.5. The first term is isotropic ($s$-wave) while the second one has $d$-wave symmetry along the Cu-O bond axes. The relative strengths of the terms are of course to be determined by experiments, but the large phonon anomaly at the $\Sigma $ point in the inelastic neutron data clearly emphasizes the $d$-wave component.
Conclusion
==========
The main aim of the present paper is to identify an interaction which can lead to pairing in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ on the basis of a symmetry analysis of the experimentally observed anomalies in the $k\neq 0$ phonon spectrum. It essentially describes the interaction which causes the microscopic inhomogeneities observed in experiments. The rest of the paper is devoted to a discussion of the implications for superconductivity and the phase diagram. The non-local Jahn-Teller pairing interaction which couples $%
\tau _{1}$ modes at the $\Sigma $ point with degenerate in-plane O $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ states is in spirit, if not in detail similar to the motivation described in the original paper on La$_{2-x}$Ba$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ by Bednorz and Muller[@BednorzMuller]. The pseudogap in the normal state results from pair density fluctuations and the temperature $T^{\ast }$ represents an energy scale for the pairing $kT^{\ast }\sim E_{JT}$ $\simeq 32$ meV for La$%
_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$. The model naturally leads to the formation of stripes and the cross-over from a predominantly paired (Bosonic) normal state to a mixed fermion-boson system in the overdoped region. A straightforward and appealing way to explain the doping dependence of $T_{c}$ in the overdoped regime by Eq. (8) arises from the fact that at higher doping levels the average stripe lengths increase and thus [*the number of pairs is reduced,*]{} thus reducing $T_{c}$. Apart from giving rise to a rather simple phase diagram which is consistent with experimental observations, the model also answers the question why superconductivity often appears near an orthorhombic phase of the material. However, because the pairs are dynamic and incommensurate, the locally orthorhombic phase associated with the JT-pair cannot be easily detected by time- and spatially- averaging experimental techniques, and one does [*not*]{} expect to observe a static orthorhombic phase below $T^{\ast }$. On the other hand, the model can explain well the inelastic neutron scattering, neutron PDF, EXAFS, ARPES, susceptibility and ESR, as well others[@Loram; @Hackl; @NMR] which we have not discussed here.
While here we have mainly focussed on La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$, we note that similar large $k\neq 0$ lattice distortions have been reported in YBa$%
_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{7-\delta }$[@YBCO] and we expect a similar mechanism to work there also, as well as the other cuprates and oxides in general where mesoscopic inhomogeneities are observed. We have also omitted a discussion of the spin coupling associated with the local pairs given by the last term in Eq. (5), but mention only that in contrast to the Holstein model, the present Hamiltonian allows the formation of spin singlet [*or* ]{}triplet pairs[@NMR]. Finally we might add as a general comment that a short superconducting coherence length of the order of the inter-carrier spacing may be an indication that carriers are paired by a finite-wavevector JT instability forming non-local pairs. Apart from the cuprates, alkali doped fullerenes might be an example of such a case.
Acknowledgments
===============
We wish to acknowledge very useful and encouraging discussions with K.A.Müller, V.Kresin, A.S.Alexandrov and T.Mertelj for important comments.
G.Bednorz and K.A.Müller, Z.Physik, [**B64**]{}, 189 (1986)
L.P.Gor’kov and A.V.Sokol, Pis’ma Zh.Eksp.Fiz. [**46**]{}, 333 (1987), JETP Lett. [**46,**]{} 420 (1987)
M. Weger and R. Englman, Physica A [**168**]{}, 324 (1999)
R.S.Markiewicz, Physica C [**200**]{}, 65 (1992)
V.Z.Kresin A.Bill, S.A.Wolf and Yu.N. Ochinnikov, Phys. Rev.B [**56**]{}, 107 (1997)
T.Egami, Sol.Stat.Comm. [**63**]{}, 1019 (1987)
K.A.Muller, J.Superconductivity [**12**]{}, 3 (1999)
A.Lanzara, Guo-meng Zhao, N.L.Saini, A.Bianconi, K.Conder, H.Keller and K.A.Muller J.Phys.Cond. Matter [**11**]{}, L541 (1999)
M.K.Crawford et al, Science [**250**]{},1309 (1990), J.P.Franck et al, Physica C [**185 - 189**]{}, 1379 (1991), H.J.Bornemann, D.Morris and H.B.Liu, Physica C [**182**]{}, 132 (1991)
Guo-meng-Zhao, M.B.Hunt, H. Keller, K.A.Muller, Nature [**385**]{}, 236 (1997)
H.A.Mook and F.Dogan, Nature [**401**]{}, 145 (1999)
D.Mihailovic, V.V.Kabanov, K.Zagar and J.Demsar, Phys.Rev.B [**60,**]{} R6995 (1999)
R.J.McQeeney, Y.Petrov, T.Egami, M.Yethiraj, G.Shirane and Y.Endoh, Phys.Rev.Lett.[**82**]{}, 628 (1999)
T.R.Sendyka et al, Phys.Rev.B [**51,**]{} 6747 (1995)
A.Bianconi et al, Phys.Rev.Lett [**76,**]{} 3412 (1996), N.L.Saini et al, Phys.Rev.B [**55,**]{} 12759 (1997)
E.Bozin, S.Billinge, G.H.Kwei, H.Takagi, Phys. Rev.B [**59**]{}, 4445 (1999)
B.I.Kochelaev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 4274 (1997)
J.Demsar, B.Podobnik, V.V.Kabanov, Th. Wolf and D.Mihailovic, Phys.Rev.Lett [**82**]{}, 4918 (1999)
K.A.Muller, Guo-meng Zhao, K.Conder and H.Keller, J.Phys:Condens. Matt. [**10**]{}, L291(1998)
D.Mihailovic, I.Poberaj, T.Mertelj and J.Demsar, in ”Anharmonic Properties of High-T$_{c}$ Cuprates”, Eds. D.Mihailovic et al (World Scientific, 1995), p148., T.Mertelj et al Phys.Rev.B [**55**]{}, 6061 (1997)
M.R.Norman et al, Nature [**392**]{}, 157 (1998)
A $k$-dependent JT interaction, albeit without emphasising any particular wavevector was briefly discussed in different context by Kugel and Khomskii Usp.Fiz.Nauk [**136**]{} 621 (1982)
F.V.Kuzmartsev, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**84**]{}, 530 (2000) and Phys.Rev.Lett. [**84**]{}, 5026 (2000), see also A.S.Alexandrov and V.V.Kabanov cond-mat/0005419
Note that a distortion along 45$^{\circ }$ to the Cu-O bonds ($\Delta -$point$)$ is also allowed, but is not discussed further because the experiments suggest that the $\Sigma $-point is more relevant.
V.V.Kabanov J.Demsar, B.Podobnik and D.Mihailovic, Phys.Rev.B [**59**]{}, 1497 (1999)
A.A.Alexandrov, V.V.Kabanov and N.F.Mott, Phys.Rev.Lett [**77**]{}, 4796 (1996)
D.B.Tanner and T.Timusk, in ”Physical Properties of High-Temperature Superconductors III”, Ed. D.Ginsberg (World Scientific, 1992)
A.S.Alexandrov and N.F.Mott ”[*High-temperature superconductors and other superfluids*]{}” (Taylor and Francis, London 1994)
Y.J. Uemura et al, Nature [**364,**]{} 605 (1993)
A.S.Alexandrov and V.V.Kabanov, Phys.Rev.B [**59**]{}, 13628 (1999)
V.L.Pokrovsky, Pis’ma Zh.Exp.Theor.Fiz. [**47**]{}, 539 (1988)
V.J. Emery and S.Kivelson, Nature [**374**]{}, 434 (1995)
Of course, formula (8) is an aproximate one. Forinteracting pairs it needs to be modified. See for example: V.N.Popov, [*Kontinualnie Integrali v Kvantnoi Teorii Polia i Statisticheskoi Fizike* ]{}(Atomizdat, Moscow 1976) in Russian
I.Poberaj, D.Mihailovic, Ferroelectrics. [**128**]{}, 197 (1992), D. Mihailovic, I.Poberaj, Physica-C [**185-189**]{}, 781 (1991)
D.Mihailovic, A.J.Heeger, Sol.Stat.Comm.75, 319 (1990), D.Mihailovic, I.Poberaj and A. Mertelj, Phys.Rev.B. [**48**]{}, 16634 (1993)
V.M.Krasnov, A.Yurgens, D.Winkler, P.Delsing and T.Claeson, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**84**]{}, 5860 (2000)
I.G.Lang and Y.A.Firsov, Zh.Exp.Teor.Fiz. [**43**]{}, 1843 (1963)
A.S.Alexandrov, V.V.Kabanov and D.K.Ray, Phys. Rev.B, [**49**]{}, 9915 (1994)
G.I.Bersuker, J.B.Goodenough, Physica C [**274**]{}, 267 (1997)
B.K.Chakraverty, D.D.Sarma, C.N.R.Rao, Physica C 156, 413 (1988), A.S.Alexandrov, Phys.Rev B 53, 2863 (1996)
C.Castellani, C.DiCastro, M.Grilli, Phys.Rev.Lett. 75, 4650 (1995),A.Perali, C.Castellani, C.DiCastro, M.Grilli, E.Piegari and A.A.Varlamov, cond-mat/9912363
D.Mihailovic, T.Mertelj and K.A.Müller, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 6116 (1998)
For a review see for example D.Mihailovic and K.A.Muller, in ”High-$T_{c}$ Superconductivity 1996: Ten Years after the Discovery” , eds. E.Kaldis et al, p. 243 (Kluwer, 1997) and references therein.
Y. Petrov, T. Egami, R. J. McQueeney, M. Yethiraj, H. A. Mook, F. Dogan cond-mat/0003414 (2000)
V.V.Kabanov and Yu.Mashtakov, Phys.Rev.B [**47**]{}, 6060 (1993)
Similar results were obtained by numerical exact calculations with the Hubbard model, where for intersite pairs, the effective mass is of the order of the single polaron mass. see J.Bonca and S.Trugman (to be published, 2000)
A.S.Alexandrov, Phys. Rev.Lett. [**82**]{}, 2520 (1999)
J.W.Loram, K.A.Mirza, J.R.Cooper and J.L.Tallon, Physica C [**282-287**]{}, 1405 (1997)
Y.Ando et al, Physica C 282, 240 (1997), Y.Ando et al, Phys.Rev. Lett. [**77,**]{} 2065 (1996)
R.Hackl, in ”The Gap Symmetry and Fluctuations in High-Tc Superconductors”, Ed. J.Bok et al, (Plenum Press, N.Y. 1998), p. 249.
Figures
=======
Figure 1. The distortion in the CuO plane corresponding to the anomalous mode observed in inelastic neutron scattering in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ [@Egami; @Mook]. The O displacements are those of the $\tau _{1}$ mode shown in Figure 3 and in general have different phase.
Figure 2. The Brillouin zone (BZ) of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ corresponding to the tetragonal phase with point group $D_{4h}.$
Figure 3. The ionic displacements in La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$ corresponding to $\tau _{1}$ symmetry of the little group at the $\Sigma -$point in the BZ. The mode observed in neutron scattering corresponds to the O1(1) displacements.
Figure 4. A schematic phase diagram suggested on the basis of the proposed model for the cuprates. The dashed line indicates the temperature $T^{\ast }$ where $kT^{\ast }\simeq E_{JT}$. The solid line indicates the temperature $%
T_{c}$ of the onset of macroscopic phase coherence and is given by Eq. (7).
Figure 5. Real-space schematic diagram representing approximately 100 unit cells ($\approx 4\xi ^{2}$) in the Cu-O plane at different doping levels: a) for $T>T^{\ast }$ the carriers are unbound single particles (region 1 in the phase diagram in Figure 4), b) for $T<T^{\ast }$in the underdoped state (region 3 in Fig. 4) pairs and unbound particles co-exist with few stripes. For $T<T^{\ast }$ near optimum doping and in the overdoped state (c) and d) respectively) pairs coexist with unbound particles and stripes.
Figure 6. A superposition of two $\tau _{1}$ modes (observed in neutron scattering by Egami[@Egami]) with orthogonal $k$-vectors at the $\Sigma
$ point has the same displacements as the $\tau _{7}$ mode at the zone boundary observed in ESR [@Kochelaev].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'D. Lorenz'
- 'T. Lebzelter'
- 'W. Nowotny'
- 'J. Telting'
- 'F. Kerschbaum'
- 'H. Olofsson'
- 'H.E. Schwarz'
date: 'Received ; accepted '
title: 'Long-period variables in and [^1]'
---
[Previous studies on the stellar content of the two nearby dwarf galaxies and reveal a rich population of late-type giants in both systems, including a large number of carbon-rich objects. These stars are known to show pronounced photometric variability, which can be used for a more detailed characterisation of these highly evolved stars. Owing to their well-studied parameters, these Local Group members are ideal candidates for comparative studies.]{} [Trough photometric monitoring, we attempt to provide a catalogue of long-period variables (LPVs), including Mira variables, semi-regular variables, and even irregular variables in and . We investigate the light variations and compare the characteristics of these two LPV populations with the results found for other galaxies such as the LMC.]{} [We carried out time-series photometry in the $i$-band of the two target galaxies with the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT), covering a time span of $\approx$2.5years. More than 30 epochs were available for a period search. These data were then combined with single-epoch $K$-band photometry, also obtained with the NOT. Narrow-band photometry data from the literature was used to distinguish between O-rich and C-rich stars.]{} [We report the detection of 513 LPVs in and 213 LPVs in , showing amplitudes $\Delta i$ of up to $\approx$2$^{\rm mag}$ and periods ranging between 90 and 800 days. The period-luminosity diagram for each of our target galaxies exhibits a well populated sequence of fundamental mode pulsators. The resulting period-luminosity relations we obtained are compared to relations from the literature. We discuss the universality of those relations because of which, as a side result, a correction of the distance modulus of may be necessary. A value of ($m$–$M$)=$24\fm30$ seems to be more appropriate to match the observed data. Only one of our two galaxies, namely , has a significant fraction of possibly first overtone pulsators. An interpretation of this finding in terms of differences in the star-formation histories is suggested. ]{}
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) stars are highly evolved stars with low to intermediate initial masses of $\approx$$0.6-8 M_{\odot}$ that have passed the helium-core burning phase. These stars are then powered by nuclear burning of hydrogen and helium in two thin shells on top of a core of carbon (C) and oxygen (O). During the early AGB phase these stars are O-rich, showing a photospheric C/O-ratio$<$1, and most of them can be classified as stars of spectral type M. For AGB stars with initial masses up to $\approx$4$M_\odot$ the atmospheric chemical composition can change dramatically because processed elements, most notably , are dredged up to the surface by convective mixing after a thermal pulse. Depending on the C/O-ratio, their spectral type changes from K or M via S to C (C/O$\geq$1) (Groenewegen [@groene2]). For AGB stars with initial masses $\gtrsim 4M_{\odot}$ the temperature at the bottom of the convective envelope rises sufficiently high to transform C into N. This process, called hot-bottom-burning, causes some AGB star to remain O-rich.
Long-period variables (LPVs) is the generic term for variable stars known as Mira variables and semi-regular variables. They generally show periodic variations in brightness with periods of $\approx$30 up to a few thousands of days and amplitudes ranging from several tenths to approximately ten magnitudes in the visual. By studying LPVs in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), Wood et al. ([@woodb]) and Wood ([@woodc]) were the first to discover that all LPVs seem to group around at least five almost parallel sequences in a period-luminosity-diagram (PLD), to which the authors assigned the letters A to E. SequenceC was explained consisting of stars that pulsate in fundamental mode. Long-period variables on sequenceB were explained as first and second overtone pulsators, and stars on sequenceA as higher overtone variables. Later publications of period-luminosity relations (PLRs) of the LMC revealed that sequenceB actually splits into two separate sequences, namely B and C$^{\prime}$ (see Kiss & Bedding [@kiss]; Ita et al. [@ita]). Meanwhile, different authors (e.g. Fraser et al. [@fraser]; Soszyński et al. [@soszy_a]) are using different labels in a PLD; we use the original labelling of Wood et al. ([@woodb]) plus the additional sequenceC$^{\prime}$. For stars belonging to sequences E or D the variability cannot be attributed to radial pulsation. Stars on sequenceE are thought to be related to close binary systems showing ellipsoidal variability (see Soszyńsky et al. [@soszy_b]). Recently, Nicholls et al. ([@nich]) confirmed this assumption by comparing the phased light and radial velocity curves of LMC red giant binaries. The results of this study also demonstrated that the variations of stars on sequenceE and D are caused by different mechanisms. The LPVs on sequence D show periodicites on two time scales, where the long secondary period (LSP) is about ten times the shorter period. The origin of these LSPs is still unknown (Nicholls et al. [@nich2]). By comparing a sample of sequenceD stars with similar red giants (not showing LSPs), Wood & Nicholls ([@wooni]) found that such objects have a significant excess in the mid-infrared ($8-24$$\mu$m), which is thought to originate from circumstellar dust. This is not the case for sequenceE stars (Nicholls et al. [@nich]). Within the last decade, several studies were carried out to explore PLRs of LPVs in different stellar systems of the Local Group (see Groenewegen [@groene] for an overview). Rejkuba et al. ([@rejka]) and Rejkuba ([@rejk]) were able to study LPVs even beyond the Local Group, namely in NGC5128 in the Centaurus group. This growing sample of PLRs for LPVs raises the question whether these relations are universal or not and if they are indeed universal, they can, therefore, be used as an additional tool to measure distances. Here we aim to contribute to this discussion by investigating LPVs in the two dwarf galaxies and .
The two target galaxies of our investigation, and , were discovered by J. Herschel in September 1829 and by W. Herschel in November 1787, respectively, and are known to be members of the M31 subgroup. Together with NGC205, they are the most luminous dSphs in the Local Group and are located at an angular distance of approximately $12^\circ$ from the Andromeda nebula (van den Bergh [@vanbergh]; Corradi [@corr]). According to van den Bergh ([@vanbergh]), they are separated by only 58on the sky without any indication of interaction (Battinelli & Demers [@batti_a]; Geha et al. [@geha]). Although these galaxies appear fairly similar concerning their colour-magnitude diagrams (CMDs), some differences can be found in their star formation histories (SFHs), most notably for recent epochs ($<$1Gyr see Mateo [@mateo]). Because there are no main-sequence turn-off stars with $M_{V}$$<$$-1$, Han et al. ([@han]) mentioned that the most recent large-scale star-forming activity in occurred at least 1Gyr in the past. According to broad-band near-infrared CMDs of Riebel ([@riebel]), this event happened $\approx$3Gyr ago and Dolphin ([@dolphin]) derived 4Gyr using HST images. That there are no signs of dust and gas (Young and Lo [@yolo], Sage [@sage]) in this galaxy, which could serve as building material for new stars, also supports the idea that star formation ceased long ago. Using the relation between the $K$-magnitude of the AGB tip and age (as predicted from isochrones; Girardi et al. [@gir]), Sohn et al. ([@sohn]) find that most of the M-giants in formed between at $log(t_{yr})$ between $8.2-8.6$. In contrast, various authors found a significant amount of gas and dust in the centre of (Young & Lo [@yolo]; Lee et al. [@lee]; Martinez-Delgado & Aparicio [@MDA]; Martinez-Delgado et al. [@MDA2]). Butler & Martinez-Delgado ([@butler]) obtained an age of about $400$Myr for the youngest, centrally concentrated stars. Kang et al. ([@kang]) speculate that the M-giant population in contains stars with a wide range of ages, possibly representing two different epochs of star formation at $log(t_{yr})\approx 9.0-9.4$ and $7.8-8.5$dex. In the outer parts of stars with ages of at least $1$Gyr are found.
The red giant content of these galaxies was analysed by Nowotny et al. ([@wn], hereafter PaperI). The detected AGB stars were characterised according to the chemical properties of their atmospheres by applying an efficient method to single out stars, namely, the use of narrow-band wing-type filters that are centred around spectral molecular features of and (at $\lambda$$\approx$0.8$\mu$m). Within a field of view (FOV) of $6\farcm 5 \times 6\farcm 5$, the authors identified 154 stars in and 146 stars in plus several hundred M-Type stars on the upper giant branch in both galaxies. This large number of identified AGB stars motivated a search for long-period variables in these stellar systems. An interesting aspect was if the different metallicities and SFHs would be reflected in the PLRs of the LPVs in the two galaxies.
The main aim of this work was to identify LPVs in and . In Sect.\[variables\] we present a catalogue of red giant variables, the outcome of a photometric monitoring in the $i$-band. The results of this study are summarised in Sect. \[results\].
Observations
============
Photometric monitoring
----------------------
We obtained multi-epoch observations in the $Gunn$-$i$-band with the $2.56$m Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT). The target galaxies were observed on 38 nights in service mode between October 2003 and February 2006 with the Andalucia Faint Object Spectrograph Camera (ALFOSC). It has a pixel scale of 0.19arcsec/pixel resulting in a FOV of approximately $6.4 \times 6.4$arcmin. At every epoch we obtained a single image pointing towards the centre of each galaxy. Our field covered a region corresponding to approximately one scale length derived from the stellar density distribution of (Battinelli & Demers [@batti_b]) and (Battinelli & Demers [@batti_a]), respectively. We obtained 35 images of and 34 frames of with a sampling period of $\approx$14 days. One example image of the time series for each of our science targets is shown in Fig. \[GalLPV\]. The time series exhibits two larger gaps of approximately six months during which the targets were not observable. Calibration frames to correct for sky and bias were recorded for each night of observation. In the rare cases of missing sky flats, these were replaced by average flats from the previous and the following observation.
$K_s$-band photometry
---------------------
As can be seen from spectral energy distributions of cool AGB stars (Nowotny et al. [@nowo2]), they emit most of their flux in near-infrared wavelengths. Hence, the $K_{s}$-band is a good measure of the bolometric flux. The most evolved, dust-enshrouded AGB stars can be detected only at infrared wavelengths. Therefore, the $K_{s}$-band has been widely used (e.g. Wood [@woodc]) to construct PLRs of LPVs. To allow a comparison of our results with previous studies, we carried out single-epoch $K_{s}$-band photometry for our target systems using NOTCam during two consecutive nights in September 2004. This camera is equipped with a $1024 \times 1024$ HgCdTe Rockwell Hawaii array with a plate scale of 0.234arcsec/pixel resulting in a FOV of $4 \times 4$arcmin using the wide-field imaging mode of NOTCam. To resemble the FOV of ALFOSC, we obtained a mosaic of four partly overlapping dithered images per galaxy. Accordingly, the combined FOV of the four quadrants is $\approx 6 \times 6$arcmin.
Data reduction {#dataReduction}
==============
Monitoring data
---------------
All frames obtained for this study were bias-, sky- and flatfield-corrected using standard data reduction routines. As in PaperI, the whole sample of stars was corrected for interstellar reddening adopting the values from the NASA Extragalactic Database (: $A_{V}$=$0\fm574$, $A_{i}$=$0\fm336$, $A_{K_{s}}$=$0\fm064$; : $A_{V}$=$0\fm604$, $A_{i}$=$0\fm354$, $A_{K_{s}}$=$0\fm067$). Images taken in the $i$-band with ALFOSC also suffer from fringing. To compensate for this effect, it would have been necessary to obtain flatfield images before and after each integration of the science target to create a fringe map. Without these additional calibration images, a correction for this effect was not possible. The maximum amplitude of variations caused by fringing is, however, well below the minimum amplitude expected for LPVs. The detection of variable stars was carried out using the image subtraction tool ISIS2.1[^2] of Alard ([@alard]). One carefully chosen $i$-band image was taken as reference frame to obtain differences in flux relative to each image of the time series. To produce light curves from these differences, we measured fluxes for each star on the reference frame by using a PSF fitting software written by Ch. Alard. Short descriptions of the code, which was originally developed for the DENIS project, can be found in Schuller et al. ([@schuller]) or Beaulieu et al. ([@beau]). As can be seen in Fig.\[GalLPV\], the central region of is more compact towards the centre. Hence, the identification of variable stars towards central regions is incomplete because of crowding. The photometric zero-point correction was determined using a sample of constant stars on the reference frame that were cross-correlated with their counterparts in PaperI. To estimate a photometric error, two samples of randomly chosen constant stars common to all images of the time series were selected. Following the same approach as for the reference frame, mean zero-points were calculated from one sample of constant stars for each frame and subsequently used to remove zero-point variations between the various frames. Then, the differences between the corrected magnitudes of all stars of the second sample and the corresponding values from PaperI were determined. Their standard deviations served as an estimate for the photometric errors. The resulting errors in the $i$-band at a mean luminosity of $19\fm5$ for the various epochs range between $0\fm085$ for and $0\fm094$ for , respectively.
Near-infrared data
------------------
$K_{s}$-band images taken with the NOTCam suffer from distortion that severely increases towards the edge of the frame. Thus, the frames had to be corrected for this effect before carrying out the standard image reduction steps. Glfalk ([@galfalk]) constructed a model of the NOTCamWF camera distortion based on his observations of B335. This NOTCam-model[^3] was implemented in a software provided by Glfalk ([@galfalk], written in IDL, which performs additional corrections), which was used for distortion correction of all $K_{s}$-band images. Subsequently, the usual reduction steps of near-IR imaging were applied to the dithered $K_{s}$-band images. All frames belonging to one quadrant were aligned and merged to one image to achieve a higher S/N. Point-spread functions fitting photometry was carried out using the DAOPHOT/ALLSTAR photometry package (Stetson & Harris [@stetson]). The photometric zero-points to calibrate $K_{s}$ were derived using constant stars in each quadrant of the target galaxy, which were also found in the 2MASS Point Source Catalogue (Cutri et al. [@cutri]). $K_s$-magnitudes of the detected variables in both galaxies are listed in the fifth column of Table\[periods147\] and \[periods185\], respectively, which are available online only. The corresponding mean photometric uncertainties after the calibration are listed in Table\[errors\] for different bins of magnitude within the range $16 < K_s < 19 $. In Fig.\[kDist\] the luminosity function (LF) in $K_s$ of stars detected in and is shown as a black continuous line. The red dashed line represents the distribution of LPVs for which we were able to assign a period as well. With the instrument setting mentioned above, the photometry in $K_s$ for both galaxies is probably complete down to $\approx$17mag. At a mean $K$-band luminosity of 17 mag, the typical photometric errors for and are $0\fm15$ and $0\fm16$, respectively.
Catalogue of variables {#photVar}
----------------------
\[variables\]
$i$ $e_{phot}$ $K_s$ $e_{phot}$
------- ------------ ------- ------------
$>19$ 0.03 $>16$ 0.09
19-20 0.04 16-17 0.11
20-21 0.06 17-18 0.13
21-22 0.09 18-19 0.18
$<22$ 0.16 $<19$ 0.26
: Photometric uncertainties for the two galaxies obtained in the $i$- and $K_s$-filters.[]{data-label="errors"}
The $i$-band light curves were searched for periodicities using SIGSPEC[^4] (Reegen [@piet]). A maximum of two periods was derived from the Fourier analysis if the criterion for significance was fulfilled. The significance ($sig$) of a period is defined in SIGSPEC as the inverse of the logarithmic scaled false-alarm-probability (FAP) that a discrete Fourier transform amplitude is caused by noise (see Reegen [@piet] for details). A spectral significance of 5 therefore corresponds to an inverse FAP of $10^5$ or, in other words, the risk of the amplitude being just caused by noise is 1:10$^5$. Example light curves showing different types of LPVs from both galaxies together with our best model fit are shown in Fig.\[LC\]. The results of the period search are summarised in Table\[periods147\] and \[periods185\], which are available online only. Beside the periods and corresponding significance of the detected LPVs, the table also lists the mean $i$-magnitudes that were obtained from the light curve. The corresponding photometric errors of the mean brightness in the $i$-band after the calibration are listed in Table\[errors\] for different ranges of magnitude. We only used Fourier-amplitudes from the SIGSPEC-output to fit the light curves (see red line in Fig.\[LC\]). Additionally, we defined a $\sigma$-amplitude that is twice the statistical standard deviation from the mean brightness of the variable. A purely sinusoidal light curve, for example, with a peak-to-peak-amplitude $A=1\fm0$ would result in a corresponding $\sigma$-amplitude of $A_{\sigma}=0\fm701$ (hereafter $\Delta i$). This allows us to have a better understanding of the overall variability of the detected LPVs in both galaxies even for LPVs for which no significant period could be asserted. In addition, this parameter is not sensitive to outliers of the observed light curve mainly caused by dead pixels on the frame or cosmic rays during the integration. Depending on the results of the period search, we were able to assign one, two, or no period to each LPV. For some stars (starting from ID147V000169 in Table\[periods147\] and ID185V000420 in \[periods185\]) it was not possible to detect a significant period, although they clearly are variable. Therefore, we listed their $\sigma$-amplitudes $\Delta i$ to obtain a better impression of their variability.
Cross-correlation with photometry from PaperI ($V,i$,*[TiO]{},[CN]{}*)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In PaperI, single epoch $Vi$ photometry was discussed as part of a photometric survey of Local Group galaxies. Furthermore, narrow-band filters (wing-type) were used to derive information on the probable spectral types of the bright red giant stars in these galaxies. To discuss LPVs of and in more detail, a cross-correlation with the results obtained in PaperI was performed using the DENIS software ‘Cross Color’ written by Ch. Alard (see Schuller et al. ([@schuller]). This allows us to distinguish LPVs from other detected variables in our sample and to study their distribution in consecutive diagrams. For approximately 75% of the identified variables we could assign counterparts in PaperI. The reason for the incompleteness was threefold. First, some stars were obviously at light minimum and, thus, too weak at the epoch of the observations of PaperI. Second, we had to exclude all variables where the cross-correlation was ambiguous because of crowding. Third, a few stars visible on the frames studied in PaperI had photometric errors that were too large to be included in the final list there.
--------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
LPVs $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$
Period $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$
$V,i$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$
, $\times$ $\times$
$K_S$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$
objects 213 168 163 182 147 122 113
--------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
: Summary of detected variables in , grouped according to the information available for different sub-samples.[]{data-label="table:3"}
--------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
LPVs $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$
Period $\times$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$
$V,i$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$
, $\times$ $\times$
$K_S$ $\times$ $\times$ $\times$
objects 513 419 381 387 323 298 229
--------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
: Same as Table\[table:3\] for .[]{data-label="table:4"}
Results and discussion {#results}
======================
Variable stars {#LPVs}
--------------
In Tables\[table:3\] and \[table:4\] we list the number of objects in each of the two galaxies for which certain sets of data are available. We thereby describe the size of several sub-samples grouped according to the information available. For the 163 variables in and the 381 objects in where we have broad-band photometry from Nowotny et al. ([@wn]), the locations in the CMDs are shown in Fig.\[CMD\] together with the full sample of PaperI. The LPVs are superimposed as red crosses and those classified as stars (according to PaperI) are drawn as black circles. Evidently, most of the identified LPVs are located in the upper region of the giant branch where AGB stars, and in particular classical stars, are expected. Approximately two thirds of the variable red giant stars in both galaxies clearly show mono-periodic light variations. Two periods could be assigned to 20 variables of , and for 45 LPVs of this system no significant period was found. In we find 38 LPVs exhibiting two periods and 94 LPVs for which no period could be detected. The light curves of LPVs without a significant period show a wide variety of shapes. A part of them definitely shows very long variations that exceed the length of our time series. On the other hand, we also have a short period limit because of the sampling interval of our observations, which amounts to approximately 90 days. We also found objects with irregular light variations, sometimes alternating with phases of comparably constant brightnesses. A selection of different LPV light curves detected in both galaxies is presented in . Mono-periodic cases can be found in the panels of the upper two rows. Examples of LPVs exhibiting two significant periods are plotted in the following two rows, which show a beating phenomenon in the second panel of the fourth row. In the last row of , two cases out of the $\approx 20\%$ of our sample stars are given for which no significant period could be determined from the observations. However, taking into account their $(V-i)$, $\sigma$-amplitudes and the time scales of their light variations, they can still clearly be classified as LPVs.
---------- ----- -----
C 51 61
M/S 98 288
unclass. 64 164
$\Sigma$ 213 513
---------- ----- -----
: LPVs identified in the two target galaxies grouped according to their chemical types as derived from the narrow-band photometry of PaperI.[]{data-label="table:LPVsubsamples"}
Using the narrow-band photometry from PaperI, we can assign a probable atmospheric chemistry to most of the LPVs in our sample, and study the variability characteristics in relation to these defined subgroups. Of special interest are carbon stars, which we assume to be intrinsic post-third-dredge-up objects. Table\[table:LPVsubsamples\] groups the identified variable stars according to the designated chemistry type. To search for possible correlations between the location of LPVs within the galaxy and their chemistry, we chose one of the CCD images from the time series and indicated the detected variables as red circles and LPVs as blue circles (see Fig.\[GalLPV\]). The radial distribution for identified AGB stars in and has been discussed in PaperI. The authors find similar distributions for all AGB stars and for only AGB stars. If the sample is reduced to detected LPVs in those galaxies, the trend in radial distribution for LPVs is similar as that for the full sample of LPVs. The number ratio of carbon-rich over oxygen-rich LPVs amounts to 0.52 for and 0.21 for , respectively. These values fall between the corresponding ratios for the whole population and the ratios when limiting the O-rich sample to spectral types M5 and later, as presented in PaperI. Thereby, our sample selected on variability provides a good representation of the AGB population with which the LPV class is typically associated. If we look at the histograms in Fig.\[aHist\], we notice that the amplitude distributions of the O-rich objects is dominated by small-amplitude variables. Indeed, the histograms suggest that the peak at $0\fm35$ is not real, but that we are missing stars with the shortest amplitudes owing to the limited sampling rate of our monitoring. In contrast, C-rich stars exhibit a much flatter distribution in these plots. For the sake of completeness, the distribution of LPVs without narrow-band photometry is given in the last panels of Fig.\[aHist\] for each of the galaxies.
The period distributions of the LPVs in the two galaxies can be seen in the $\Delta i$ vs. log$P$ diagrams in Fig.\[lgPAmpl2\]. Here, we plotted only the first significant period of all detected LPVs. The range of periods covered by the variables is similar in both systems ($\approx$$90$–$600^{\rm d}$) and a weak tendency of larger amplitudes with increasing period may be visible. Considerably more LPVs with shorter periods were found in . In this galaxy, we also found a small group of stars with very long periods and small amplitudes. These are likely candidates for LSPs, but no other significant periodicities were found from our times series. Splitting up the stars according to their chemistry reveals a concentration of C-rich targets around $\log
P$=2.5, while the O-rich stars are found predominantly at shorter periods. This behaviour is expected from theory.
Period-luminosity relations {#PLR}
---------------------------
To construct period-luminosity diagrams (PLDs) for both target systems, and , the datasets of the $i$-time series and the $K_{s}$-band photometry were combined. This resulted in 182 LPVs with $K_{s}$-magnitudes and detected periods in and 387 LPVs in , respectively, which could be used for the construction of the PLDs. The resulting $K_{s}$-$\log{P}$ diagrams for both galaxies are shown in Fig.\[KlgP\]. Different symbols denote the various classes of LPVs, namely , , and unclassified variables according to the narrow-band photometry adopted from PaperI. Furthermore, the amplitude was used to group the variables into four sub-samples indicated by the symbol sizes in Fig.\[KlgP\]. Obviously, most LPVs in both galaxies seem to form a distinct sequence at the very same location in the PLDs as the sequence of fundamental mode pulsators (labeled sequence C; cf. Sect.1) found by various authors for the Magellanic Clouds. For illustration purposes, we overplotted the relations of Ita et al. ([@ita]). To shift their relations according to the difference in distance between the Magellanic Clouds and our galaxies, we adopted the distance moduli determined via the brightness of horizontal branch stars for our target systems by Butler et al. ([@butler]). They derived distance moduli of $(m -
M)_{0}$=$24\fm38\pm 0\fm01$ and $24\fm09\pm0.06$ mag for and , respectively. For the LMC we adopted the distance modulus obtained by Pietrzyńsky et al. ([@pietr]) of $(m - M)_{0}$=$18\fm50\pm 0\fm06$. With respect to the atmospheric chemistry, we find O-rich stars along the whole sequence (with a slight thinning in number towards the top), while C-rich stars mainly occupy the upper part of the sequence. This agrees with findings of other studies (e.g., Wood [@woodc] or Ita et al. [@ita]). After applying a 3.0$\sigma$ clipping to exclude stars that are considered not to belong to sequence C, a least-squares fitting was performed to obtain PLRs for this sample of stars. The linear regression $(m_{K}$=$a \log{P} +
b)$; black dashed lines in Fig.\[KlgP\]) of this selection resulted in a slope $a$ of $-3.55$ for and $-3.47$ for . For the of each relation we obtained 25$\fm$46 and 25$\fm$22 for and , respectively. In Table\[PLRs\] we contrast PLRs derived by different studies with those found here. This comparison of results for different stellar systems is of interest for studying the aspect of the universality of the PLRs of Sequence C stars, which may then serve as an additional tool to measure distances in extragalactic systems. Owing to the limited number of carbon stars in our samples, we did not analyse and stars separately. However, for comparison reasons we calculated PLRs for our samples with and without LPVs. The small differences of the values demonstrate that the results are robust against slight changes of the sample selection. For additional calculations we only consider the results of the complete 3.0$\sigma$ clipping sample. The slopes $a$ found for and are close to those given for the combined samples in other stellar systems.
In Fig.\[KlgP\] an obvious offset between the shifted LMC-PLRs and those derived for can be seen. The numbers in Table\[PLRs\] suggest that this shift amounts to approximately $0\fm 2-0\fm4$ (depending on sample selection and regression method). A mild difference in the zero-point $b$ is expected owing to the difference in metallicity (Wood [@wooda]). However, for the lower metallicity of relative to the LMC, a star should be brighter at a given period, making the discrepancy even larger. A simple but not necessarily final explanation for this difference would be an error in the distance modulus of . When attempting to bring our observations in line with the LMC relations of Ita et al. ([@ita]), a distance modulus of 24$\fm$30 seems to be more appropriate for this galaxy. This value is obtained by subtracting the resulting $K_{s}$-magnitudes derived from the relation of Ita et al. ([@ita]) and from this work at a constant value of $\lg P = 2.31 $. For , the distance modulus from the literature excellently agrees with our data. The zero-point problem for needs further exploration. However, if the reason for the offset PLRs is indeed an error in the distance modulus, this would be the first correction of a distance to a galaxy based on PLRs of LPVs.
For there are indications of another parallel sequence of LPVs shifted towards shorter periods (sequence C$^{\prime}$). On average, stars on this sequence exhibit smaller amplitudes than objects on sequence C (see lower panel of Fig.\[KlgP\]). A similar PLR was found in the LMC (e.g. Ita et al. [@ita], Fraser et al. [@fraser2]) and is associated with first overtone pulsation. The smaller light amplitude of this group identified in our sample agrees with this interpretation. Note that the trend for the zero point of sequence C is also visible for sequence C$^{\prime}$ but the number of detected LPVs populating sequence C$^{\prime}$ in prohibits another linear regression. For demonstration purpose only, we plotted sequence C$^{\prime}$ of Ita et al. ([@ita]) and shifted it according to the difference in distance obtained for sequence C. This line is drawn as thin dashed line in Fig.\[KlgP\]. A handful of targets in may also be located on this sequence. Variables corresponding to higher overtone pulsation were not accessible to our study owing to the sampling rate limitations.
From studies in various stellar systems it is known that the LSPs, visible in a significant fraction of all LPVs, form another sequence to the right of sequence C in the PLD. This sequence D, taken from Ita et al. ([@ita]), is overplotted in both panels of Fig.\[KlgP\] as well. Evidently, we found objects in our variability study for which long secondary periods derived from the light curve seem to cluster around this sequence D. In these cases, the primary period is typically located close to the fundamental mode pulsation sequence. Note that a detailed determination of these LSPs in our sample is hampered by the limited length of our time series. As described in Sect.\[s:intro\], the interpretation of this kind of variability is still a matter of debate. Picking up the results of Wood & Nicholls ([@wooni]) that LSP-stars show a significant mid-infrared excess (circumstellar dust), the corresponding targets from our monitoring could be expected to be promising candidates for detecting signatures of circumstellar material.
---------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------- ------- --
$a$ $b$ ($m$–$M$) Refs.
Galactic –3.56 $\pm$ 0.17 1.14 $\pm$ 0.42 1
LMC all –3.52 $\pm$ 0.03 1.04 $\pm$ 0.08 18.50 2
LMC
all –3.34 $\pm$ 0.02 0.40 $\pm$ 0.05 18.50 3
O-rich –3.31 $\pm$ 0.04 0.47 $\pm$ 0.09 3
C-rich –3.16 $\pm$ 0.04 –0.10 $\pm$ 0.11 3
LMC
all –3.57 $\pm$ 0.16 1.20 $\pm$ 0.39 18.50 4
O-rich –3.47 $\pm$ 0.19 0.98 $\pm$ 0.45 4
C-rich –3.30 $\pm$ 0.40 0.48 $\pm$ 0.98 4
CenA –3.37 $\pm$ 0.11 0.80 $\pm$ 0.29 27.87 5
NGC147
all –3.55 $\pm$ 0.15 1.08 $\pm$ 0.36 24.38 6
O-rich –3.81 $\pm$ 0.25 1.68 $\pm$ 0.58 24.38 6
NGC185
all –3.47 $\pm$ 0.11 1.13 $\pm$ 0.27 24.09 6
O-rich –3.72 $\pm$ 0.16 1.68 $\pm$ 0.38 24.09 6
---------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------- ------- --
: Comparison of our $P$-$L$ relations with literature values for different stellar systems. All relations were shifted to an absolute scale $M_{K}$ using the distance moduli given in the text.
\[PLRs\]
A hidden link to the star-formation history? {#SFH}
--------------------------------------------
The similar datasets for the two galaxies with comparable properties (cf. Sect.\[s:intro\]) encouraged us to make a detailed comparison of the derived PLDs (Fig.\[KlgP\]). Besides the different number of LPVs detected (Table\[table:LPVsubsamples\]), which is likely related to the different masses of the systems, the most obvious distinction is the fraction of luminous stars found along sequence C$^{\prime}$. For roughly 10% of all LPVs can be attributed to this sequence for first overtone pulsation, while only less than 3% of these stars were detected in . This raises the question whether some fundamental differences between the two galaxies are mirrored in the recognised discrepancy. A possible interpretation of the lack of stars on sequence C$^{\prime}$ in could involve a difference in the mass distribution of these objects. Linear pulsation models (Fox & Wood [@FoxW82]) as well as observational results from LPVs in stellar clusters (Lebzelter & Wood [@lzwood] and [@lzwood07]) suggest an evolutionary path of an AGB star through the PLD starting on an overtone sequence and later, at higher luminosities, switching to the fundamental mode sequence. Because there are variables in on sequence C$^{\prime}$ with the same luminosity as the bulk of the stars along sequence C, this points towards a higher mass of these stars.
How can this difference in the mass distribution be explained? The most obvious approach would be to assume that the two galaxies differ in their SFH. Indications for this were found in previous studies and become apparent, for example, in the SFH diagrams of Mateo ([@mateo]; Fig.8). Hints for a recent star-formation episode can be found for , namely a small population of younger stars concentrated in the central regions, a significant amount of interstellar gas, and prominent dust patches (Sect.\[s:intro\] and PaperI). On the other hand, seems to be free of dust and gas, and there are no indications for a population younger than 1 Gyr (Han et al. [@han], PaperI). Another hint in this direction may be the possible detection of a small shift in the light amplitude distribution of the LPVs (Fig.\[aHist\]) in the two systems. A younger system is expected to contain more stars with higher masses and, thus, smaller amplitudes (Lebzelter & Wood [@lzwood07]) compared to older systems.
Theory predicts a linear trend between the mean metallicity and the ratio of C-type to M-type stars of a galaxy, which has been confirmed by observations (Iben & Renzini, [@iben]; Mouhcine & Lançon [@mou]). For systems with lower mean metallicities the production of C-type stars is favoured. According to the values obtained in PaperI, is considered as the more metal-poor galaxy. However, the number of C-type stars is approximately the same in both systems, which leads to a much lower C/M ratio for than for (0.21 and 0.52, respectively). Note that one has to be careful with the interpretation of this result because Battinelli & Demers ([@batti]) clearly demonstrated how severely the C/M ratio depends on the selection criterion (see their Figs. 3 and 4). In addition, the mean metallicity of a galaxy is an elusive parameter because galaxies consist of multiple populations with a mixture of ages and metallicities. The small separation (within the uncertainties) of our target galaxies in Fig.3 of Battinelli & Demers ([@batti]) does not allow us to draw any conclusions.
The SFHs of the two galaxies should be explored in more detail to arrive at a final interpretation of this question. Because both galaxies, and , are comparable in properties (distance, luminosity, C-star content) but differ in their SFHs, they appear to be ideal candidates to shed light on this challenging topic.
Conclusions
===========
A photometric monitoring in the $i$-band of the two Local Group dwarf galaxies and led to the identification of 213 and 513 long-period variables, respectively. Narrow-band photometry adopted from PaperI allowed us to investigate the number of C-rich and O-rich stars among this variability class. Thus, our study is one of the few (e.g., Groenewegen [@Groen04]) that uses a more elaborated chemistry separation than the often used broad-band colour criterion (e.g., ($J$–$K$)$>$1.4). Because the attribute of long-period variability is more significant than a pure brightness limit to select the AGB stars among all late-type giants of a population, the ratio of C-/M-type LPVs is a more reliable measure of the corresponding ratio on the AGB. From our study we determine a value of 0.52 for and 0.21 for . Our substantial sample of LPVs allowed us to investigate the corresponding period-luminosity relations in the $K_{s}$-$\log{P}$-plane as well. Most variables in both galaxies are located along sequenceC, where fundamental mode pulsators are theoretically expected. A linear regression $(m_{K}$=$a \log{P} + b)$ was fitted to the data of these stars. The resulting fit parameters agree well with the corresponding values found for the LMC in the literature (e.g., Ita et al. [@ita]). This allows us to speculate further about the universality of the P-L-relation of LPVs. However, we noticed a discrepancy in $b$ for , which may point to an error in the previously derived distance modulus of this galaxy. This would be the first correction of a distance to a galaxy based on PLRs of LPVs. The most significant difference between the PLDs of the two target systems is the presence of a group of first overtone pulsators in , which is almost completely missing in . We speculate that this effect may be explained by a difference in the star-formation history and, accordingly, a different mass distribution on the AGB. According to our sampling interval, periods shorter than 90 days could not be determined. We intend to extend our monitoring by obtaining more observations at a higher sampling rate, which will allow the detection of these periods. Moreover, these additional data points would increase the chance to properly describe the long secondary periods that are likely present in a significant fraction of our LPV sample.
The data presented here have been taken using ALFOSC, which is owned by the Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia (IAA) and operated at the Nordic Optical Telescope under agreement between IAA and the NBIfAFG of the Astronomical Observatory of Copenhagen. This work was supported by the *Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung* (FWF) under project numbers P18939–N16, P20046–N16 and P21988-N16. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Alard, C. 2000, , 144, 363 Battinelli, P., & Demers S. 2004, , 417, 479 Battinelli, P., & Demers S. 2004, , 418, 33 Battinelli, P., & Demers S. 2005, , 434, 657 Beaulieu, J. P., Carey, S., Ribas, I., & Tinetti, G. 2008, , 677, 1343 Butler, D. J., & Martinez-Delgado D. 2005, , 129, 2217 Cioni, M.-R. L., Marquette, J. B., Loup, C., et al. 2000, , 377, 945 Corradi, R. L. M., Magrini, L., Greimel, R., et al. 2005, , 431, 555 Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., Van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, Expl. Supplement to the 2MASS All Sky Data Release, http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/explsup.html Dolphin, A. E., 2000, , 531, 804 Feast, M.W., Glass, I.S., Whitelock, P.A., et al. 1989, , 241, 375 Fox, M.W., & Wood, P.R. 1982, , 259, 198 Fraser, O. J., Hawley, S. L., Cook, K. H., & Keller, S. C. 2005, , 129, 768 Fraser, O. J., Hawley, S. L., Cook, & K. H. 2008, , 136, 1242 Girardi, L., Bertelli, G., Bressan, et al. 2002, , 391, 195 Glfalk, M. 2005, NOT Annual report 2004, p18 Geha, M., van der Marel, R. P., Guhathakurta, P., et al. 2010, , 711, 361 Groenewegen, M. A. T. & Whitelock P.A. 1996, , 281, 1347 Groenewegen, M. A. T. 2004, , 425, 595 Groenewegen, M. A. T. 2005, ASP Conf. Ser., arXiv:astro-ph/0506381 Groenewegen, M. A. T. 2007, ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 378, p. 433 Han, M., Hoessel, J. G., Gallagher III, J. S., et al. 1997, , 113, 1001 Iben, Jr., I. & Renzini, A. 1983, , 21, 271 Ita, Y., Tanabé, T., Matsunaga, N., et al. 2004, , 347, 720 Kang, A., Sohn, Y.-J., Rhee, J., et al., 2005, , 437, 61 Kiss, L. L. & Bedding, T. R. 2003, , 343, L79 Lebzelter, T., Schultheis, M., & Melchior, A. L. 2002, , 393, 573 Lebzelter, T., & Wood, P. R. 2005, , 441, 1117 Lebzelter, T., & Wood, P. R. 2007, , 475, 643 Lee, M. G., Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 1993, , 417, 553 Martínez-Delgado, D. & Aparicio A., 1998, , 115, 1462 Martínez-Delgado, D., Aparicio A. & Gallart, C., 1999, , 118, 2229 Mateo, M. 1998, , 36, 435 Mouhcine, M. & Lançon, A. 2003, , 338, 572 Nicholls, C. P., Wood, P. R., Cioni M.-R. L., et al. 2009, , 399, 2063 Nicholls, C. P., Wood, P. R., & Cioni M.-R. L. 2010, , 405, 1770 Nowotny, W., Kerschbaum, F., Olofsson, H., et al., 2003, , 403, 93 (PaperI) Nowotny, W., Höfner, S., & Aringer, B., 2010, , 514, A35 Pietrzyńsky, G., Thompson, I. B., Graczyk, D., et al., 2009, , 697, 862 Reegen, P. 2007, , 467, 1353 Rejkuba, M., Minniti, D., & Silva, D. R., 2003, , 406, 75 Rejkuba, M. 2004, , 413, 903 Riebel, D., Meixner, M., Fraser, O., et al., 2010, , 723, 1195 Sage, L. J., Welch, G. A., & Mitchell, G. F. 1998, , 507, 726 Schuller, P., Ganesh, S., Messineo, M., et al., 2003, , 403, 955 Sohn, Y.-J., Kang, A., Rhee, J., et al., 2006, , 445, 69 Soszyński, I., Udalski, A., Kubiak, M., et al. 2004a, , 54, 129 Soszyński, I., Udalski, A., Kubiak, M., et al. 2004b, , 54, 347 Stetson, P. B., & Harris, W. E. 1988, , 96, 909 van den Bergh S. 1998, , 116, 1688 Wood, P. R. 1990, in From Miras to Planetary Nebulae, ed. M. O. Mennessier, & A. Omont (Gif-sur-Yvette: Éditions Frontières), p 67 Wood, P. R. 1999, IAU Symp. 191, 151 Wood, P. R. 2000, , 17, 18 Wood, P. R., & Nicholls, C. P. 2009, , 707, 573 Young, L. M., & Lo, K. 1997, , 476, 127
[lcccccccccccc]{}
\
ID & RAJ2000 & DEJ2000 & $i$ & $K_s$ & $P_{0}$ & $\Delta i$ & $sig_{0}$ & $P_{1}$ & $sig_{1}$ & type & ID$_{PaperI}$\
& h:m:s & d:m:s & \[mag\] & \[mag\] & \[d\] & \[mag\] & & \[d\] &\
\
ID & RAJ2000 & DEJ2000 & $i$ & $K_s$ & $P_{0}$ & $\Delta i$ & $sig_{0}$ & $P_{1}$ & $sig_{1}$ & type & ID$_{PaperI}$\
& h:m:s & d:m:s & \[mag\] & \[mag\] & \[d\] & \[mag\] & & \[d\] &\
147V000001 & 00 33 30.99 & 48 32 18.07 & 20.06 & — & 241 & 1.01 & 2.1 & — & — & S & 00971672\
147V000002 & 00 33 28.57 & 48 29 33.85 & 20.20 & — & 258 & 0.85 & 4.6 & — & — & C & 02190795\
147V000003 & 00 33 27.59 & 48 29 48.00 & 20.47 & — & 206 & 0.74 & 5.3 & — & — & u & —\
147V000004 & 00 33 27.66 & 48 30 33.00 & 19.70 & 16.66 & 300 & 0.57 & 5.7 & — & — & C & 02691110\
147V000005 & 00 33 27.19 & 48 29 29.93 & 19.91 & — & 196 & 0.71 & 5.6 & — & — & u & 02920773\
147V000006 & 00 33 26.68 & 48 29 16.68 & 19.88 & 17.30 & 211 & 0.54 & 4.6 & — & — & M & 03180702\
147V000007 & 00 33 26.43 & 48 30 38.81 & 20.60 & 16.55 & 314 & 0.87 & 4.3 & — & — & S & 03351141\
147V000008 & 00 33 25.15 & 48 32 50.78 & 20.12 & 17.24 & 231 & 0.55 & 4.5 & — & — & M & 04081845\
147V000009 & 00 33 24.73 & 48 29 34.89 & 20.36 & — & 158 & 0.86 & 5.3 & — & — & S & 04220799\
147V000010 & 00 33 24.32 & 48 27 28.13 & 20.04 & — & 168 & 0.74 & 3.6 & — & — & M & 04390122\
147V000011 & 00 33 23.95 & 48 32 47.62 & 19.70 & 17.39 & 206 & 0.79 & 5.8 & — & — & M & 04711828\
147V000012 & 00 33 23.63 & 48 31 01.95 & 20.16 & 17.31 & 234 & 1.43 & 5.5 & — & — & M & 04841264\
147V000013 & 00 33 23.26 & 48 32 54.61 & 20.34 & 16.65 & 299 & 0.76 & 5.2 & — & — & C & 05081865\
147V000014 & 00 33 21.58 & 48 28 43.51 & 19.92 & 17.42 & 203 & 0.47 & 5.8 & — & — & M & 05870523\
147V000015 & 00 33 20.96 & 48 30 52.56 & 19.89 & 16.77 & 245 & 1.61 & 5.4 & — & — & M & 06251212\
147V000016 & 00 33 20.82 & 48 32 08.39 & 20.11 & 17.30 & 178 & 0.56 & 4.3 & — & — & M & 06351618\
147V000017 & 00 33 20.57 & 48 30 56.92 & 19.84 & 16.15 & 167 & 0.40 & 4.6 & — & — & C & 06461236\
147V000018 & 00 33 20.53 & 48 33 08.16 & 19.71 & 17.51 & 150 & 0.61 & 4.5 & — & — & M & 06531937\
147V000019 & 00 33 20.30 & 48 30 28.00 & 19.87 & 16.98 & 233 & 0.68 & 6.1 & — & — & S & 06591081\
147V000020 & 00 33 20.30 & 48 31 14.54 & 19.79 & 16.27 & 329 & 0.61 & 6.6 & — & — & C & 06601330\
147V000021 & 00 33 20.13 & 48 31 07.14 & 20.12 & 16.69 & 280 & 0.91 & 5.6 & — & — & C & 06691290\
147V000022 & 00 33 20.13 & 48 32 32.56 & 19.68 & 16.25 & 313 & 0.77 & 6.2 & — & — & M & 06731747\
147V000023 & 00 33 19.30 & 48 31 05.73 & 19.77 & 17.26 & 166 & 0.87 & 5.5 & — & — & S & 07131282\
147V000024 & 00 33 18.81 & 48 29 29.38 & 19.89 & 17.10 & 218 & 0.69 & 6.4 & — & — & C & 07350767\
147V000025 & 00 33 18.15 & 48 29 28.57 & 19.86 & 16.30 & 343 & 0.37 & 4.7 & — & — & C & 07700763\
147V000026 & 00 33 18.08 & 48 30 46.26 & 19.58 & — & 183 & 0.47 & 4.8 & — & — & S & 07771178\
147V000027 & 00 33 17.74 & 48 31 45.94 & 20.17 & 15.74 & 293 & 1.15 & 6.0 & — & — & C & 07971497\
147V000028 & 00 33 17.65 & 48 30 22.56 & 19.85 & 16.64 & 276 & 0.36 & 5.7 & — & — & M & 07991051\
147V000029 & 00 33 17.46 & 48 31 18.94 & 21.18 & 17.05 & 306 & 1.65 & 5.3 & — & — & C & 08111352\
147V000030 & 00 33 17.03 & 48 28 55.63 & 20.13 & 16.59 & 285 & 0.71 & 6.1 & — & — & S & 08280586\
147V000031 & 00 33 16.75 & 48 31 26.32 & 21.23 & 16.52 & 337 & 1.41 & 3.7 & — & — & u & 08491392\
147V000032 & 00 33 16.53 & 48 31 58.91 & 20.38 & 16.42 & 302 & 0.81 & 5.2 & — & — & C & 08621566\
147V000033 & 00 33 16.28 & 48 32 11.16 & 19.83 & 16.09 & 427 & 0.46 & 4.6 & — & — & S & 08761631\
147V000034 & 00 33 16.08 & 48 33 03.13 & 19.98 & 17.08 & 212 & 0.35 & 3.7 & — & — & u & 08891909\
147V000035 & 00 33 15.83 & 48 32 16.86 & 20.13 & 16.96 & 217 & 0.79 & 5.2 & — & — & M & 09001662\
147V000036 & 00 33 15.82 & 48 32 48.11 & 19.85 & 16.90 & 280 & 0.49 & 4.9 & — & — & S & 09021829\
147V000037 & 00 33 15.43 & 48 29 37.70 & 20.09 & 17.22 & 218 & 0.98 & 5.3 & — & — & M & 09140810\
147V000038 & 00 33 15.01 & 48 27 45.25 & 19.93 & 17.34 & 114 & 0.43 & 5.2 & — & — & M & 09320209\
147V000039 & 00 33 14.71 & 48 32 57.13 & 20.44 & 16.54 & 297 & 0.87 & 5.7 & — & — & C & 09611877\
147V000040 & 00 33 14.37 & 48 29 42.97 & 20.18 & 16.50 & 411 & 0.50 & 5.1 & — & — & C & 09710838\
147V000041 & 00 33 14.18 & 48 30 13.77 & 19.96 & — & 152 & 0.65 & 5.2 & — & — & M & 09821003\
147V000042 & 00 33 13.31 & 48 29 36.14 & 19.57 & 17.26 & 151 & 0.36 & 5.5 & — & — & M & 10270801\
147V000043 & 00 33 13.20 & 48 29 31.41 & 18.96 & 16.45 & 265 & 0.28 & 5.4 & — & — & M & 10320776\
147V000044 & 00 33 13.21 & 48 32 45.73 & 19.82 & 17.08 & 201 & 0.39 & 4.1 & — & — & S & 10401815\
147V000045 & 00 33 13.09 & 48 30 30.14 & 19.60 & 16.90 & 206 & 0.44 & 5.3 & — & — & M & 10401090\
147V000046 & 00 33 12.83 & 48 31 21.27 & 19.66 & 16.59 & 245 & 0.68 & 5.8 & — & — & u & 10561364\
147V000047 & 00 33 12.69 & 48 28 26.45 & 20.45 & 17.60 & 200 & 1.02 & 5.7 & — & — & M & 10560428\
147V000048 & 00 33 12.72 & 48 29 57.35 & 19.11 & 16.05 & 161 & 0.38 & 6.4 & — & — & M & 10580915\
147V000049 & 00 33 12.14 & 48 31 02.73 & 20.10 & 17.61 & 183 & 1.09 & 5.7 & — & — & M & 10921264\
147V000050 & 00 33 12.14 & 48 32 09.62 & 21.03 & 18.16 & 129 & 1.49 & 4.9 & — & — & M & 10951622\
147V000051 & 00 33 11.67 & 48 29 38.35 & 20.20 & 17.14 & 229 & 0.82 & 4.7 & — & — & M & 11130813\
147V000052 & 00 33 11.30 & 48 29 44.64 & 20.09 & 17.77 & 171 & 0.48 & 5.8 & — & — & S & 11330846\
147V000053 & 00 33 11.07 & 48 28 47.60 & 20.10 & 17.68 & 194 & 0.65 & 5.1 & — & — & M & 11430541\
147V000054 & 00 33 10.89 & 48 28 54.96 & 19.56 & 17.01 & 203 & 0.27 & 4.5 & — & — & S & 11530580\
147V000055 & 00 33 10.47 & 48 28 37.76 & 20.07 & 17.82 & 130 & 0.68 & 3.8 & — & — & S & 11750488\
147V000056 & 00 33 10.42 & 48 27 45.13 & 19.91 & 16.06 & 370 & 0.70 & 5.5 & — & — & C & 11750206\
147V000057 & 00 33 10.49 & 48 33 14.27 & 20.10 & 17.18 & 216 & 0.78 & 5.8 & — & — & M & 11851968\
147V000058 & 00 33 10.09 & 48 33 12.70 & 19.70 & 16.55 & 264 & 0.50 & 5.6 & — & — & C & 12061959\
147V000059 & 00 33 09.02 & 48 29 35.53 & 20.22 & 17.90 & 161 & 0.76 & 5.0 & — & — & S & 12540797\
147V000060 & 00 33 08.99 & 48 32 33.29 & 19.93 & 17.38 & 149 & 0.61 & 5.4 & — & — & S & 12631748\
147V000061 & 00 33 08.50 & 48 29 36.66 & 19.65 & 16.44 & 316 & 0.31 & 4.2 & — & — & C & 12810802\
147V000062 & 00 33 08.43 & 48 29 33.56 & 20.65 & 16.99 & 198 & 1.54 & 4.9 & — & — & C & 12850786\
147V000063 & 00 33 08.46 & 48 30 17.49 & 20.06 & 17.68 & 195 & 1.12 & 5.4 & — & — & S & 12851021\
147V000064 & 00 33 07.85 & 48 28 48.17 & 20.12 & 18.00 & 147 & 0.42 & 5.6 & — & — & M & 13130543\
147V000065 & 00 33 07.53 & 48 30 22.15 & 20.04 & 17.67 & 128 & 0.75 & 5.7 & — & — & M & 13341046\
147V000066 & 00 33 07.14 & 48 29 49.17 & 20.01 & 17.23 & 205 & 0.57 & 5.5 & — & — & M & 13530869\
147V000067 & 00 33 07.22 & 48 31 29.62 & 20.25 & 16.28 & 394 & 0.59 & 5.1 & — & — & C & 13541407\
147V000068 & 00 33 06.92 & 48 28 20.66 & 20.06 & 18.01 & 167 & 0.53 & 5.9 & — & — & M & 13610395\
147V000069 & 00 33 07.05 & 48 31 05.04 & 20.25 & 17.24 & 200 & 1.20 & 5.8 & — & — & u & 13621275\
147V000070 & 00 33 06.84 & 48 28 08.27 & 19.93 & 16.92 & 260 & 0.50 & 6.4 & — & — & C & 13650329\
147V000071 & 00 33 06.74 & 48 28 01.40 & 19.73 & 16.94 & 317 & 0.75 & 6.0 & — & — & C & 13700292\
147V000072 & 00 33 06.83 & 48 32 26.95 & 19.77 & 16.42 & 319 & 0.30 & 4.8 & — & — & C & 13771714\
147V000073 & 00 33 06.61 & 48 31 35.60 & 20.04 & 16.84 & 223 & 0.95 & 6.4 & — & — & C & 13861439\
147V000074 & 00 33 06.44 & 48 30 27.95 & 19.51 & 15.78 & 386 & 1.06 & 6.5 & — & — & M & 13921076\
147V000075 & 00 33 06.15 & 48 28 14.38 & 20.33 & — & 194 & 0.85 & 6.0 & — & — & C & 14020361\
147V000076 & 00 33 05.73 & 48 28 50.21 & 19.64 & 16.90 & 304 & 0.40 & 6.1 & — & — & C & 14260553\
147V000077 & 00 33 05.36 & 48 28 43.42 & 19.93 & 18.05 & 159 & 0.88 & 4.6 & — & — & M & 14450516\
147V000078 & 00 33 05.32 & 48 31 17.48 & 19.75 & 17.03 & 208 & 0.63 & 5.4 & — & — & S & 14541341\
147V000079 & 00 33 04.98 & 48 29 47.57 & 20.25 & 16.94 & 235 & 0.57 & 5.2 & — & — & M & 14680860\
147V000080 & 00 33 04.72 & 48 29 36.61 & 20.17 & 17.82 & 160 & 0.45 & 4.3 & — & — & M & 14810801\
147V000081 & 00 33 04.81 & 48 32 49.75 & 20.14 & 17.19 & 179 & 0.78 & 5.7 & — & — & M & 14851835\
147V000082 & 00 33 04.50 & 48 29 26.70 & 19.78 & 17.34 & 152 & 0.76 & 6.4 & — & — & M & 14920748\
147V000083 & 00 33 03.50 & 48 27 53.84 & 20.44 & 17.11 & 234 & 0.99 & 5.8 & — & — & C & 15410250\
147V000084 & 00 33 03.44 & 48 30 32.32 & 20.07 & 17.01 & 258 & 0.58 & 6.0 & — & — & C & 15511099\
147V000085 & 00 33 03.47 & 48 32 24.17 & 19.53 & 16.15 & 303 & 0.99 & 6.9 & — & — & C & 15551698\
147V000086 & 00 33 03.04 & 48 30 31.54 & 19.74 & 16.80 & 248 & 0.43 & 5.1 & — & — & M & 15721095\
147V000087 & 00 33 02.87 & 48 30 54.07 & 20.01 & 17.53 & 196 & 0.57 & 4.9 & — & — & M & 15821215\
147V000088 & 00 33 02.46 & 48 31 27.43 & 19.88 & 17.09 & 234 & 0.36 & 4.2 & — & — & M & 16061394\
147V000089 & 00 33 02.44 & 48 31 23.39 & 20.17 & 18.12 & 157 & 1.13 & 4.0 & — & — & S & 16071372\
147V000090 & 00 33 02.24 & 48 30 43.61 & 20.48 & 17.52 & 421 & 0.44 & 4.4 & — & — & M & 16151159\
147V000091 & 00 33 02.11 & 48 30 13.02 & 20.49 & 17.57 & 186 & 0.78 & 5.6 & — & — & M & 16210995\
147V000092 & 00 33 01.88 & 48 29 39.69 & 19.73 & 17.07 & 278 & 0.54 & 6.1 & — & — & C & 16310817\
147V000093 & 00 33 01.12 & 48 27 58.71 & 20.23 & 17.72 & 165 & 0.73 & 5.8 & — & — & C & 16670275\
147V000094 & 00 33 01.14 & 48 31 05.04 & 20.06 & 17.55 & 168 & 0.75 & 5.4 & — & — & S & 16741274\
147V000095 & 00 33 01.01 & 48 28 45.23 & 20.11 & 17.74 & 193 & 0.62 & 4.6 & — & — & S & 16750524\
147V000096 & 00 32 58.55 & 48 30 49.40 & 20.53 & 17.34 & 200 & 1.05 & 5.7 & — & — & u & 18111189\
147V000097 & 00 32 58.26 & 48 31 10.67 & 20.07 & — & 161 & 0.65 & 5.5 & — & — & S & 18271303\
147V000098 & 00 32 58.02 & 48 31 50.20 & 20.54 & 17.66 & 214 & 1.14 & 4.4 & — & — & C & 18421515\
147V000099 & 00 32 57.77 & 48 29 15.81 & 20.19 & 17.79 & 179 & 0.65 & 4.3 & — & — & M & 18480687\
147V000100 & 00 32 57.48 & 48 29 36.95 & 20.04 & 17.81 & 185 & 0.88 & 5.4 & — & — & M & 18640800\
147V000101 & 00 32 57.19 & 48 29 26.57 & 20.34 & 17.46 & 206 & 0.85 & 5.1 & — & — & C & 18790745\
147V000102 & 00 32 57.06 & 48 31 06.58 & 20.07 & 17.42 & 206 & 0.92 & 4.8 & — & — & S & 18911281\
147V000103 & 00 32 57.06 & 48 32 49.75 & 20.64 & — & 180 & 1.26 & 4.5 & — & — & u & 18951834\
147V000104 & 00 33 23.57 & 48 30 34.46 & 19.51 & 17.13 & 270 & 0.89 & 6.4 & — & — & u & —\
147V000105 & 00 33 17.39 & 48 31 15.19 & 19.94 & 17.36 & 238 & 1.15 & 4.6 & — & — & u & —\
147V000106 & 00 33 09.47 & 48 31 50.70 & 19.69 & 17.15 & 211 & 0.64 & 5.3 & — & — & u & —\
147V000107 & 00 33 09.20 & 48 27 27.16 & 20.16 & 16.77 & 271 & 1.08 & 2.9 & — & — & u & —\
147V000108 & 00 33 04.56 & 48 29 21.92 & 19.72 & 17.22 & 387 & 0.46 & 4.2 & — & — & u & —\
147V000109 & 00 33 29.20 & 48 30 45.91 & 20.51 & — & 270 & 1.09 & 3.6 & — & — & u & —\
147V000110 & 00 33 26.54 & 48 32 48.50 & 19.93 & 17.12 & 219 & 0.63 & 7.7 & — & — & S & 03341833\
147V000111 & 00 33 26.41 & 48 31 40.98 & 20.61 & 16.71 & 321 & 0.86 & 7.3 & — & — & C & 03381473\
147V000112 & 00 33 25.68 & 48 33 15.14 & 21.92 & 16.09 & 406 & 1.71 & 4.4 & — & — & u & —\
147V000113 & 00 33 25.27 & 48 29 54.83 & 19.76 & — & 140 & 0.38 & 3.5 & — & — & u & —\
147V000114 & 00 33 24.44 & 48 32 06.63 & 21.38 & 17.15 & 226 & 1.25 & 4.3 & — & — & u & —\
147V000115 & 00 33 24.26 & 48 28 43.27 & 19.86 & 17.50 & 209 & 0.44 & 7.0 & — & — & C & 04450523\
147V000116 & 00 33 23.93 & 48 32 56.76 & 20.54 & — & 149 & 0.40 & 2.9 & — & — & S & 04731877\
147V000117 & 00 33 23.75 & 48 32 46.45 & 19.96 & 17.07 & 98 & 0.47 & 4.0 & — & — & M & 04821822\
147V000118 & 00 33 23.38 & 48 32 54.19 & 21.67 & — & 298 & 1.58 & 5.6 & — & — & u & —\
147V000119 & 00 33 22.53 & 48 28 55.57 & 19.94 & 16.73 & 304 & 0.82 & 6.5 & — & — & u & —\
147V000120 & 00 33 21.94 & 48 30 56.48 & 21.40 & — & 124 & 0.78 & 2.4 & — & — & u & —\
147V000121 & 00 33 21.89 & 48 30 26.45 & 20.07 & 17.96 & 110 & 0.38 & 4.7 & — & — & S & 05751073\
147V000122 & 00 33 20.41 & 48 29 41.12 & 19.93 & — & 143 & 0.34 & 5.1 & — & — & u & 06510831\
147V000123 & 00 33 19.94 & 48 29 58.91 & 20.25 & 17.48 & 226 & 1.24 & 8.4 & — & — & u & —\
147V000124 & 00 33 16.79 & 48 31 41.36 & 20.52 & 15.86 & 438 & 1.20 & 5.7 & — & — & u & —\
147V000125 & 00 33 16.82 & 48 32 51.88 & 21.99 & — & 88 & 1.02 & 1.7 & — & — & u & 08491849\
147V000126 & 00 33 16.69 & 48 32 49.67 & 22.21 & — & 313 & 1.12 & 6.2 & — & — & u & 08551837\
147V000127 & 00 33 16.49 & 48 31 38.27 & 20.64 & 16.65 & 406 & 1.05 & 4.2 & — & — & u & —\
147V000128 & 00 33 16.26 & 48 28 04.49 & 20.08 & 17.20 & 223 & 0.36 & 5.3 & — & — & u & —\
147V000129 & 00 33 16.31 & 48 31 23.08 & 20.41 & 16.51 & 341 & 0.83 & 6.0 & — & — & u & —\
147V000130 & 00 33 15.33 & 48 30 50.77 & 20.48 & 17.99 & 143 & 1.05 & 4.6 & — & — & S & 09231201\
147V000131 & 00 33 14.93 & 48 33 23.72 & 20.24 & 17.22 & 200 & 0.71 & 6.3 & — & — & M & 09502019\
147V000132 & 00 33 14.24 & 48 31 12.86 & 19.98 & 17.84 & 157 & 0.57 & 4.8 & — & — & S & 09811319\
147V000133 & 00 33 12.79 & 48 31 02.92 & 20.70 & 16.51 & 379 & 1.01 & 8.6 & — & — & u & —\
147V000134 & 00 33 12.64 & 48 29 59.52 & 19.71 & 16.83 & 246 & 0.34 & 5.3 & — & — & C & 10630926\
147V000135 & 00 33 12.58 & 48 31 01.90 & 20.81 & 16.53 & 346 & 1.47 & 4.4 & — & — & u & —\
147V000136 & 00 33 12.36 & 48 30 29.70 & 20.33 & 17.10 & 257 & 1.88 & 6.7 & — & — & u & —\
147V000137 & 00 33 11.09 & 48 28 48.81 & 20.04 & 16.60 & 178 & 0.88 & 5.7 & — & — & u & —\
147V000138 & 00 33 09.02 & 48 29 50.59 & 21.02 & — & 133 & 0.88 & 6.6 & — & — & u & —\
147V000139 & 00 33 08.32 & 48 29 26.70 & 20.24 & 17.09 & 109 & 0.58 & 5.2 & — & — & u & —\
147V000140 & 00 33 08.07 & 48 28 21.69 & 19.84 & 17.16 & 202 & 0.38 & 5.2 & — & — & M & 13000401\
147V000141 & 00 33 07.87 & 48 31 32.07 & 20.11 & 17.15 & 186 & 0.41 & 3.7 & — & — & u & —\
147V000142 & 00 33 07.19 & 48 32 37.74 & 20.11 & 17.48 & 145 & 0.53 & 6.0 & — & — & M & 13581771\
147V000143 & 00 33 06.40 & 48 29 55.81 & 20.65 & 17.37 & 525 & 0.57 & 4.2 & — & — & S & 13930904\
147V000144 & 00 33 02.05 & 48 29 47.60 & 20.16 & 16.82 & 218 & 0.62 & 4.0 & — & — & u & —\
147V000145 & 00 33 01.85 & 48 30 06.08 & 20.23 & 17.61 & 153 & 0.64 & 5.7 & — & — & u & —\
147V000146 & 00 32 58.61 & 48 29 46.87 & 19.64 & 17.36 & 184 & 0.42 & 5.5 & — & — & M & 18050854\
147V000147 & 00 32 57.69 & 48 27 41.80 & 20.10 & 16.76 & 254 & 0.58 & 4.5 & — & — & u & 18480183\
147V000148 & 00 33 04.22 & 48 29 12.83 & 19.42 & 16.15 & 348 & 0.35 & 4.5 & — & — & C & 15070673\
147V000149 & 00 33 14.36 & 48 31 21.40 & 19.92 & 16.34 & 345 & 0.56 & 4.3 & 690 & 3.0 & S & 09751365\
147V000150 & 00 33 10.37 & 48 30 06.46 & 20.38 & 16.33 & 406 & 0.78 & 6.2 & 813 & 0.7 & u & —\
147V000151 & 00 33 20.48 & 48 31 41.33 & 20.44 & 17.04 & 234 & 2.22 & 3.5 & 373 & 1.5 & M & 06521473\
147V000152 & 00 33 20.35 & 48 32 18.83 & 19.52 & 16.70 & 222 & 0.46 & 4.5 & 804 & 0.8 & M & 06611673\
147V000153 & 00 33 14.07 & 48 33 16.54 & 20.25 & 17.16 & 226 & 0.72 & 3.2 & 371 & 1.5 & C & 09951980\
147V000154 & 00 33 07.38 & 48 30 38.03 & 20.40 & 17.26 & 178 & 0.93 & 4.2 & 238 & 1.4 & C & 13431131\
147V000155 & 00 33 22.65 & 48 32 23.44 & 19.95 & 16.74 & 267 & 0.61 & 5.0 & 293 & 2.5 & C & 05391698\
147V000156 & 00 33 16.18 & 48 28 19.31 & 19.75 & 16.43 & 280 & 0.50 & 4.9 & 363 & 0.7 & C & 08710392\
147V000157 & 00 33 12.89 & 48 29 50.98 & 19.75 & 16.58 & 316 & 0.33 & 5.3 & 790 & 1.0 & C & 10500881\
147V000158 & 00 33 05.44 & 48 30 18.10 & 20.49 & 16.71 & 226 & 1.31 & 4.9 & 293 & 0.9 & C & 14451023\
147V000159 & 00 33 02.32 & 48 29 32.13 & 19.76 & 16.77 & 305 & 0.52 & 5.0 & 1023 & 1.2 & C & 16080776\
147V000160 & 00 33 00.92 & 48 29 41.43 & 19.66 & 16.17 & 378 & 1.68 & 6.1 & 564 & 3.3 & M & 16820825\
147V000161 & 00 33 00.66 & 48 27 40.70 & 21.40 & — & 371 & 2.74 & 3.2 & 446 & 1.0 & u & 16900179\
147V000162 & 00 32 59.44 & 48 29 25.74 & 20.41 & 16.91 & 266 & 1.09 & 4.4 & 548 & 0.8 & C & 17600741\
147V000163 & 00 32 56.70 & 48 29 39.82 & 20.60 & 17.11 & 377 & 0.91 & 4.9 & 832 & 1.0 & u & 19060816\
147V000164 & 00 33 04.76 & 48 29 29.04 & 19.48 & 16.98 & 232 & 0.64 & 4.6 & 302 & 1.4 & u & —\
147V000165 & 00 33 22.99 & 48 31 58.23 & 21.21 & 16.80 & 348 & 1.09 & 9.1 & 784 & 2.2 & u & —\
147V000166 & 00 33 16.37 & 48 28 04.20 & 20.46 & 16.81 & 292 & 0.79 & 8.1 & 822 & 3.5 & u & —\
147V000167 & 00 33 07.47 & 48 30 26.76 & 20.09 & 17.25 & 250 & 1.29 & 7.2 & 388 & 5.6 & u & —\
147V000168 & 00 33 04.17 & 48 28 59.64 & 20.22 & 16.80 & 304 & 1.49 & 7.2 & 822 & 4.7 & u & —\
147V000169 & 00 33 18.39 & 48 31 01.83 & 20.06 & 17.11 & — & 0.55 & — & — & — & M & 07611261\
147V000170 & 00 33 17.44 & 48 31 41.06 & 21.09 & 16.22 & — & 1.63 & — & — & — & S & 08131471\
147V000171 & 00 33 05.58 & 48 28 37.77 & 21.54 & 17.33 & — & 1.39 & — & — & — & C & 14330486\
147V000172 & 00 33 27.70 & 48 29 35.30 & 19.78 & 17.36 & — & 0.73 & — & — & — & M & 02650802\
147V000173 & 00 33 26.44 & 48 31 50.12 & 20.02 & — & — & 0.44 & — & — & — & M & 03371522\
147V000174 & 00 33 23.51 & 48 30 41.14 & 19.71 & 17.25 & — & 0.26 & — & — & — & M & 04891152\
147V000175 & 00 33 20.93 & 48 28 34.61 & 19.96 & — & — & 0.56 & — & — & — & M & 06210475\
147V000176 & 00 33 20.07 & 48 33 17.28 & 20.01 & 17.36 & — & 0.61 & — & — & — & S & 06781986\
147V000177 & 00 33 18.96 & 48 30 25.85 & 19.70 & 16.75 & — & 0.50 & — & — & — & M & 07291069\
147V000178 & 00 33 17.45 & 48 27 55.86 & 19.90 & 16.75 & — & 0.46 & — & — & — & M & 08030267\
147V000179 & 00 33 17.18 & 48 28 47.15 & 19.75 & 17.27 & — & 0.34 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000180 & 00 33 16.90 & 48 30 57.62 & 19.98 & 17.63 & — & 0.54 & — & — & — & S & 08401238\
147V000181 & 00 33 13.63 & 48 29 24.23 & 20.09 & 17.06 & — & 0.39 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000182 & 00 33 13.46 & 48 30 55.17 & 20.01 & 16.83 & — & 0.44 & — & — & — & C & 10221224\
147V000183 & 00 33 12.63 & 48 30 43.45 & 19.83 & 17.01 & — & 0.48 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000184 & 00 33 10.85 & 48 29 54.19 & 19.69 & 17.23 & — & 0.53 & — & — & — & C & 11570897\
147V000185 & 00 33 10.70 & 48 31 30.87 & 20.54 & 16.99 & — & 1.67 & — & — & — & S & —\
147V000186 & 00 33 09.98 & 48 32 18.45 & 20.10 & 17.84 & — & 0.49 & — & — & — & C & 12091669\
147V000187 & 00 33 09.34 & 48 32 07.84 & 20.28 & 16.67 & — & 0.75 & — & — & — & C & 12431612\
147V000188 & 00 33 08.27 & 48 32 43.73 & 20.24 & 17.63 & — & 0.44 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000189 & 00 33 06.62 & 48 30 49.13 & 19.84 & 18.09 & — & 0.60 & — & — & — & S & 13841190\
147V000190 & 00 33 05.96 & 48 33 19.34 & 19.66 & 18.04 & — & 0.36 & — & — & — & S & 14261994\
147V000191 & 00 33 05.62 & 48 32 19.62 & 20.01 & 17.01 & — & 0.60 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000192 & 00 33 05.50 & 48 30 52.88 & 19.28 & 16.20 & — & 0.37 & — & — & — & C & 14431210\
147V000193 & 00 33 02.33 & 48 32 52.16 & 20.12 & 16.78 & — & 0.81 & — & — & — & C & 16161848\
147V000194 & 00 33 01.70 & 48 30 31.87 & 19.78 & 16.78 & — & 0.30 & — & — & — & M & 16441096\
147V000195 & 00 32 58.91 & 48 31 08.84 & 20.30 & 17.64 & — & 0.67 & — & — & — & S & 17931293\
147V000196 & 00 32 58.00 & 48 28 28.95 & 20.09 & 17.86 & — & 0.51 & — & — & — & M & 18330436\
147V000197 & 00 33 08.90 & 48 29 26.45 & 21.20 & — & — & 1.70 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000198 & 00 33 04.84 & 48 29 04.69 & 21.17 & — & — & 1.64 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000199 & 00 33 27.10 & 48 29 49.27 & 21.28 & — & — & 0.75 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000200 & 00 33 23.90 & 48 30 32.65 & 21.31 & — & — & 0.71 & — & — & — & u & 04691107\
147V000201 & 00 33 23.28 & 48 30 39.71 & 20.90 & — & — & 0.59 & — & — & — & u & 05011145\
147V000202 & 00 33 23.07 & 48 31 52.27 & 20.24 & 16.87 & — & 0.53 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000203 & 00 33 22.59 & 48 29 37.69 & 20.75 & — & — & 0.62 & — & — & — & S & 05350813\
147V000204 & 00 33 21.17 & 48 28 37.66 & 21.64 & — & — & 0.99 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000205 & 00 33 18.20 & 48 30 50.04 & 21.13 & 17.85 & — & 1.16 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000206 & 00 33 16.65 & 48 30 51.67 & 20.01 & 17.86 & — & 0.30 & — & — & — & C & 08531206\
147V000207 & 00 33 12.08 & 48 31 11.36 & 19.74 & 16.41 & — & 0.43 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000208 & 00 33 11.67 & 48 29 26.87 & 20.10 & 17.69 & — & 0.42 & — & — & — & M & 11130751\
147V000209 & 00 33 08.64 & 48 32 15.42 & 21.41 & 18.31 & — & 1.16 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000210 & 00 33 03.98 & 48 31 08.43 & 21.46 & — & — & 1.12 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000211 & 00 33 02.06 & 48 28 12.73 & 20.26 & 19.19 & — & 0.49 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000212 & 00 33 01.44 & 48 30 03.94 & 20.12 & 17.01 & — & 0.45 & — & — & — & u & —\
147V000213 & 00 33 00.88 & 48 29 20.82 & 19.72 & 16.98 & — & 0.26 & — & — & — & M & 16840715\
[lcccccccccccc]{}
\
ID & RAJ2000 & DEJ2000 & $i$ & $K_s$ & $P_{0}$ & $\Delta i$ & $sig_{0}$ & $P_{1}$ & $sig_{1}$ & type & ID$_{PaperI}$\
& h:m:s & d:m:s & \[mag\] & \[mag\] & \[d\] & \[mag\] & & \[d\] &\
\
ID & RAJ2000 & DEJ2000 & $i$ & $K_s$ & $P_{0}$ & $\Delta i$ & $sig_{0}$ & $P_{1}$ & $sig_{1}$ & type & ID$_{PaperI}$\
& h:m:s & d:m:s & \[mag\] & \[mag\] & \[d\] & \[mag\] & & \[d\] &\
185V000001 & 00 39 14.67 & 48 20 40.97 & 19.68 & — & 139 & 0.43 & 4.0 & — & — & S & 01961242\
185V000002 & 00 39 14.42 & 48 18 37.24 & 19.84 & — & 114 & 0.43 & 4.4 & — & — & S & 02020584\
185V000003 & 00 39 14.12 & 48 21 31.49 & 20.03 & — & 153 & 0.66 & 2.8 & — & — & M & 02281511\
185V000004 & 00 39 13.29 & 48 20 28.43 & 19.58 & — & 147 & 0.55 & 5.7 & — & — & M & 02681175\
185V000005 & 00 38 52.03 & 48 20 10.21 & 19.28 & 16.31 & 371 & 0.46 & 6.0 & — & — & C & 13961070\
185V000006 & 00 39 13.12 & 48 19 25.54 & 19.57 & 17.48 & 163 & 0.46 & 5.6 & — & — & S & 02740840\
185V000007 & 00 39 12.54 & 48 17 54.78 & 20.41 & — & 311 & 0.84 & 6.1 & — & — & u & 02990357\
185V000008 & 00 39 12.44 & 48 21 06.86 & 20.41 & — & 123 & 0.86 & 3.8 & — & — & M & 03161379\
185V000009 & 00 39 11.84 & 48 19 43.23 & 20.18 & 16.89 & 277 & 0.72 & 5.9 & — & — & C & 03430934\
185V000010 & 00 39 11.74 & 48 21 11.84 & 19.70 & 18.04 & 169 & 0.91 & 5.9 & — & — & M & 03531405\
185V000011 & 00 39 11.78 & 48 21 46.36 & 19.31 & 17.54 & 226 & 0.46 & 4.8 & — & — & M & 03531589\
185V000012 & 00 39 11.23 & 48 19 53.03 & 20.06 & — & 109 & 0.48 & 4.5 & — & — & S & 03760986\
185V000013 & 00 39 11.12 & 48 20 20.59 & 19.99 & 17.85 & 124 & 0.58 & 5.0 & — & — & M & 03831132\
185V000014 & 00 39 10.87 & 48 20 17.89 & 19.58 & 17.09 & 588 & 0.31 & 3.7 & — & — & M & 03961118\
185V000015 & 00 39 10.41 & 48 20 52.43 & 20.78 & — & 168 & 1.07 & 4.9 & — & — & M & 04231301\
185V000016 & 00 39 09.69 & 48 19 44.06 & 20.35 & — & 120 & 0.87 & 4.9 & — & — & S & 04570937\
185V000017 & 00 39 09.65 & 48 19 42.87 & 19.67 & — & 203 & 0.87 & 6.1 & — & — & S & 04590931\
185V000018 & 00 39 09.79 & 48 21 01.08 & 19.66 & — & 142 & 0.29 & 3.9 & — & — & M & 04561347\
185V000019 & 00 39 09.34 & 48 20 26.12 & 19.68 & 17.93 & 144 & 0.56 & 4.4 & — & — & M & 04781161\
185V000020 & 00 39 09.09 & 48 18 42.08 & 19.27 & 17.25 & 200 & 0.43 & 5.3 & — & — & M & 04860607\
185V000021 & 00 39 09.18 & 48 19 59.60 & 19.47 & 17.24 & 240 & 0.41 & 6.3 & — & — & C & 04851020\
185V000022 & 00 39 09.03 & 48 19 51.86 & 19.95 & 16.54 & 301 & 0.76 & 6.0 & — & — & C & 04930978\
185V000023 & 00 39 09.17 & 48 22 56.02 & 19.51 & 17.21 & 204 & 0.68 & 5.8 & — & — & S & 04951959\
185V000024 & 00 39 08.91 & 48 23 00.90 & 19.43 & 17.21 & 185 & 0.32 & 3.4 & — & — & M & 05091985\
185V000025 & 00 39 08.53 & 48 18 50.95 & 19.55 & 16.96 & 249 & 0.57 & 5.6 & — & — & C & 05160654\
185V000026 & 00 39 08.46 & 48 21 22.09 & 20.30 & 16.40 & 421 & 0.48 & 4.4 & — & — & C & 05281459\
185V000027 & 00 39 08.51 & 48 22 17.14 & 19.89 & 17.50 & 391 & 0.41 & 4.5 & — & — & M & 05281752\
185V000028 & 00 39 08.35 & 48 19 57.81 & 19.73 & 17.50 & 169 & 0.95 & 5.7 & — & — & M & 05291010\
185V000029 & 00 39 08.33 & 48 21 08.51 & 20.55 & 16.69 & 338 & 0.90 & 4.8 & — & — & C & 05341386\
185V000030 & 00 39 08.18 & 48 19 39.03 & 19.32 & 17.45 & 168 & 0.55 & 6.4 & — & — & S & 05370910\
185V000031 & 00 39 08.23 & 48 21 25.98 & 19.70 & 17.72 & 186 & 0.73 & 4.0 & — & — & M & 05401479\
185V000032 & 00 39 08.15 & 48 21 21.75 & 19.35 & 17.27 & 176 & 0.33 & 2.7 & — & — & M & 05441457\
185V000033 & 00 39 07.84 & 48 17 21.27 & 19.55 & — & 148 & 0.59 & 5.1 & — & — & M & 05480176\
185V000034 & 00 39 07.79 & 48 20 34.30 & 19.25 & 16.63 & 137 & 0.27 & 4.0 & — & — & M & 05611204\
185V000035 & 00 39 07.46 & 48 20 20.22 & 19.97 & 17.78 & 154 & 0.53 & 4.7 & — & — & S & 05771129\
185V000036 & 00 39 07.47 & 48 22 28.94 & 20.04 & 16.70 & 305 & 0.74 & 5.1 & — & — & u & 05841814\
185V000037 & 00 39 07.19 & 48 19 04.86 & 19.69 & 17.34 & 215 & 0.61 & 4.3 & — & — & M & 05880728\
185V000038 & 00 39 07.08 & 48 22 16.59 & 19.50 & 17.32 & 195 & 0.40 & 5.7 & — & — & M & 06041748\
185V000039 & 00 39 06.81 & 48 18 30.65 & 20.25 & 17.52 & 217 & 1.16 & 6.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000040 & 00 39 06.67 & 48 17 15.92 & 19.65 & — & 313 & 0.88 & 3.5 & — & — & u & 06090147\
185V000041 & 00 39 06.77 & 48 21 46.92 & 19.80 & 17.29 & 237 & 1.14 & 6.7 & — & — & M & 06181590\
185V000042 & 00 39 06.67 & 48 22 51.48 & 19.30 & 17.19 & 172 & 0.65 & 5.3 & — & — & M & 06271934\
185V000043 & 00 39 06.69 & 48 23 05.96 & 19.73 & 16.89 & 288 & 0.78 & 4.7 & — & — & C & 06272011\
185V000044 & 00 39 06.36 & 48 18 23.61 & 19.50 & 17.33 & 199 & 0.39 & 5.9 & — & — & M & 06300508\
185V000045 & 00 39 06.40 & 48 19 14.30 & 20.37 & 16.91 & 326 & 1.42 & 6.1 & — & — & C & 06300777\
185V000046 & 00 39 06.36 & 48 19 19.69 & 20.04 & — & 128 & 0.77 & 6.1 & — & — & S & 06320806\
185V000047 & 00 39 05.93 & 48 17 54.05 & 20.10 & 17.28 & 189 & 0.51 & 5.8 & — & — & C & 06510350\
185V000048 & 00 39 06.05 & 48 20 45.86 & 19.89 & 17.38 & 122 & 0.59 & 3.7 & — & — & M & 06541265\
185V000049 & 00 39 06.13 & 48 22 56.61 & 19.32 & 16.01 & 399 & 1.06 & 5.0 & — & — & M & 06561961\
185V000050 & 00 39 05.92 & 48 21 08.54 & 19.75 & 17.39 & 183 & 0.79 & 6.3 & — & — & M & 06621386\
185V000051 & 00 39 05.68 & 48 20 01.49 & 19.79 & — & 161 & 0.67 & 5.3 & — & — & M & 06711028\
185V000052 & 00 39 05.62 & 48 19 32.81 & 20.01 & 17.21 & 247 & 0.70 & 5.9 & — & — & C & 06720876\
185V000053 & 00 39 05.50 & 48 20 21.72 & 19.71 & 17.92 & 132 & 0.60 & 6.5 & — & — & M & 06811136\
185V000054 & 00 39 05.34 & 48 19 35.25 & 19.12 & 16.92 & 95 & 0.19 & 3.9 & — & — & M & 06870889\
185V000055 & 00 39 05.35 & 48 21 07.57 & 19.86 & 16.70 & 262 & 0.43 & 5.2 & — & — & M & 06921380\
185V000056 & 00 39 05.26 & 48 21 19.33 & 20.30 & — & 133 & 1.15 & 5.3 & — & — & M & 06971443\
185V000057 & 00 39 05.12 & 48 20 04.63 & 20.60 & 18.13 & 141 & 0.98 & 5.0 & — & — & M & 07011045\
185V000058 & 00 39 04.74 & 48 18 16.68 & 19.60 & — & 107 & 0.33 & 3.5 & — & — & S & 07150470\
185V000059 & 00 39 04.86 & 48 22 15.07 & 19.46 & 17.23 & 467 & 0.29 & 3.9 & — & — & M & 07211739\
185V000060 & 00 39 04.73 & 48 20 50.01 & 19.83 & 16.78 & 229 & 1.15 & 6.6 & — & — & S & 07241286\
185V000061 & 00 39 04.53 & 48 19 12.11 & 19.47 & 16.83 & 252 & 0.49 & 6.0 & — & — & C & 07290765\
185V000062 & 00 39 04.43 & 48 21 38.13 & 20.13 & 16.65 & 219 & 0.90 & 6.2 & — & — & u & 07421543\
185V000063 & 00 39 04.11 & 48 18 00.35 & 20.33 & — & 107 & 0.78 & 3.9 & — & — & S & 07480383\
185V000064 & 00 39 04.18 & 48 20 08.44 & 19.51 & 17.52 & 192 & 0.94 & 6.7 & — & — & M & 07501065\
185V000065 & 00 39 04.21 & 48 22 19.71 & 20.14 & 17.73 & 146 & 0.72 & 4.5 & — & — & M & 07561764\
185V000066 & 00 39 03.99 & 48 20 03.78 & 20.18 & 16.49 & 325 & 0.80 & 6.3 & — & — & u & 07601040\
185V000067 & 00 39 03.53 & 48 19 06.36 & 19.72 & — & 92 & 0.59 & 4.2 & — & — & S & 07820734\
185V000068 & 00 38 41.55 & 48 19 30.40 & 19.98 & 17.17 & 237 & 0.70 & 5.5 & — & — & C & 19500854\
185V000069 & 00 38 42.10 & 48 19 40.52 & 19.78 & 17.71 & 340 & 0.31 & 4.4 & — & — & M & 19210908\
185V000070 & 00 39 03.20 & 48 18 06.89 & 19.87 & — & 157 & 0.51 & 5.5 & — & — & u & 07960417\
185V000071 & 00 39 03.33 & 48 21 40.27 & 19.58 & 17.52 & 167 & 0.37 & 4.4 & — & — & M & 08011554\
185V000072 & 00 39 03.15 & 48 20 33.42 & 19.39 & — & 140 & 0.50 & 5.0 & — & — & M & 08071198\
185V000073 & 00 39 03.21 & 48 21 22.16 & 19.85 & 17.31 & 95 & 0.32 & 1.8 & — & — & M & 08061457\
185V000074 & 00 39 03.08 & 48 19 47.34 & 19.69 & 16.41 & 286 & 0.49 & 4.2 & — & — & S & 08080952\
185V000075 & 00 39 02.69 & 48 21 44.92 & 20.08 & — & 139 & 0.58 & 4.9 & — & — & M & 08351578\
185V000076 & 00 39 02.52 & 48 19 00.32 & 21.15 & 16.31 & 358 & 1.23 & 4.5 & — & — & C & 08350701\
185V000077 & 00 39 02.58 & 48 20 31.21 & 19.39 & — & 151 & 0.59 & 5.9 & — & — & S & 08371186\
185V000078 & 00 39 02.28 & 48 19 18.53 & 20.45 & 16.07 & 420 & 0.65 & 5.4 & — & — & S & 08490798\
185V000079 & 00 39 02.29 & 48 20 48.95 & 19.80 & — & 159 & 0.47 & 5.5 & — & — & M & 08531280\
185V000080 & 00 39 01.98 & 48 17 38.70 & 19.70 & 17.11 & 225 & 0.43 & 5.4 & — & — & C & 08600266\
185V000081 & 00 39 02.17 & 48 21 00.07 & 19.61 & 17.47 & 210 & 0.73 & 6.2 & — & — & M & 08601339\
185V000082 & 00 39 02.06 & 48 20 56.13 & 19.25 & 16.90 & 235 & 0.58 & 6.3 & — & — & M & 08661318\
185V000083 & 00 39 01.77 & 48 18 48.91 & 19.70 & 16.79 & 280 & 0.52 & 6.3 & — & — & C & 08740640\
185V000084 & 00 39 01.92 & 48 21 55.53 & 19.28 & 17.53 & 127 & 0.42 & 4.4 & — & — & S & 08761635\
185V000085 & 00 39 01.76 & 48 19 34.17 & 18.93 & 16.42 & 239 & 0.22 & 4.1 & — & — & M & 08770881\
185V000086 & 00 39 01.75 & 48 19 32.45 & 19.48 & 16.82 & 222 & 0.56 & 6.2 & — & — & M & 08780872\
185V000087 & 00 39 01.70 & 48 20 38.90 & 19.75 & 16.84 & 131 & 0.41 & 3.9 & — & — & M & 08841226\
185V000088 & 00 39 01.59 & 48 19 07.12 & 19.65 & 16.32 & 339 & 0.56 & 5.2 & — & — & S & 08850737\
185V000089 & 00 39 01.66 & 48 23 08.84 & 19.38 & 17.17 & 183 & 0.32 & 3.1 & — & — & S & 08942025\
185V000090 & 00 39 01.01 & 48 17 31.20 & 19.19 & 16.93 & 154 & 0.15 & 2.8 & — & — & M & 09110226\
185V000091 & 00 39 00.93 & 48 19 59.41 & 19.09 & 16.37 & 302 & 0.22 & 5.4 & — & — & S & 09231016\
185V000092 & 00 39 00.98 & 48 22 01.18 & 20.23 & 17.45 & 192 & 0.92 & 5.3 & — & — & M & 09271664\
185V000093 & 00 39 00.93 & 48 21 48.81 & 19.63 & 16.37 & 280 & 0.69 & 6.6 & — & — & C & 09281598\
185V000094 & 00 39 00.91 & 48 21 33.04 & 20.14 & 16.78 & 236 & 0.85 & 5.2 & — & — & C & 09281514\
185V000095 & 00 39 00.68 & 48 19 01.60 & 20.16 & 16.56 & 315 & 0.70 & 4.9 & — & — & u & 09330707\
185V000096 & 00 39 00.66 & 48 20 57.39 & 19.38 & 17.27 & 193 & 0.43 & 5.4 & — & — & S & 09401324\
185V000097 & 00 39 00.68 & 48 21 36.07 & 20.17 & — & 121 & 0.99 & 4.9 & — & — & S & 09411530\
185V000098 & 00 39 00.53 & 48 19 16.75 & 20.07 & — & 127 & 0.73 & 3.9 & — & — & S & 09420788\
185V000099 & 00 39 00.53 & 48 19 27.13 & 20.65 & 17.43 & 287 & 1.09 & 5.4 & — & — & C & 09420843\
185V000100 & 00 39 00.58 & 48 20 26.85 & 19.23 & 15.22 & 494 & 1.41 & 6.5 & — & — & S & 09431162\
185V000101 & 00 39 00.42 & 48 18 00.55 & 20.78 & — & 133 & 1.40 & 5.9 & — & — & S & 09430382\
185V000102 & 00 39 00.57 & 48 20 52.10 & 19.65 & 17.79 & 121 & 0.54 & 4.1 & — & — & S & 09451296\
185V000103 & 00 39 00.57 & 48 21 20.26 & 19.25 & 16.93 & 224 & 0.64 & 5.2 & — & — & M & 09461446\
185V000104 & 00 39 00.36 & 48 20 32.63 & 18.96 & 15.81 & 302 & 0.61 & 5.8 & — & — & S & 09551192\
185V000105 & 00 39 00.10 & 48 20 28.07 & 19.46 & 16.70 & 230 & 0.66 & 5.5 & — & — & S & 09681168\
185V000106 & 00 39 00.03 & 48 22 19.33 & 19.71 & 16.10 & 330 & 0.49 & 5.6 & — & — & S & 09781761\
185V000107 & 00 38 59.62 & 48 17 37.61 & 20.62 & 17.40 & 234 & 0.67 & 4.6 & — & — & C & 09850259\
185V000108 & 00 38 59.86 & 48 21 47.85 & 19.50 & 17.24 & 192 & 0.63 & 5.9 & — & — & M & 09851593\
185V000109 & 00 38 59.73 & 48 20 11.69 & 20.28 & 17.25 & 206 & 1.03 & 2.8 & — & — & M & 09871081\
185V000110 & 00 38 59.67 & 48 19 47.12 & 20.16 & 16.51 & 306 & 0.92 & 6.3 & — & — & C & 09890950\
185V000111 & 00 38 59.54 & 48 19 46.21 & 19.72 & 16.74 & 140 & 1.09 & 6.5 & — & — & M & 09960945\
185V000112 & 00 38 59.58 & 48 20 39.46 & 19.33 & 17.34 & 111 & 0.26 & 3.3 & — & — & S & 09961228\
185V000113 & 00 38 59.55 & 48 20 58.61 & 19.29 & 16.56 & 248 & 0.88 & 5.7 & — & — & M & 09991330\
185V000114 & 00 38 59.50 & 48 20 43.15 & 19.39 & 16.94 & 167 & 0.57 & 3.9 & — & — & C & 10011248\
185V000115 & 00 38 59.39 & 48 21 47.63 & 19.04 & 17.51 & 165 & 0.32 & 6.2 & — & — & S & 10101592\
185V000116 & 00 38 59.27 & 48 20 11.89 & 19.63 & 17.64 & 172 & 0.59 & 5.0 & — & — & M & 10121081\
185V000117 & 00 38 59.21 & 48 20 57.33 & 19.67 & 16.27 & 358 & 0.41 & 5.7 & — & — & C & 10171324\
185V000118 & 00 38 59.28 & 48 22 54.66 & 20.09 & 17.03 & 103 & 0.50 & 3.2 & — & — & S & 10191949\
185V000119 & 00 38 58.97 & 48 19 26.65 & 19.07 & 16.89 & 137 & 0.30 & 3.2 & — & — & M & 10250840\
185V000120 & 00 38 59.03 & 48 21 42.05 & 19.44 & 16.52 & 314 & 0.63 & 6.6 & — & — & C & 10291562\
185V000121 & 00 38 58.78 & 48 17 34.79 & 20.65 & 17.55 & 199 & 1.10 & 4.8 & — & — & u & —\
185V000122 & 00 38 58.97 & 48 21 15.09 & 19.68 & 17.15 & 273 & 0.82 & 6.9 & — & — & C & 10311418\
185V000123 & 00 38 58.67 & 48 19 56.06 & 19.88 & 17.17 & 116 & 0.65 & 3.7 & — & — & M & 10420997\
185V000124 & 00 38 58.49 & 48 21 15.74 & 19.88 & 16.93 & 217 & 1.15 & 6.7 & — & — & M & 10561421\
185V000125 & 00 38 58.30 & 48 19 22.84 & 19.65 & 17.60 & 192 & 0.71 & 6.0 & — & — & M & 10600820\
185V000126 & 00 38 58.17 & 48 18 06.23 & 19.97 & 17.22 & 202 & 0.58 & 5.6 & — & — & M & 10640411\
185V000127 & 00 38 58.22 & 48 19 04.48 & 20.53 & — & 104 & 0.69 & 3.0 & — & — & S & 10640722\
185V000128 & 00 38 58.18 & 48 19 37.05 & 20.01 & 17.56 & 511 & 0.34 & 4.0 & — & — & M & 10670895\
185V000129 & 00 38 58.14 & 48 19 30.85 & 19.27 & 17.09 & 208 & 0.39 & 6.2 & — & — & S & 10690862\
185V000130 & 00 38 58.04 & 48 18 59.95 & 19.88 & 17.07 & 253 & 0.52 & 5.1 & — & — & C & 10730698\
185V000131 & 00 38 58.10 & 48 20 07.57 & 18.69 & 16.01 & 232 & 0.50 & 4.9 & — & — & S & 10731058\
185V000132 & 00 38 58.14 & 48 20 48.40 & 19.46 & 16.23 & 277 & 0.35 & 4.9 & — & — & M & 10731276\
185V000133 & 00 38 58.02 & 48 19 39.68 & 19.24 & 17.06 & 155 & 0.43 & 5.8 & — & — & M & 10760909\
185V000134 & 00 38 58.05 & 48 20 59.64 & 20.11 & 17.82 & 223 & 1.45 & 6.7 & — & — & S & 10781336\
185V000135 & 00 38 57.95 & 48 19 41.21 & 20.10 & 16.91 & 240 & 1.30 & 5.8 & — & — & M & 10800917\
185V000136 & 00 38 57.73 & 48 22 09.78 & 19.96 & — & 119 & 0.50 & 3.7 & — & — & S & 10991709\
185V000137 & 00 38 57.53 & 48 20 09.41 & 19.00 & 16.70 & 157 & 0.41 & 3.6 & — & — & M & 11041068\
185V000138 & 00 38 57.51 & 48 21 37.74 & 19.38 & 17.13 & 168 & 0.59 & 4.2 & — & — & S & 11091538\
185V000139 & 00 38 42.59 & 48 21 41.79 & 20.33 & 16.37 & 323 & 0.88 & 4.6 & — & — & u & 19001556\
185V000140 & 00 38 57.35 & 48 18 56.01 & 19.53 & 17.40 & 199 & 0.39 & 6.0 & — & — & S & 11100676\
185V000141 & 00 38 57.26 & 48 17 35.11 & 19.94 & — & 130 & 0.81 & 4.7 & — & — & S & 11100245\
185V000142 & 00 38 42.56 & 48 21 23.55 & 19.92 & — & 185 & 0.56 & 6.0 & — & — & M & 19011458\
185V000143 & 00 38 57.07 & 48 19 33.09 & 19.56 & 16.94 & 246 & 0.50 & 5.2 & — & — & C & 11260874\
185V000144 & 00 38 56.91 & 48 19 07.43 & 20.64 & 17.44 & 206 & 0.64 & 5.2 & — & — & u & 11330737\
185V000145 & 00 38 42.52 & 48 19 17.57 & 19.83 & 17.84 & 134 & 0.48 & 4.8 & — & — & M & 18980786\
185V000146 & 00 38 57.03 & 48 21 51.90 & 19.86 & 17.43 & 175 & 0.69 & 5.9 & — & — & M & 11351614\
185V000147 & 00 38 56.75 & 48 20 48.19 & 20.18 & 17.15 & 211 & 0.45 & 3.7 & — & — & M & 11471274\
185V000148 & 00 38 56.69 & 48 20 40.91 & 20.12 & 15.94 & 343 & 0.72 & 4.6 & — & — & S & 11501235\
185V000149 & 00 38 56.84 & 48 22 59.45 & 19.62 & 17.38 & 209 & 0.44 & 5.8 & — & — & M & 11491974\
185V000150 & 00 38 56.51 & 48 18 59.92 & 20.33 & 16.81 & 231 & 1.59 & 6.2 & — & — & M & 11540697\
185V000151 & 00 38 56.16 & 48 18 25.41 & 20.25 & — & 166 & 1.41 & 5.8 & — & — & S & 11710513\
185V000152 & 00 38 56.01 & 48 18 12.58 & 20.17 & 17.68 & 150 & 0.85 & 6.4 & — & — & M & 11780444\
185V000153 & 00 38 56.13 & 48 20 33.95 & 18.83 & 17.03 & 178 & 0.40 & 4.9 & — & — & S & 11791198\
185V000154 & 00 38 56.03 & 48 19 19.52 & 20.85 & — & 132 & 1.73 & 6.2 & — & — & M & 11810801\
185V000155 & 00 38 56.01 & 48 19 56.10 & 19.93 & 16.37 & 406 & 1.23 & 6.1 & — & — & S & 11840996\
185V000156 & 00 38 56.09 & 48 20 53.50 & 19.26 & 16.94 & 217 & 0.68 & 6.5 & — & — & M & 11821302\
185V000157 & 00 38 55.84 & 48 19 06.82 & 19.84 & 17.10 & 112 & 0.32 & 4.9 & — & — & M & 11900733\
185V000158 & 00 38 55.99 & 48 22 38.72 & 19.86 & 17.91 & 150 & 0.76 & 5.6 & — & — & S & 11931863\
185V000159 & 00 38 55.79 & 48 19 26.22 & 19.72 & 17.37 & 182 & 1.06 & 6.8 & — & — & M & 11940837\
185V000160 & 00 38 42.54 & 48 18 37.26 & 20.94 & 16.62 & 361 & 0.99 & 3.8 & — & — & C & 18950571\
185V000161 & 00 38 55.77 & 48 19 15.06 & 20.08 & — & 114 & 0.56 & 5.7 & — & — & S & 11940777\
185V000162 & 00 38 55.77 & 48 20 50.61 & 20.14 & — & 116 & 0.66 & 4.0 & — & — & S & 11991287\
185V000163 & 00 38 55.72 & 48 21 40.91 & 19.55 & 16.68 & 285 & 0.50 & 6.1 & — & — & u & —\
185V000164 & 00 38 55.47 & 48 20 35.56 & 19.26 & 15.91 & 453 & 0.74 & 4.6 & — & — & S & 12141206\
185V000165 & 00 38 55.25 & 48 20 56.07 & 19.98 & 16.39 & 370 & 1.67 & 6.9 & — & — & M & 12271316\
185V000166 & 00 38 55.19 & 48 20 18.10 & 19.94 & 16.41 & 361 & 0.74 & 3.0 & — & — & M & 12281113\
185V000167 & 00 38 55.10 & 48 19 15.63 & 19.96 & 17.15 & 107 & 0.50 & 3.7 & — & — & M & 12300780\
185V000168 & 00 38 55.14 & 48 21 35.46 & 19.85 & 16.41 & 308 & 0.69 & 6.3 & — & — & S & 12351525\
185V000169 & 00 38 55.08 & 48 20 59.78 & 19.32 & 15.92 & 402 & 0.54 & 6.0 & — & — & S & 12361335\
185V000170 & 00 38 55.03 & 48 20 05.16 & 20.34 & 16.83 & 272 & 1.35 & 6.2 & — & — & u & —\
185V000171 & 00 38 55.05 & 48 20 47.04 & 19.16 & 17.03 & 91 & 0.26 & 2.7 & — & — & S & 12371267\
185V000172 & 00 38 55.04 & 48 21 21.21 & 19.81 & — & 176 & 0.76 & 6.3 & — & — & M & 12391450\
185V000173 & 00 38 55.02 & 48 21 42.04 & 20.32 & 16.67 & 287 & 0.93 & 5.6 & — & — & C & 12411561\
185V000174 & 00 38 42.54 & 48 18 27.86 & 19.80 & 17.56 & 160 & 0.56 & 6.1 & — & — & M & 18950520\
185V000175 & 00 38 54.81 & 48 19 33.64 & 19.82 & 17.61 & 153 & 0.74 & 5.6 & — & — & M & 12460876\
185V000176 & 00 38 54.59 & 48 19 06.97 & 19.64 & 16.26 & 394 & 0.44 & 5.4 & — & — & C & 12570734\
185V000177 & 00 38 54.23 & 48 17 24.52 & 19.71 & 17.45 & 170 & 1.02 & 5.9 & — & — & M & 12710187\
185V000178 & 00 38 54.38 & 48 20 15.87 & 19.78 & 16.63 & 280 & 0.83 & 6.2 & — & — & C & 12711101\
185V000179 & 00 38 54.31 & 48 21 14.94 & 19.83 & 16.93 & 296 & 1.01 & 6.1 & — & — & u & —\
185V000180 & 00 38 54.06 & 48 19 19.72 & 19.68 & 17.50 & 187 & 0.64 & 6.4 & — & — & M & 12850801\
185V000181 & 00 38 54.01 & 48 18 58.37 & 19.62 & 17.82 & 154 & 0.53 & 5.8 & — & — & M & 12870688\
185V000182 & 00 38 53.77 & 48 20 39.45 & 19.57 & 16.54 & 739 & 0.33 & 3.5 & — & — & u & 13041226\
185V000183 & 00 38 53.44 & 48 17 52.39 & 19.54 & 16.25 & 392 & 1.52 & 6.5 & — & — & u & —\
185V000184 & 00 38 53.43 & 48 17 54.60 & 19.04 & 16.83 & 263 & 0.37 & 6.4 & — & — & S & 13150347\
185V000185 & 00 38 53.34 & 48 18 58.91 & 20.06 & 17.76 & 141 & 0.75 & 5.6 & — & — & M & 13230690\
185V000186 & 00 38 53.29 & 48 20 00.66 & 19.39 & 17.25 & 112 & 0.20 & 4.5 & — & — & M & 13281019\
185V000187 & 00 38 53.25 & 48 21 22.94 & 20.27 & — & 97 & 0.46 & 3.4 & — & — & S & 13341458\
185V000188 & 00 38 53.13 & 48 19 42.43 & 20.41 & 16.39 & 303 & 1.01 & 5.6 & — & — & M & 13360922\
185V000189 & 00 38 53.24 & 48 22 21.16 & 20.18 & — & 92 & 0.46 & 4.5 & — & — & S & 13371769\
185V000190 & 00 38 52.86 & 48 18 11.09 & 19.62 & 16.44 & 300 & 0.41 & 6.1 & — & — & C & 13460435\
185V000191 & 00 38 52.84 & 48 19 14.08 & 19.83 & — & 94 & 0.47 & 3.3 & — & — & S & 13500771\
185V000192 & 00 38 52.85 & 48 19 20.93 & 19.95 & — & 154 & 0.61 & 5.0 & — & — & M & 13500807\
185V000193 & 00 38 52.43 & 48 19 50.16 & 18.90 & — & 397 & 0.25 & 4.2 & — & — & C & 13740963\
185V000194 & 00 38 52.49 & 48 22 57.80 & 20.22 & 17.81 & 172 & 1.21 & 4.7 & — & — & S & 13791964\
185V000195 & 00 38 52.35 & 48 20 14.19 & 19.19 & 17.16 & 115 & 0.22 & 2.6 & — & — & M & 13791091\
185V000196 & 00 38 52.09 & 48 18 08.68 & 20.34 & 17.76 & 236 & 1.04 & 5.5 & — & — & C & 13860422\
185V000197 & 00 38 52.08 & 48 19 15.15 & 19.31 & 16.97 & 241 & 0.45 & 4.8 & — & — & M & 13900776\
185V000198 & 00 38 52.06 & 48 19 58.40 & 19.53 & 16.17 & 257 & 0.68 & 6.4 & — & — & S & 13931007\
185V000199 & 00 38 51.78 & 48 20 17.38 & 19.57 & 17.01 & 180 & 0.67 & 5.7 & — & — & S & 14091108\
185V000200 & 00 38 51.42 & 48 18 14.65 & 19.93 & 16.88 & 285 & 0.83 & 6.0 & — & — & C & 14220453\
185V000201 & 00 38 51.40 & 48 20 58.43 & 19.49 & 16.76 & 206 & 0.75 & 6.1 & — & — & S & 14311327\
185V000202 & 00 38 51.34 & 48 20 19.89 & 20.11 & 17.01 & 289 & 1.28 & 5.0 & — & — & u & 14321121\
185V000203 & 00 38 51.04 & 48 20 36.08 & 19.38 & 17.41 & 168 & 0.31 & 4.0 & — & — & M & 14491208\
185V000204 & 00 38 50.65 & 48 18 17.71 & 19.71 & 17.15 & 122 & 0.36 & 4.6 & — & — & M & 14640469\
185V000205 & 00 38 50.47 & 48 20 23.29 & 19.52 & 17.22 & 200 & 0.64 & 4.6 & — & — & S & 14791139\
185V000206 & 00 38 50.31 & 48 17 36.98 & 19.19 & 17.18 & 205 & 0.40 & 6.8 & — & — & M & 14800252\
185V000207 & 00 38 50.36 & 48 18 53.58 & 19.67 & 17.67 & 208 & 0.45 & 4.6 & — & — & M & 14810661\
185V000208 & 00 38 50.45 & 48 20 52.35 & 19.39 & 17.02 & 152 & 0.58 & 4.8 & — & — & M & 14811294\
185V000209 & 00 38 50.24 & 48 19 32.47 & 19.82 & 17.82 & 161 & 0.37 & 4.2 & — & — & M & 14890868\
185V000210 & 00 38 49.94 & 48 17 39.17 & 19.83 & — & 119 & 0.32 & 3.8 & — & — & S & 14990263\
185V000211 & 00 38 50.03 & 48 22 15.85 & 19.87 & 17.32 & 158 & 1.01 & 5.6 & — & — & S & 15071739\
185V000212 & 00 38 49.93 & 48 20 34.82 & 18.61 & 16.43 & 312 & 0.79 & 6.4 & — & — & S & 15081200\
185V000213 & 00 38 49.84 & 48 21 05.87 & 19.56 & 17.42 & 220 & 0.77 & 6.4 & — & — & S & 15151366\
185V000214 & 00 38 49.43 & 48 18 27.55 & 19.73 & 18.21 & 171 & 0.62 & 5.8 & — & — & S & 15290521\
185V000215 & 00 38 49.37 & 48 19 28.71 & 19.59 & 17.16 & 188 & 0.39 & 4.8 & — & — & M & 15340848\
185V000216 & 00 38 49.41 & 48 20 15.68 & 19.61 & 17.56 & 205 & 0.63 & 4.9 & — & — & M & 15341098\
185V000217 & 00 38 49.10 & 48 17 28.60 & 19.75 & 17.82 & 160 & 0.45 & 5.8 & — & — & M & 15430207\
185V000218 & 00 38 49.02 & 48 18 15.42 & 19.59 & 17.64 & 190 & 0.57 & 6.1 & — & — & S & 15500456\
185V000219 & 00 38 48.86 & 48 21 05.05 & 19.43 & 17.17 & 112 & 0.39 & 3.9 & — & — & M & 15661361\
185V000220 & 00 38 48.63 & 48 18 34.52 & 19.56 & — & 133 & 0.32 & 4.8 & — & — & M & 15710558\
185V000221 & 00 38 48.60 & 48 20 52.10 & 18.91 & 16.14 & 303 & 0.25 & 5.0 & — & — & C & 15791292\
185V000222 & 00 38 48.49 & 48 19 13.87 & 19.67 & 17.49 & 92 & 0.22 & 2.1 & — & — & M & 15810768\
185V000223 & 00 38 48.30 & 48 17 34.86 & 19.82 & 17.75 & 164 & 0.86 & 5.1 & — & — & M & 15860240\
185V000224 & 00 38 48.18 & 48 20 04.06 & 19.75 & 16.91 & 187 & 0.35 & 4.5 & — & — & M & 15991036\
185V000225 & 00 38 48.11 & 48 20 10.83 & 20.24 & 16.89 & 313 & 0.95 & 5.8 & — & — & S & 16031072\
185V000226 & 00 38 47.96 & 48 19 56.27 & 19.69 & 17.76 & 158 & 0.46 & 5.1 & — & — & M & 16110994\
185V000227 & 00 38 47.75 & 48 20 23.68 & 19.72 & 17.84 & 123 & 0.70 & 5.1 & — & — & S & 16231140\
185V000228 & 00 38 47.65 & 48 21 36.64 & 19.51 & — & 100 & 0.34 & 4.6 & — & — & S & 16321530\
185V000229 & 00 38 47.38 & 48 20 47.94 & 20.17 & — & 167 & 0.93 & 6.1 & — & — & S & 16441270\
185V000230 & 00 38 42.88 & 48 20 49.54 & 19.74 & 16.98 & 222 & 0.58 & 4.9 & — & — & M & 18831277\
185V000231 & 00 38 47.08 & 48 19 24.84 & 19.86 & 17.70 & 207 & 1.20 & 6.0 & — & — & M & 16560826\
185V000232 & 00 38 46.93 & 48 18 50.94 & 19.96 & 17.84 & 193 & 0.78 & 6.8 & — & — & M & 16620645\
185V000233 & 00 38 46.95 & 48 22 11.21 & 19.91 & 17.71 & 141 & 0.84 & 5.4 & — & — & S & 16711714\
185V000234 & 00 38 46.67 & 48 17 15.30 & 19.70 & — & 191 & 1.04 & 5.1 & — & — & u & 16720135\
185V000235 & 00 38 43.03 & 48 20 04.03 & 19.15 & 16.89 & 211 & 0.44 & 5.9 & — & — & S & 18731034\
185V000236 & 00 38 46.61 & 48 21 03.26 & 19.70 & — & 185 & 0.37 & 3.8 & — & — & M & 16851351\
185V000237 & 00 38 46.56 & 48 20 30.31 & 20.03 & 17.84 & 131 & 0.41 & 3.7 & — & — & S & 16871175\
185V000238 & 00 38 46.21 & 48 18 29.68 & 20.26 & 17.19 & 393 & 1.10 & 6.0 & — & — & u & 17000531\
185V000239 & 00 38 46.33 & 48 22 40.02 & 19.29 & 17.61 & 160 & 0.62 & 5.3 & — & — & M & 17051867\
185V000240 & 00 38 43.00 & 48 18 06.39 & 19.36 & 17.14 & 238 & 0.99 & 5.3 & — & — & M & 18690406\
185V000241 & 00 38 45.99 & 48 18 31.54 & 19.33 & 17.89 & 206 & 0.57 & 5.9 & — & — & S & 17120541\
185V000242 & 00 38 45.92 & 48 19 01.99 & 19.00 & 16.11 & 303 & 1.28 & 6.3 & — & — & M & 17160704\
185V000243 & 00 38 45.86 & 48 18 32.29 & 19.58 & 17.15 & 259 & 1.65 & 6.6 & — & — & M & 17180545\
185V000244 & 00 38 43.25 & 48 20 28.08 & 19.58 & 16.68 & 249 & 0.62 & 6.3 & — & — & C & 18621162\
185V000245 & 00 38 43.58 & 48 19 30.92 & 19.99 & 17.35 & 210 & 0.90 & 5.8 & — & — & S & 18420857\
185V000246 & 00 38 45.68 & 48 22 06.22 & 19.80 & 17.38 & 165 & 0.39 & 3.9 & — & — & S & 17381687\
185V000247 & 00 38 43.63 & 48 19 18.87 & 19.74 & 17.57 & 161 & 0.52 & 5.5 & — & — & M & 18390793\
185V000248 & 00 38 45.54 & 48 21 18.22 & 19.58 & 16.68 & 279 & 0.53 & 4.3 & — & — & M & 17431431\
185V000249 & 00 38 45.36 & 48 19 57.27 & 20.38 & 16.97 & 231 & 0.96 & 6.4 & — & — & u & 17490999\
185V000250 & 00 38 43.60 & 48 17 28.18 & 19.75 & 17.26 & 206 & 0.48 & 3.9 & — & — & u & 18360202\
185V000251 & 00 38 45.33 & 48 20 35.60 & 19.77 & 17.21 & 187 & 0.29 & 4.0 & — & — & C & 17521203\
185V000252 & 00 38 45.14 & 48 20 47.11 & 20.41 & 16.68 & 229 & 0.91 & 6.4 & — & — & C & 17631265\
185V000253 & 00 38 44.80 & 48 20 54.68 & 19.44 & 17.11 & 163 & 0.36 & 5.6 & — & — & M & 17811305\
185V000254 & 00 38 44.34 & 48 19 18.45 & 20.06 & — & 117 & 0.51 & 5.0 & — & — & S & 18010791\
185V000255 & 00 38 44.27 & 48 23 04.59 & 20.59 & — & 104 & 0.74 & 3.9 & — & — & u & 18151998\
185V000256 & 00 38 44.13 & 48 21 17.99 & 19.75 & — & 140 & 0.36 & 4.1 & — & — & S & 18181429\
185V000257 & 00 38 43.69 & 48 17 36.07 & 20.04 & — & 129 & 0.59 & 4.7 & — & — & S & 18310244\
185V000258 & 00 38 44.05 & 48 20 02.83 & 19.80 & 17.78 & 172 & 0.70 & 6.5 & — & — & M & 18191028\
185V000259 & 00 39 07.40 & 48 19 35.47 & 20.77 & 16.70 & 262 & 1.74 & 4.6 & — & — & M & 05780891\
185V000260 & 00 39 05.60 & 48 19 20.89 & 21.08 & — & 634 & 1.87 & 2.5 & — & — & u & —\
185V000261 & 00 39 01.11 & 48 22 04.11 & 21.76 & 17.13 & 439 & 2.09 & 3.1 & — & — & C & 09201680\
185V000262 & 00 38 59.26 & 48 19 39.42 & 20.45 & 17.50 & 188 & 1.13 & 5.5 & — & — & S & 10110908\
185V000263 & 00 38 59.20 & 48 19 57.65 & 20.36 & 17.34 & 173 & 1.60 & 5.3 & — & — & u & —\
185V000264 & 00 38 58.08 & 48 19 49.24 & 20.91 & 16.70 & 146 & 0.76 & 2.0 & — & — & u & 10730960\
185V000265 & 00 38 56.89 & 48 19 41.08 & 20.70 & 17.21 & 194 & 1.16 & 4.4 & — & — & u & 11360916\
185V000266 & 00 38 55.78 & 48 19 18.83 & 20.55 & 16.35 & 291 & 1.50 & 4.9 & — & — & u & —\
185V000267 & 00 38 55.67 & 48 20 14.19 & 20.43 & 16.84 & 215 & 0.69 & 5.1 & — & — & u & —\
185V000268 & 00 39 06.88 & 48 18 11.59 & 19.55 & 17.39 & 212 & 1.00 & 6.4 & — & — & u & —\
185V000269 & 00 39 04.82 & 48 20 17.53 & 19.98 & 17.12 & 227 & 0.99 & 6.3 & — & — & u & —\
185V000270 & 00 39 03.86 & 48 21 55.50 & 19.56 & 17.06 & 216 & 0.47 & 3.2 & — & — & u & —\
185V000271 & 00 39 03.32 & 48 19 40.79 & 20.32 & — & 122 & 0.94 & 5.0 & — & — & u & —\
185V000272 & 00 39 02.78 & 48 20 29.63 & 19.73 & 16.50 & 149 & 0.53 & 5.4 & — & — & u & —\
185V000273 & 00 39 02.17 & 48 20 08.29 & 20.34 & 17.20 & 246 & 0.91 & 4.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000274 & 00 39 02.14 & 48 22 11.45 & 20.17 & 16.85 & 226 & 1.53 & 6.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000275 & 00 39 01.49 & 48 20 00.86 & 19.86 & 17.12 & 226 & 0.96 & 6.0 & — & — & u & —\
185V000276 & 00 39 01.05 & 48 19 59.55 & 20.42 & 16.30 & 163 & 0.76 & 4.9 & — & — & u & —\
185V000277 & 00 39 00.71 & 48 18 13.05 & 19.79 & 17.24 & 236 & 0.51 & 5.9 & — & — & u & —\
185V000278 & 00 39 00.61 & 48 20 15.23 & 20.49 & 17.31 & 253 & 1.54 & 2.9 & — & — & u & —\
185V000279 & 00 39 00.32 & 48 20 38.44 & 20.38 & 17.85 & 162 & 0.99 & 4.7 & — & — & u & —\
185V000280 & 00 38 59.76 & 48 18 46.22 & 19.83 & 17.38 & 192 & 0.70 & 5.7 & — & — & u & —\
185V000281 & 00 38 59.41 & 48 19 25.57 & 20.00 & 16.64 & 156 & 0.56 & 5.1 & — & — & u & —\
185V000282 & 00 38 58.96 & 48 18 57.15 & 19.85 & 18.00 & 162 & 0.59 & 5.2 & — & — & u & —\
185V000283 & 00 38 58.91 & 48 19 34.50 & 20.61 & 16.22 & 408 & 1.15 & 5.7 & — & — & u & —\
185V000284 & 00 38 57.20 & 48 19 09.35 & 19.67 & 17.57 & 167 & 0.57 & 5.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000285 & 00 38 56.52 & 48 21 23.72 & 20.32 & 17.80 & 162 & 1.15 & 4.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000286 & 00 38 55.80 & 48 20 57.65 & 19.78 & 16.89 & 258 & 0.90 & 6.4 & — & — & u & —\
185V000287 & 00 38 55.61 & 48 19 40.35 & 19.78 & 17.36 & 196 & 0.72 & 6.4 & — & — & u & —\
185V000288 & 00 38 54.64 & 48 20 50.72 & 19.75 & 16.83 & 236 & 0.56 & 5.1 & — & — & u & —\
185V000289 & 00 38 54.48 & 48 19 04.08 & 20.18 & 16.11 & 389 & 0.54 & 6.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000290 & 00 38 54.30 & 48 20 42.92 & 19.99 & 16.21 & 371 & 0.96 & 5.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000291 & 00 38 52.79 & 48 19 17.12 & 20.30 & 17.77 & 160 & 0.81 & 5.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000292 & 00 38 52.72 & 48 19 21.51 & 19.92 & 17.65 & 176 & 0.72 & 5.5 & — & — & u & —\
185V000293 & 00 38 52.48 & 48 18 53.38 & 19.60 & 16.56 & 354 & 0.64 & 6.7 & — & — & u & —\
185V000294 & 00 38 52.35 & 48 17 14.19 & 19.57 & — & 205 & 0.91 & 4.0 & — & — & u & —\
185V000295 & 00 38 52.23 & 48 17 05.67 & 19.56 & — & 251 & 0.95 & 4.4 & — & — & u & —\
185V000296 & 00 38 50.70 & 48 20 23.70 & 21.07 & 16.68 & 252 & 2.27 & 5.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000297 & 00 38 50.52 & 48 18 44.91 & 20.22 & — & 184 & 1.80 & 5.7 & — & — & u & —\
185V000298 & 00 38 49.13 & 48 20 44.39 & 20.28 & 16.86 & 271 & 1.80 & 6.3 & — & — & u & —\
185V000299 & 00 38 48.63 & 48 22 34.45 & 19.57 & 17.19 & 151 & 0.38 & 5.0 & — & — & u & —\
185V000300 & 00 38 43.38 & 48 19 21.84 & 19.70 & 17.43 & 189 & 0.68 & 5.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000301 & 00 38 43.23 & 48 19 12.78 & 19.64 & 17.23 & 193 & 1.00 & 5.3 & — & — & u & —\
185V000302 & 00 38 59.61 & 48 19 50.13 & 20.12 & 16.87 & 124 & 0.36 & 4.1 & — & — & u & —\
185V000303 & 00 38 58.87 & 48 20 22.17 & 20.58 & 17.35 & 113 & 0.91 & 3.7 & — & — & u & —\
185V000304 & 00 38 58.44 & 48 20 12.75 & 20.88 & 16.90 & 182 & 1.48 & 4.1 & — & — & u & —\
185V000305 & 00 38 56.56 & 48 20 22.39 & 21.44 & 17.02 & 170 & 2.13 & 4.9 & — & — & u & —\
185V000306 & 00 38 53.27 & 48 20 08.36 & 19.75 & 16.37 & 416 & 0.63 & 6.1 & — & — & u & —\
185V000307 & 00 38 52.60 & 48 20 58.65 & 20.56 & 17.63 & 201 & 1.21 & 5.8 & — & — & u & —\
185V000308 & 00 39 15.40 & 48 19 25.31 & 19.58 & — & 169 & 0.81 & 4.4 & — & — & M & 01530840\
185V000309 & 00 39 15.30 & 48 20 16.03 & 19.45 & 17.28 & 175 & 0.56 & 6.0 & — & — & S & 01611110\
185V000310 & 00 39 14.86 & 48 19 27.66 & 19.69 & — & 236 & 0.48 & 5.0 & — & — & M & 01820852\
185V000311 & 00 39 11.83 & 48 21 37.69 & 20.06 & — & 56 & 0.51 & 5.6 & — & — & S & 03501543\
185V000312 & 00 39 11.18 & 48 21 52.31 & 19.52 & 17.27 & 113 & 0.24 & 5.0 & — & — & S & 03851620\
185V000313 & 00 39 08.95 & 48 21 18.59 & 21.69 & 15.93 & 519 & 1.78 & 5.0 & — & — & u & —\
185V000314 & 00 39 09.01 & 48 22 53.98 & 19.35 & 16.44 & 144 & 0.30 & 6.9 & — & — & C & 05041948\
185V000315 & 00 39 08.57 & 48 17 39.76 & 20.43 & — & 220 & 0.84 & 7.7 & — & — & u & —\
185V000316 & 00 39 07.74 & 48 19 26.81 & 19.16 & 17.18 & 111 & 0.27 & 4.8 & — & — & S & 05600845\
185V000317 & 00 39 07.39 & 48 20 27.02 & 19.16 & 16.66 & 171 & 0.26 & 4.4 & — & — & C & 05811165\
185V000318 & 00 39 05.46 & 48 21 55.99 & 19.86 & — & 137 & 0.36 & 5.4 & — & — & u & —\
185V000319 & 00 39 04.98 & 48 20 51.17 & 19.85 & 17.12 & 102 & 0.43 & 5.3 & — & — & M & 07111293\
185V000320 & 00 39 04.66 & 48 20 56.25 & 20.09 & 16.72 & 127 & 0.54 & 4.3 & — & — & u & —\
185V000321 & 00 39 04.50 & 48 20 30.15 & 19.66 & — & 164 & 0.27 & 3.7 & — & — & M & 07351181\
185V000322 & 00 39 04.32 & 48 21 13.31 & 20.13 & — & 130 & 0.48 & 3.9 & — & — & S & 07471410\
185V000323 & 00 39 03.93 & 48 19 46.72 & 20.18 & 17.45 & 239 & 0.72 & 7.1 & — & — & u & —\
185V000324 & 00 39 03.68 & 48 22 40.07 & 19.75 & — & 128 & 0.32 & 3.5 & — & — & S & 07851872\
185V000325 & 00 39 03.36 & 48 20 26.12 & 20.09 & 17.10 & 197 & 0.52 & 4.0 & — & — & M & 07951159\
185V000326 & 00 39 02.72 & 48 20 16.13 & 20.23 & 17.23 & 101 & 0.47 & 4.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000327 & 00 39 01.72 & 48 19 14.40 & 20.13 & 16.84 & 139 & 0.70 & 3.3 & — & — & M & 08780776\
185V000328 & 00 39 01.23 & 48 17 09.18 & 19.76 & 17.58 & 212 & 0.66 & 6.7 & — & — & u & 08980109\
185V000329 & 00 39 01.47 & 48 21 48.87 & 19.65 & — & 168 & 0.42 & 3.9 & — & — & S & 09001599\
185V000330 & 00 39 00.98 & 48 17 26.66 & 19.87 & — & 128 & 0.60 & 4.5 & — & — & M & 09120202\
185V000331 & 00 39 00.77 & 48 19 23.14 & 19.96 & 17.09 & 235 & 0.52 & 4.8 & — & — & M & 09300822\
185V000332 & 00 39 00.81 & 48 20 49.14 & 19.94 & — & 143 & 0.51 & 5.3 & — & — & u & —\
185V000333 & 00 39 00.66 & 48 19 39.05 & 19.84 & 16.79 & 113 & 0.35 & 4.2 & — & — & u & —\
185V000334 & 00 39 00.45 & 48 19 45.57 & 20.71 & — & 131 & 0.82 & 5.4 & — & — & M & 09480942\
185V000335 & 00 38 59.83 & 48 18 27.74 & 19.68 & — & 160 & 0.43 & 5.5 & — & — & M & 09760527\
185V000336 & 00 38 59.65 & 48 19 58.49 & 19.50 & — & 152 & 0.45 & 6.5 & — & — & u & —\
185V000337 & 00 38 58.49 & 48 17 57.21 & 19.76 & 17.25 & 196 & 0.35 & 3.8 & — & — & M & 10460363\
185V000338 & 00 38 57.85 & 48 20 19.06 & 18.94 & 15.29 & 200 & 0.30 & 4.9 & — & — & u & —\
185V000339 & 00 38 57.72 & 48 19 52.26 & 19.71 & 16.90 & 99 & 0.18 & 3.5 & — & — & M & 10930976\
185V000340 & 00 38 57.75 & 48 20 43.55 & 19.90 & 16.24 & 890 & 0.50 & 7.1 & — & — & u & —\
185V000341 & 00 38 57.18 & 48 18 47.20 & 20.28 & 17.09 & 188 & 0.61 & 4.0 & — & — & u & —\
185V000342 & 00 38 57.18 & 48 20 29.45 & 22.09 & — & 175 & 1.61 & 3.0 & — & — & u & —\
185V000343 & 00 38 57.05 & 48 23 12.68 & 20.36 & 16.65 & 229 & 1.47 & 3.9 & — & — & u & —\
185V000344 & 00 38 56.79 & 48 19 49.73 & 19.37 & 16.60 & 266 & 0.40 & 6.0 & — & — & M & 11420962\
185V000345 & 00 38 56.71 & 48 19 52.85 & 19.08 & 16.19 & 189 & 0.26 & 3.3 & — & — & u & —\
185V000346 & 00 38 56.66 & 48 19 57.68 & 19.51 & 16.78 & 809 & 0.30 & 5.0 & — & — & M & 11491005\
185V000347 & 00 38 56.59 & 48 19 23.10 & 19.97 & 17.35 & 102 & 0.44 & 4.7 & — & — & u & —\
185V000348 & 00 38 56.46 & 48 19 20.99 & 19.57 & 17.17 & 197 & 0.30 & 4.8 & — & — & S & 11580809\
185V000349 & 00 38 56.42 & 48 21 44.64 & 20.16 & — & 154 & 0.36 & 3.2 & — & — & S & 11671575\
185V000350 & 00 38 56.43 & 48 21 53.15 & 19.90 & 17.36 & 193 & 0.45 & 5.0 & — & — & C & 11671620\
185V000351 & 00 38 56.34 & 48 20 07.43 & 20.12 & 16.24 & 270 & 0.97 & 6.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000352 & 00 38 56.28 & 48 20 38.37 & 20.23 & 16.72 & 212 & 0.78 & 6.5 & — & — & u & —\
185V000353 & 00 38 56.14 & 48 19 25.17 & 19.21 & 16.08 & 195 & 0.27 & 6.4 & — & — & C & 11750831\
185V000354 & 00 38 56.03 & 48 19 30.98 & 20.15 & 17.41 & 182 & 0.46 & 4.0 & — & — & M & 11810862\
185V000355 & 00 38 55.94 & 48 20 38.78 & 19.14 & 16.36 & 159 & 0.25 & 4.4 & — & — & C & 11901224\
185V000356 & 00 38 55.36 & 48 20 57.89 & 20.44 & 16.88 & 209 & 0.54 & 3.1 & — & — & u & —\
185V000357 & 00 38 54.96 & 48 20 26.88 & 19.58 & 17.17 & 110 & 0.32 & 4.6 & — & — & M & 12411160\
185V000358 & 00 38 54.56 & 48 19 52.00 & 20.62 & — & 207 & 0.89 & 4.9 & — & — & u & —\
185V000359 & 00 38 54.42 & 48 22 48.90 & 19.65 & 18.78 & 105 & 0.15 & 4.1 & — & — & S & 12761917\
185V000360 & 00 38 54.21 & 48 20 00.68 & 20.05 & — & 150 & 0.74 & 5.7 & — & — & u & —\
185V000361 & 00 38 54.10 & 48 20 57.57 & 20.21 & — & 170 & 0.53 & 5.2 & — & — & u & —\
185V000362 & 00 38 54.01 & 48 20 01.80 & 20.43 & 16.81 & 123 & 0.51 & 3.8 & — & — & u & —\
185V000363 & 00 38 53.86 & 48 19 13.71 & 20.03 & — & 87 & 0.33 & 4.0 & — & — & u & —\
185V000364 & 00 38 52.64 & 48 18 59.56 & 20.51 & 17.80 & 108 & 0.72 & 3.9 & — & — & u & —\
185V000365 & 00 38 52.67 & 48 20 52.47 & 21.53 & — & 218 & 1.70 & 4.6 & — & — & u & —\
185V000366 & 00 38 52.01 & 48 17 04.84 & 19.60 & — & 138 & 0.40 & 3.9 & — & — & u & —\
185V000367 & 00 38 52.10 & 48 19 35.18 & 19.61 & 17.46 & 188 & 0.26 & 6.5 & — & — & u & —\
185V000368 & 00 38 51.93 & 48 19 34.25 & 19.65 & — & 82 & 0.38 & 3.9 & — & — & S & 13990878\
185V000369 & 00 38 51.55 & 48 17 12.81 & 19.54 & — & 163 & 0.32 & 5.1 & — & — & u & 14120124\
185V000370 & 00 38 51.70 & 48 21 00.12 & 19.57 & 16.79 & 303 & 0.41 & 6.9 & — & — & C & 14151336\
185V000371 & 00 38 48.89 & 48 21 58.67 & 19.92 & 16.98 & 108 & 0.41 & 3.6 & — & — & M & 15671647\
185V000372 & 00 38 48.46 & 48 18 24.96 & 19.65 & — & 145 & 0.24 & 5.5 & — & — & u & —\
185V000373 & 00 38 48.27 & 48 19 16.59 & 20.53 & — & 98 & 0.74 & 6.1 & — & — & M & 15930783\
185V000374 & 00 38 46.10 & 48 20 28.43 & 19.54 & — & 99 & 0.19 & 4.5 & — & — & M & 17111165\
185V000375 & 00 38 45.60 & 48 17 07.01 & 20.11 & — & 178 & 0.46 & 2.5 & — & — & u & 17280090\
185V000376 & 00 38 45.05 & 48 19 46.28 & 19.78 & 17.67 & 462 & 0.25 & 4.6 & — & — & S & 17640940\
185V000377 & 00 38 41.45 & 48 18 15.15 & 19.91 & — & 103 & 0.44 & 5.2 & — & — & S & 19520452\
185V000378 & 00 38 57.76 & 48 20 03.72 & 20.78 & 15.48 & 535 & 1.27 & 5.8 & — & — & u & 10911037\
185V000379 & 00 38 52.32 & 48 19 25.86 & 20.91 & 16.75 & 90 & 0.86 & 1.5 & — & — & u & —\
185V000380 & 00 38 55.08 & 48 20 40.45 & 19.99 & 16.84 & 168 & 0.42 & 3.0 & — & — & u & —\
185V000381 & 00 38 49.06 & 48 21 22.88 & 19.55 & — & 137 & 0.29 & 3.6 & — & — & M & 15561457\
185V000382 & 00 39 00.10 & 48 20 35.47 & 19.63 & 16.22 & 363 & 0.48 & 4.5 & 725 & 2.9 & C & 09691207\
185V000383 & 00 39 04.47 & 48 18 12.81 & 19.10 & 15.78 & 450 & 1.73 & 6.1 & 899 & 1.1 & u & —\
185V000384 & 00 39 03.30 & 48 19 44.34 & 21.32 & 17.25 & 82 & 0.80 & 1.7 & 164 & 4.1 & S & 07960936\
185V000385 & 00 39 00.01 & 48 19 26.39 & 19.43 & 16.84 & 121 & 0.34 & 2.5 & 243 & 5.1 & C & 09700839\
185V000386 & 00 38 58.19 & 48 19 29.57 & 19.83 & — & 81 & 0.44 & 2.4 & 161 & 4.9 & M & 10670855\
185V000387 & 00 38 56.96 & 48 20 15.41 & 19.53 & 17.16 & 198 & 0.50 & 1.1 & 397 & 3.9 & u & 11341099\
185V000388 & 00 38 56.46 & 48 19 18.01 & 20.59 & — & 60 & 0.45 & 1.4 & 120 & 2.9 & M & 11580793\
185V000389 & 00 38 56.42 & 48 19 44.63 & 20.11 & 16.96 & 118 & 0.60 & 2.2 & 236 & 5.3 & u & —\
185V000390 & 00 39 05.52 & 48 17 29.54 & 19.33 & 16.74 & 354 & 1.34 & 5.4 & 1204 & 4.6 & M & 06710219\
185V000391 & 00 38 58.97 & 48 17 42.37 & 19.63 & 17.04 & 279 & 0.76 & 4.3 & 1067 & 3.9 & C & 10200285\
185V000392 & 00 38 51.50 & 48 20 05.26 & 19.08 & 16.00 & 347 & 0.41 & 4.3 & 440 & 3.2 & C & 14231043\
185V000393 & 00 39 00.18 & 48 19 36.15 & 19.56 & 16.89 & 329 & 1.43 & 6.8 & 985 & 3.1 & M & 09610891\
185V000394 & 00 38 51.45 & 48 21 15.53 & 19.63 & — & 134 & 0.66 & 4.2 & 437 & 4.7 & M & 14291418\
185V000395 & 00 38 48.07 & 48 21 21.79 & 19.78 & 17.60 & 213 & 0.88 & 4.4 & 800 & 3.8 & C & 16091450\
185V000396 & 00 38 44.76 & 48 21 10.92 & 20.57 & 17.02 & 234 & 1.69 & 5.6 & 472 & 1.0 & C & 17841392\
185V000397 & 00 39 02.92 & 48 19 33.16 & 20.56 & — & 153 & 1.48 & 3.4 & 414 & 1.0 & S & 08160876\
185V000398 & 00 39 04.35 & 48 21 00.38 & 19.94 & 16.05 & 427 & 1.07 & 3.0 & 1088 & 0.6 & u & —\
185V000399 & 00 39 04.06 & 48 20 43.22 & 21.59 & 17.09 & 406 & 1.79 & 4.2 & 829 & 1.3 & u & —\
185V000400 & 00 38 51.26 & 48 19 49.71 & 20.76 & 16.80 & 372 & 1.05 & 4.0 & 664 & 1.5 & u & —\
185V000401 & 00 38 43.97 & 48 17 05.80 & 18.17 & — & 185 & 0.59 & 3.1 & 873 & 2.7 & u & —\
185V000402 & 00 38 43.78 & 48 17 56.79 & 19.72 & 17.42 & 103 & 0.69 & 1.0 & 205 & 5.2 & u & —\
185V000403 & 00 39 00.68 & 48 20 13.99 & 19.74 & 16.10 & 374 & 0.74 & 5.9 & 574 & 2.2 & u & —\
185V000404 & 00 39 00.53 & 48 19 34.64 & 20.17 & 15.89 & 367 & 0.86 & 6.5 & 840 & 3.1 & u & —\
185V000405 & 00 38 55.52 & 48 20 26.87 & 18.98 & 16.29 & 116 & 0.29 & 2.6 & 325 & 4.1 & u & —\
185V000406 & 00 38 52.07 & 48 22 30.33 & 20.53 & 16.77 & 193 & 1.02 & 3.2 & 234 & 1.8 & u & —\
185V000407 & 00 39 12.39 & 48 20 22.12 & 19.66 & — & 110 & 0.43 & 4.3 & 131 & 3.6 & u & —\
185V000408 & 00 39 10.98 & 48 21 16.09 & 20.10 & — & 93 & 0.37 & 3.4 & 963 & 3.3 & M & 03941428\
185V000409 & 00 39 03.42 & 48 19 13.30 & 20.23 & 16.83 & 112 & 0.60 & 2.3 & 127 & 4.7 & M & 07880771\
185V000410 & 00 38 57.77 & 48 19 43.34 & 19.57 & 18.43 & 98 & 0.19 & 3.2 & 553 & 4.0 & S & 10900929\
185V000411 & 00 38 56.85 & 48 19 49.68 & 20.05 & 16.23 & 166 & 0.48 & 3.5 & 195 & 4.9 & u & —\
185V000412 & 00 38 57.06 & 48 21 18.17 & 19.06 & 15.95 & 197 & 0.28 & 4.5 & 489 & 3.0 & u & 11321434\
185V000413 & 00 38 55.34 & 48 19 27.73 & 19.59 & 16.10 & 132 & 0.27 & 5.5 & 293 & 4.1 & M & 12180845\
185V000414 & 00 38 54.19 & 48 19 59.79 & 19.63 & — & 119 & 0.37 & 4.2 & 749 & 4.6 & u & —\
185V000415 & 00 38 53.77 & 48 19 14.80 & 19.46 & 16.46 & 171 & 0.28 & 3.2 & 236 & 3.8 & u & —\
185V000416 & 00 38 52.64 & 48 21 16.71 & 19.88 & — & 122 & 0.36 & 3.7 & 416 & 4.3 & S & 13661425\
185V000417 & 00 38 52.37 & 48 19 13.63 & 20.51 & 16.64 & 122 & 0.52 & 2.6 & 865 & 4.5 & u & —\
185V000418 & 00 38 52.03 & 48 21 31.35 & 19.79 & — & 90 & 0.33 & 3.2 & 397 & 6.5 & S & 14001503\
185V000419 & 00 38 51.41 & 48 18 37.93 & 19.83 & 17.17 & 104 & 0.35 & 3.0 & 911 & 4.7 & M & 14240578\
185V000420 & 00 39 13.96 & 48 18 20.15 & 20.24 & — & — & 0.43 & — & — & — & S & 02260493\
185V000421 & 00 39 13.33 & 48 20 23.69 & 19.03 & 16.96 & — & 0.34 & — & — & — & S & 02661150\
185V000422 & 00 38 41.24 & 48 20 24.20 & 19.72 & — & — & 0.47 & — & — & — & S & 19691141\
185V000423 & 00 39 10.02 & 48 22 25.13 & 20.48 & — & — & 0.64 & — & — & — & u & 04481795\
185V000424 & 00 39 04.25 & 48 21 04.40 & 19.72 & — & — & 0.52 & — & — & — & S & 07501363\
185V000425 & 00 39 02.12 & 48 20 29.88 & 19.91 & 17.29 & — & 0.35 & — & — & — & M & 08611178\
185V000426 & 00 39 00.38 & 48 20 05.65 & 19.44 & 16.54 & — & 0.23 & — & — & — & C & 09521049\
185V000427 & 00 38 59.83 & 48 21 11.05 & 19.64 & 17.30 & — & 0.35 & — & — & — & M & 09851397\
185V000428 & 00 38 59.66 & 48 20 25.67 & 20.99 & 16.75 & — & 0.87 & — & — & — & C & 09921155\
185V000429 & 00 38 58.56 & 48 21 40.59 & 19.94 & 17.83 & — & 0.28 & — & — & — & M & 10541554\
185V000430 & 00 38 57.37 & 48 19 59.50 & 20.24 & 17.30 & — & 0.92 & — & — & — & S & 11111015\
185V000431 & 00 38 55.17 & 48 20 54.15 & 19.10 & — & — & 0.35 & — & — & — & S & 12311305\
185V000432 & 00 38 54.94 & 48 20 41.41 & 19.76 & 16.77 & — & 0.38 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000433 & 00 38 54.79 & 48 21 19.01 & 19.92 & 17.38 & — & 0.74 & — & — & — & M & 12521438\
185V000434 & 00 38 53.24 & 48 18 51.51 & 19.49 & 17.09 & — & 0.24 & — & — & — & C & 13270651\
185V000435 & 00 38 49.41 & 48 19 40.18 & 19.52 & 17.49 & — & 0.31 & — & — & — & M & 15330909\
185V000436 & 00 38 49.20 & 48 20 06.23 & 19.55 & 17.15 & — & 0.41 & — & — & — & M & 15451048\
185V000437 & 00 38 45.95 & 48 17 47.61 & 19.75 & — & — & 0.32 & — & — & — & M & 17120307\
185V000438 & 00 38 56.84 & 48 18 50.58 & 21.32 & 16.80 & — & 1.45 & — & — & — & C & 11360647\
185V000439 & 00 38 55.32 & 48 20 01.70 & 20.11 & 16.66 & — & 0.66 & — & — & — & M & 12211026\
185V000440 & 00 38 54.45 & 48 20 49.69 & 20.95 & — & — & 1.24 & — & — & — & S & 12691281\
185V000441 & 00 39 06.45 & 48 20 52.64 & 19.52 & 16.78 & — & 0.46 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000442 & 00 39 01.54 & 48 21 10.56 & 19.80 & 16.83 & — & 0.63 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000443 & 00 38 57.97 & 48 20 58.10 & 19.64 & 17.38 & — & 0.43 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000444 & 00 38 56.04 & 48 18 04.53 & 19.76 & 17.14 & — & 0.44 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000445 & 00 38 55.83 & 48 19 15.82 & 20.50 & 17.01 & — & 0.75 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000446 & 00 38 54.99 & 48 19 00.60 & 19.90 & 16.70 & — & 0.48 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000447 & 00 38 51.60 & 48 19 06.70 & 20.01 & 16.62 & — & 0.60 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000448 & 00 38 51.43 & 48 20 17.92 & 20.33 & 16.88 & — & 0.75 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000449 & 00 38 59.82 & 48 20 36.92 & 20.23 & — & — & 0.50 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000450 & 00 38 57.74 & 48 19 54.99 & 19.61 & 17.26 & — & 0.41 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000451 & 00 38 57.65 & 48 20 25.18 & 19.69 & 17.51 & — & 0.48 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000452 & 00 39 15.30 & 48 21 24.61 & 20.11 & — & — & 0.37 & — & — & — & S & 01651474\
185V000453 & 00 39 13.68 & 48 21 23.58 & 20.44 & 16.90 & — & 1.05 & — & — & — & C & 02511468\
185V000454 & 00 39 12.29 & 48 22 22.82 & 19.58 & — & — & 0.33 & — & — & — & S & 03281783\
185V000455 & 00 39 10.59 & 48 21 57.83 & 19.74 & — & — & 0.32 & — & — & — & S & 04171650\
185V000456 & 00 39 10.41 & 48 19 31.99 & 19.80 & — & — & 0.49 & — & — & — & M & 04180873\
185V000457 & 00 39 07.73 & 48 19 57.15 & 20.26 & — & — & 0.38 & — & — & — & M & 05621006\
185V000458 & 00 39 07.45 & 48 21 29.86 & 19.65 & — & — & 0.39 & — & — & — & M & 05821500\
185V000459 & 00 39 06.89 & 48 18 24.18 & 20.83 & — & — & 0.69 & — & — & — & u & 06010511\
185V000460 & 00 39 06.88 & 48 18 52.43 & 18.61 & 15.44 & — & 1.13 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000461 & 00 39 06.88 & 48 22 37.38 & 19.50 & 17.23 & — & 0.24 & — & — & — & M & 06151859\
185V000462 & 00 39 06.71 & 48 20 44.67 & 19.39 & 16.65 & — & 0.32 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000463 & 00 39 04.62 & 48 20 10.86 & 20.00 & 17.09 & — & 0.40 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000464 & 00 39 03.37 & 48 20 47.83 & 20.40 & — & — & 0.39 & — & — & — & S & 07961274\
185V000465 & 00 39 03.11 & 48 19 03.15 & 20.11 & 17.43 & — & 0.47 & — & — & — & M & 08040717\
185V000466 & 00 39 03.08 & 48 22 04.28 & 19.76 & 17.28 & — & 0.28 & — & — & — & M & 08151681\
185V000467 & 00 39 02.87 & 48 20 42.50 & 20.55 & 17.30 & — & 0.52 & — & — & — & M & 08221246\
185V000468 & 00 39 02.81 & 48 20 14.76 & 19.16 & 16.99 & — & 0.20 & — & — & — & M & 08241098\
185V000469 & 00 39 02.69 & 48 18 54.96 & 21.99 & — & — & 1.36 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000470 & 00 39 02.50 & 48 21 10.82 & 19.81 & — & — & 0.26 & — & — & — & M & 08431397\
185V000471 & 00 39 02.15 & 48 19 09.34 & 19.83 & 16.71 & — & 0.42 & — & — & — & S & 08560749\
185V000472 & 00 39 01.98 & 48 20 08.93 & 19.03 & 16.80 & — & 0.21 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000473 & 00 39 01.80 & 48 19 44.05 & 21.32 & 16.95 & — & 1.10 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000474 & 00 39 01.77 & 48 20 16.48 & 21.36 & — & — & 0.85 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000475 & 00 39 01.72 & 48 22 55.08 & 19.69 & 17.78 & — & 0.28 & — & — & — & S & 08901952\
185V000476 & 00 39 01.36 & 48 20 22.39 & 20.39 & 17.18 & — & 0.53 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000477 & 00 39 01.19 & 48 20 47.22 & 20.59 & — & — & 0.55 & — & — & — & M & 09111270\
185V000478 & 00 39 01.14 & 48 21 30.87 & 19.44 & — & — & 0.30 & — & — & — & S & 09161503\
185V000479 & 00 39 00.74 & 48 18 26.45 & 21.75 & — & — & 0.98 & — & — & — & u & 09280520\
185V000480 & 00 39 00.80 & 48 20 51.49 & 20.64 & — & — & 0.46 & — & — & — & M & 09321293\
185V000481 & 00 39 00.10 & 48 17 27.80 & 19.86 & 17.33 & — & 0.59 & — & — & — & M & 09590207\
185V000482 & 00 38 59.09 & 48 20 50.51 & 19.75 & 17.37 & — & 0.44 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000483 & 00 38 58.86 & 48 20 13.25 & 18.70 & 15.50 & — & 0.23 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000484 & 00 38 58.76 & 48 22 22.87 & 19.17 & 16.41 & — & 0.26 & — & — & — & C & 10451779\
185V000485 & 00 38 58.47 & 48 20 18.18 & 20.44 & 16.93 & — & 1.06 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000486 & 00 38 58.13 & 48 20 19.74 & 19.91 & 16.38 & — & 0.68 & — & — & — & M & 10721123\
185V000487 & 00 38 57.95 & 48 20 14.51 & 19.46 & 16.01 & — & 0.51 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000488 & 00 38 57.77 & 48 20 08.43 & 19.77 & 16.47 & — & 0.48 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000489 & 00 38 57.72 & 48 20 34.95 & 20.15 & — & — & 0.46 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000490 & 00 38 57.60 & 48 20 21.92 & 20.35 & 16.01 & — & 0.84 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000491 & 00 38 57.11 & 48 17 19.14 & 19.91 & 17.14 & — & 0.47 & — & — & — & u & 11180160\
185V000492 & 00 38 57.21 & 48 20 26.79 & 19.26 & 16.21 & — & 0.31 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000493 & 00 38 57.11 & 48 19 24.40 & 20.77 & 17.09 & — & 0.64 & — & — & — & u & 11240828\
185V000494 & 00 38 57.02 & 48 21 44.51 & 20.81 & — & — & 0.52 & — & — & — & S & 11351574\
185V000495 & 00 38 56.81 & 48 19 53.50 & 21.09 & 16.85 & — & 1.32 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000496 & 00 38 56.43 & 48 19 50.15 & 19.46 & 16.11 & — & 0.28 & — & — & — & C & 11610965\
185V000497 & 00 38 56.41 & 48 20 55.93 & 19.73 & — & — & 0.51 & — & — & — & M & 11651315\
185V000498 & 00 38 56.13 & 48 19 53.30 & 21.46 & 16.76 & — & 1.00 & — & — & — & u & 11770981\
185V000499 & 00 38 55.91 & 48 17 45.91 & 21.61 & — & — & 1.34 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000500 & 00 38 55.82 & 48 19 43.96 & 19.60 & 16.72 & — & 0.36 & — & — & — & u & 11930931\
185V000501 & 00 38 55.68 & 48 20 21.70 & 19.76 & 16.74 & — & 0.36 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000502 & 00 38 55.22 & 48 19 39.14 & 19.76 & 16.98 & — & 0.43 & — & — & — & C & 12240905\
185V000503 & 00 38 54.95 & 48 20 41.27 & 19.74 & 16.76 & — & 0.37 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000504 & 00 38 54.50 & 48 19 33.95 & 19.44 & 16.41 & — & 0.42 & — & — & — & C & 12620877\
185V000505 & 00 38 54.37 & 48 22 32.96 & 20.75 & 17.74 & — & 0.68 & — & — & — & S & 12781832\
185V000506 & 00 38 54.22 & 48 20 18.55 & 20.71 & 16.99 & — & 1.11 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000507 & 00 38 52.70 & 48 21 22.57 & 19.98 & 16.38 & — & 0.40 & — & — & — & u & 13631456\
185V000508 & 00 38 52.56 & 48 19 38.45 & 19.63 & 16.67 & — & 0.29 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000509 & 00 38 47.95 & 48 22 24.99 & 21.63 & — & — & 0.91 & — & — & — & u & —\
185V000510 & 00 38 47.26 & 48 18 52.42 & 19.59 & — & — & 0.35 & — & — & — & S & 16450653\
185V000511 & 00 38 46.32 & 48 18 54.72 & 22.33 & — & — & 1.49 & — & — & — & M & 16950665\
185V000512 & 00 38 45.09 & 48 18 50.49 & 19.79 & — & — & 0.31 & — & — & — & M & 17600642\
185V000513 & 00 38 45.18 & 48 20 43.02 & 20.36 & 16.86 & — & 0.37 & — & — & — & S & 17601243\
[^1]: Table \[periods147\] and \[periods185\] are only available in electronic form via http://www.edpscience.org
[^2]: http://www2.iap.fr/users/alard/package.html
[^3]: http://www.astro.su.se/$\sim$magnusg/NOTCam\_ dist/
[^4]: http://www.sigspec.org/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the asymptotic behavior of solutions of anisotropic equations of the form $-\sum_{i=1}^n\partial_{x_i}\big(\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i-2}\partial_{x_i}u\big)=f{\left(}x,u{\right)}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, where $p_i>1$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$ and $f$ is a Caratheodory function with critical Sobolev growth. This problem arises in particular from the study of extremal functions for a class of anisotropic Sobolev inequalities. We establish decay estimates for the solutions and their derivatives, and we bring to light a vanishing phenomenon which occurs when the maximum value of the $p_i$ exceeds a critical value.'
address: 'Jérôme Vétois, Univ. Nice Sophia Antipolis, CNRS, LJAD, UMR 7351, 06108 Nice, France.'
author:
- Jérôme Vétois
date: 'October 2, 2014. [*Final version:*]{} July 22, 2015.'
title: Decay estimates and a vanishing phenomenon for the solutions of critical anisotropic equations
---
[^1]
Introduction and main results {#Sec1}
=============================
We let $n\ge2$ and $\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}={\left(}p_1,\dotsc,p_n{\right)}$ be such that $p_i>1$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$ and $\sum_{i=1}^n1/p_i>1$. In this paper, we are interested in the solutions of problems of the form $$\label{Eq1}
\left\{\begin{aligned}&-\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}} u=f{\left(}x,u{\right)}\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^n,\\
&u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)},
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where $\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}} u:=\sum_{i=1}^n\partial_{x_i}{\left(}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i-2}\partial_{x_i}u{\right)}$ is the anisotropic Laplace operator, $D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ is the completion of $C^\infty_c{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ with respect to the norm $\left\|u\right\|_{D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}:=\sum_{i=1}^n{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{1/p_i}$, and $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a Caratheodory function such that $$\label{Eq2}
\left|f{\left(}x,s{\right)}\right|\le\Lambda\left|s\right|^{p^*-1}\quad\text{for all }s\in{\mathbb{R}}\text{ and a.e. }x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ for some real number $\Lambda>0$. Here, $p^*$ denotes the critical Sobolev exponent and is defined as $$p^*:=\frac{n}{\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{p_i}-1}=\frac{np}{n-p}\qquad\text{with}\quad\frac{1}{p}:=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{p_i}\,.$$
The problem with $f{\left(}x,u{\right)}=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$ appears in the study of extremal functions for a class of anisotropic Sobolev inequalities. Early references on anisotropic Sobolev inequalities are Nikolski[ĭ]{} [@Nik], Troisi [@Tro], and Trudinger [@Tru]. We also refer to Cianchi [@Cia1] for a more recent work on the topic. Here we are interested in an inequality which appeared first in Troisi [@Tro]. Among different equivalent versions (see Theorem \[Th4\] below), this inequality can be stated as $$\label{Eq3}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\le C{\left(}\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{p^*/p}$$ for some constant $C=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}$ and for all functions $u\in C^\infty_c{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$. The inequality enjoys an anisotropic scaling law (see below). As a corollary of the work of El Hamidi–Rakotoson [@ElHRak], we obtain in Theorem \[Th5\] below that there exist extremal functions for the inequality provided that $p_i<p^*$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$.
In the presence of anisotropy, namely when the $p_i$ are not all equal, there is no explicit formula for the extremal functions of . This motivates to find a priori estimates for these functions, and more generally for the solutions of equations of type . The main difficulties in this work come from the non-homogeneity of the problem and the lack of radial symmetry.
As a more general motivation, the solutions of problems of type with $f{\left(}x,u{\right)}=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$ turn out to play a central role in the blow-up theories of critical equations in general domains. Possible references in book form on this subject and its applications in the isotropic regime are Druet–Hebey–Robert [@DruHebRob], Ghoussoub [@Gho], and Struwe [@Str2]. A first step in the direction of a blow-up theory in the anisotropic regime was taken in El Hamidi–Vétois [@ElHVet] where we extended the bubble tree decompositions of Struwe [@Str1]. Now, if one wants to go further and investigate a pointwise blow-up theory, then it is essential to know the asymptotic behavior of the solutions of with $f{\left(}x,u{\right)}=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$. The results in this paper can be seen as a crucial step in this direction.
Anisotropic equations of type have received much attention in recent years. In addition to the above cited references [@ElHRak; @ElHVet] and without pretending to be exhaustive, we mention for instance the works by Cianchi [@Cia2] on symmetrization properties, Cîrstea–Vétois [@CirVet] on the fundamental solutions, Cupini–Marcellini–Mascolo [@CupMarMas] on the local boundedness of solutions, Fragalà–Gazzola–Kawohl [@FraGazKaw] on the existence and non-existence of solutions in bounded domains, Lieberman [@Lie] on gradient estimates, Namlyeyeva–Shishkov–Skrypnik [@NamShiSkr] on singular solutions, and Vétois [@Vet2] on vanishing properties of solutions. More references can be found for instance in [@Vet2].
Throughout this paper, we denote $$\label{Eq4}
p_+:=\max{\left(}\left\{p_i\in\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}\right\}{\right)}\quad\text{and}\quad p_*:=\frac{n-1}{\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{p_i}-1}=\frac{p{\left(}n-1{\right)}}{n-p}\,.$$ The exponent $p_*$ is known to play a critical role in several results on the asymptotic behavior of solutions of second order elliptic equations (see the historic paper of Serrin [@Ser], see also for instance the more recent paper of Serrin–Zou [@SerZou] and the references therein).
Our first result is as follows.
\[Th1\] Assume that $p_+<p_*$. Let $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Caratheodory function such that holds true and $u$ be a solution of . Then there exists a constant $C_0=C_0{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,u{\right)}$ such that $$\label{Th1Eq1}
\left|u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^{p_*}+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\partial_{x_i}u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^{p_i}\le C_0\bigg(1+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{p_*p_i}{p_*-p_i}}\bigg)^{-1}\quad\text{for a.e. }x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ where $p_*$ is as in .
We point out that the decay rate in is the same as the one obtained in Cîrstea–Vétois [@CirVet] for the fundamental solutions in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, namely the solutions of the equation $-\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}u=\delta_0$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, where $\delta_0$ is the Dirac mass at the point 0.
In case all $p_i$ are equal to $p$, as part of a more general result, Alvino–Ferone–Trombetti–Lions [@AlvFerTroLio] proved that the best constant in the inequality is attained by the functions $$\label{Eq5}
u_{a,b}{\left(}x{\right)}:=\bigg(a+b\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\bigg)^{\frac{p-n}{p}}$$ for all $a,b>0$. Moreover, Cordero-Erausquin–Nazaret–Villani [@CorNazVil] proved that the functions are the only extremal functions of . In case where the norm of the gradient in is replaced bv the Euclidean norm, the existence of radially symmetric extremal functions was found by Aubin [@Aub], Rodemich [@Rod], and Talenti [@Tal]. Since $p/{\left(}p_*-p{\right)}={\left(}n-p{\right)}/{\left(}p-1{\right)}$, the decay rate in coincides with the one in .
In case of the Laplace operator ($p_i=2$), Caffarelli–Gidas–Spruck [@CafGidSpr] (see also Chen–Li [@ChenLi]) proved that every positive solution of with $f{\left(}x,u{\right)}=u^{p^*-1}$ is of the form . This result can be extended to the case where all $p_i$ are equal to $p\in{\left(}1,n{\right)}$ for positive solutions satisfying the one-dimensional symmetry $u{\left(}x{\right)}=u\big(\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\big)$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$. Indeed, this result has been proved by Guedda–Véron [@GueVer] in case of positive, radially symmetric solutions for the $p$–Laplace equation $-\operatorname{div}{\left(}\left|\nabla u\right|^{p-2}\nabla u{\right)}=u^{p^*-1}\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^n$, and it can easily be seen that both cases lead to the same ordinary differential equation. We also mention that radial symmetry results have been established for positive solutions in $D^{1,p}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ in the case of $p$–Laplace equations (see Damascelli–Merchán–Montoro–Sciunzi [@DamMerMonSci], Damascelli–Ramaswamy [@DamRam], Sciunzi [@Sci], and Vétois [@Vet3]).
Theorem \[Th1\] has been proved in Vétois [@Vet3] in case of the $p$–Laplace operator. We also refer in case of the Laplace operator ($p_i=2$) to Jannelli–Solimini [@JanSol], where the decay estimate has been proved to hold true for solutions of with right-hand side $f{\left(}x,u{\right)}=\sum_{i=1}^Na_i{\left(}x{\right)}\left|u\right|^{q_i^*-2}u$, where $q_i^*:=2^*{\left(}1-1/q_i{\right)}$, $q_i\in{\left(}n/2,\infty{\right]}$, $\left|a_i{\left(}x{\right)}\right|={\text{O}}\big(\left|x\right|^{-n/q_i}\big)$ for large $\left|x\right|$, and $a_i$ belongs to the Marcinkiewicz space $M^{q_i}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,N$.
The next results concern the case $p_+\ge p_*$, namely $p_i\ge p_*$ for some index $i$. In particular, we are now exclusively in the case where the exponents $p_i$ are not all equal.
In the limit case $p_+=p_*$, we prove the following result.
\[Th2\] Assume that $p_+=p_*$. Let $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Caratheodory function such that holds true and $u$ be a solution of . Then for any $q>p_*$, there exists a constant $C_q=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,u,q{\right)}$ such that $$\label{Th2Eq}
\left|u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^{q}+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\partial_{x_i}u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^{p_i}\le C_q\bigg(1+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{qp_i}{q-p_i}}\bigg)^{-1}\quad\text{for a.e. }x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n.$$
Beyond this limit case, namely when $p_*<p_+<p^*$, we find the following result.
\[Th3\] Assume that $p_*<p_+<p^*$. Let $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Caratheodory function such that holds true and $u$ be a solution of . Then there exist a real number $q_0=q_0{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}<p_+$ such that the two following assertions hold true.
1. There exists a constant $R_0=R_0{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,u{\right)}$ such that $$\label{Th3Eq1}
u{\left(}x{\right)}=0\quad\text{for all }x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\text{ such that }\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0}\left|x_i\right|\ge R_0\,,$$ where $\mathcal{I}_0$ is the set of all indices $i$ such that $p_i>q_0$. Moreover, $\mathcal{I}_0\ne\emptyset$ due to $q_0<p_+$.
2. For any $q>q_0$, there exists a constant $C_q=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,u,q{\right)}$ such that $$\label{Th3Eq2}
\left|u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^{q}+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\partial_{x_i}u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^{p_i}\le C_q\bigg(1+\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0^c}\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{qp_i}{q-p_i}}\bigg)^{-1}\quad\text{for a.e. }x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ where $\mathcal{I}_0^c:=\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}\backslash\mathcal{I}_0$.
We are able, moreover, to give an explicit definition in terms of $n$ and $\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}$ of a real number $q_0$ satisfying the above result (see Section \[Sec7\]).
The dependence on $u$ of the constants $C_0$, $C_q$, and $R_0$ in the above results will be made more precise in Remarks \[Rem2\] and \[Rem3\].
As a remark about the support of solutions, by a result in Vétois [@Vet2], we have that for any nonnegative solution $u$ of with $f{\left(}x,u{\right)}$ as in (see [@Vet2] for the general assumptions), if $u{\left(}x{\right)}=0$ for some $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, then we have $u\equiv0$ on the affine subspace $\left\{y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n:\,y_i=x_i\quad\forall i=\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}\backslash\mathcal{I}_-\right\}$, where $\mathcal{I}_-$ is the set of all indices $i$ such that $p_i=\min{\left(}\left\{p_j\in\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}\right\}{\right)}$. In case all $p_i$ are equal to $p$, we obtain that either $u>0$ or $u\equiv0$, thus recovering the same result as Vazquez [@Vaz] found for the $p$–Laplace operator. In the presence of anisotropy, as shows for instance Theorem \[Th3\], this result does not hold true in general on the whole ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
We also point out that in the limit case $p_+=p^*$, we are able to construct quasi-explicit examples of solutions of with $f{\left(}x,u{\right)}=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$ for anisotropic configurations of type $\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}={\left(}p_-,\dotsc,p_-,p_+,\dotsc,p_+{\right)}$ by using the method of separation of variables (see Vétois [@Vet1]). These solutions turn out to vanish in the $i$-th directions corresponding to $p_i=p_+$, exactly like what we prove to be true in Theorem \[Th3\] in case $p_*<p_+<p^*$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[Sec2\], we present different equivalent versions of the anisotropic Sobolev inequality, and we study the existence and scaling properties of extremal functions for these inequalities.
Section \[Sec3\] is concerned with preliminary properties satisfied by the solutions of , namely global boundedness results and a weak decay estimate.
In Sections \[Sec4\] and \[Sec5\], we perform a Moser-type iteration scheme inspired from the one developed in Cîrstea–Vétois [@CirVet] for the fundamental solutions. In order to treat a large part of the proofs in a unified way, we consider a general family of domains defined as $$\label{Eq6}
\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda{\right)}:=\bigg\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n:\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1}\left|x_i\right|^{q_i}\hspace{-2pt}<\hspace{-2pt}{\left(}1+\lambda{\right)}R_1\text{ and }\bigg|\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_2}\left|x_i\right|^{q_i}-R_2\bigg|\hspace{-2pt}<\hspace{-2pt}\lambda R_2\bigg\},$$ where $\lambda\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$, $R_1,R_2>0$, $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ are two disjoint subsets of $\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$, $\mathcal{I}_2\ne\emptyset$, and ${\overrightarrow{q}}={\left(}q_i{\right)}_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}$ is such that $q_i>1$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$. On these domains, we prove that the solutions of satisfy reverse Hölder-type inequalities of the form $$\label{Eq7}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^\gamma{\left(}\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda{\right)}{\right)}}^\gamma\le C\max_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}\Big({\left(}\lambda'-\lambda{\right)}^{-p_i}\\
R_{\delta_i}^{-\frac{p_i}{q_i}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_i}{\left(}\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)}{\right)}}^{\gamma_i}\Big)^\frac{n}{n-p}$$ for all $\gamma>p_*-1$ and $\lambda<\lambda'\in{\left(}0,1/2{\right]}$, where $\delta_i:=1$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_1$, $\delta_i:=2$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_2$, $\gamma_i:=\frac{n-p}{n}\gamma+p_i-p$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$, and $C=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},{\overrightarrow{q}},u,\gamma{\right)}$ (see Lemma \[Lem4\] for more details on the dependence of the constant with respect to $u$ and $\gamma$). Since the right-hand side of involves different exponents $\gamma_i$ in the anisotropic case, the number of exponents in the estimates may grow exponentially when iterating this inequality. We overcome this issue in Section \[Sec5\] by controlling the values of the exponents with respect to the number of iterations.
In Section \[Sec6\], we prove a vanishing result which will give Point (i) in Theorem \[Th3\]. We prove this result by applying our iteration scheme with $R_1=R_2^{1/\varepsilon}$ for small real numbers $\varepsilon>0$ and $\mathcal{I}_1$, $\mathcal{I}_2$ being the sets of all indices $i$ such that $p_i<p_0$, $p_i=p_0$, respectively, for some large enough real number $p_0\in\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}$ (see for the exact condition on $p_0$). Passing to the limit into our iteration scheme, we obtain a pointwise estimate of the form $$\label{Eq8}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^\infty(\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}(\mathcal{I}_1,R^{1/\varepsilon},\mathcal{I}_2,R,1/4))}\le\big(CR^{-\frac{1}{p_\varepsilon}}\big)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}$$ for some constant $C=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},u{\right)}$ (see Lemma \[Lem8\]). When $R$ is large enough, the right-hand side of converges to 0 as $\varepsilon\to0$, and we thus obtain our vanishing result.
In Section \[Sec7\], we prove Theorems \[Th1\], \[Th2\], and we complete the proof of Theorem \[Th3\] by proving the decay estimates . The proofs of these results rely again on our iteration scheme, this time applied with $\mathcal{I}_1=\emptyset$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ being the set of all indices $i$ such that $p_i\le\overline{p}_0$ for some real number $\overline{p}_0$ (see ).
Finally, in Appendix \[App\], we prove a weak version of Kato’s inequality which is used in Sections \[Sec3\] and \[Sec4\].
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} The author wishes to express his gratitude to Frédéric Robert for helpful comments on the manuscript.
Application to the extremal functions of a class of\
anisotropic Sobolev inequalities {#Sec2}
====================================================
As mentioned in the introduction, one of our main motivation in this paper is to apply our results to the extremal functions of a class of anisotropic Sobolev inequalities which originates from Troisi [@Tro]. In this section, we first present in Theorem \[Th4\] below different equivalent versions of these inequalities, and we then prove in Theorem \[Th5\] that all these inequalities have extremal functions, and that with a suitable change of scale, these extremal functions are solutions of with $f{\left(}x,u{\right)}=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$.
We state the equivalent versions of the anisotropic Sobolev inequalities as follows.
\[Th4\] The following inequalities hold true.
1. There exists a constant $C=C\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}\big)$ such that $$\label{Th4Eq1}
{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx{\right)}^{n/p^*}\le C\prod_{i=1}^n{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{1/p_i}\quad\forall u\in C^\infty_c{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}.$$
2. For any $\overrightarrow{\theta}={\left(}\theta_1,\dotsc,\theta_n{\right)}$ such that $\theta_i>0$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$ and $\sum_{i=1}^n1/\theta_i=n/p$, there exists a constant $C_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}=C\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\overrightarrow{\theta}\big)$ such that $$\label{Th4Eq2}
{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx{\right)}^{p/p^*}\le C_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\sum_{i=1}^n{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{\theta_i/p_i}\quad\forall u\in C^\infty_c{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}.$$ In particular, we get in case $\theta_i=p_i$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$.
As a remark, the inequalities and enjoy an anisotropic scaling law. Indeed, it can easily be seen that every integral in these inequalities are invariant with respect to the change of scale $u\mapsto u_\lambda$, where $$\label{Eq9}
u_\lambda{\left(}x{\right)}=\lambda u{\left(}\lambda^{{\left(}p^*-p_1{\right)}/p_1}x_1,\dotsc,\lambda^ {{\left(}p^*-p_n{\right)}/p_n}x_n{\right)}$$ for all $\lambda>0$ and $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$.
We refer to Troisi [@Tro]\*[Theorem 1.2]{} for the proof of the inequality . Then the inequality follows from by applying an inequality of weighted arithmetic and geometric means. As a remark, we can also obtain from by applying the change of scale below.
Regarding the extremal functions of and , we prove the following result. The existence part in this result will be obtained as a corollary of the work of El Hamidi–Rakotoson [@ElHRak] and Proposition \[Pr1\] below.
\[Th5\] If $p_+<p^*$, then there exist extremal functions $u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, $u\ne0$, of and . Moreover, for any extremal function $u$ of or , there exist $\mu_1,\dotsc,\mu_n>0$ such that the function $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\mapsto u{\left(}\mu_1x_1,\dotsc,\mu_nx_n{\right)}$ is a constant-sign solution of with $f{\left(}x,u{\right)}=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$. In particular, every extremal function of or satisfies the a priori estimates in Theorems \[Th1\], \[Th2\], and \[Th3\].
As a remark, due to the scaling law , every extremal function of or generates in fact an infinite family of extremal functions.
Preliminary to the proof of Theorem \[Th5\], we prove the following result.
\[Pr1\] Let $\overrightarrow{\theta}={\left(}\theta_1,\dotsc,\theta_n{\right)}$ be such that $\theta_i>0$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$ and $\sum_{i=1}^n1/\theta_i=n/p$. Then the following assertions hold true.
1. For any extremal function $u$ of , $u\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}$ is an extremal function of , where $$\label{Pr1Eq1}
\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}{\left(}x{\right)}:=\left(\lambda_{\overrightarrow{\theta},1}x_1,\dotsc,\lambda_{\overrightarrow{\theta},n}x_n\right),\quad\lambda_{\overrightarrow{\theta},i}:=\theta_i^{1/\theta_i}\prod_{j=1}^ n\theta_j^{-p/{\left(}n\theta_i\theta_j{\right)}}\,,$$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $i=1,\dotsc,n$.
2. For any extremal function $u$ of , $u\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u}\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}^{-1}$ is an extremal function of , where $\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}$ is as in and $$\label{Pr1Eq2}
\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u}{\left(}x{\right)}:=\left(\mu_{\overrightarrow{\theta},1}{\left(}u{\right)}x_1,\dotsc,\mu_{\overrightarrow{\theta},n}{\left(}u{\right)}x_n\right),\quad\mu_{\overrightarrow{\theta},i}{\left(}u{\right)}:=\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{j=1}{\prod}}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}u\right|^{p_j}dx{\right)}^{p/{\left(}n\theta_ip_j{\right)}}}{{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{1/p_i}}\,,$$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $i=1,\dotsc,n$.
We begin with proving Point (i). We fix an extremal function $u_0$ of . Since $\sum_{i=1}^n1/\theta_i=n/p$, we obtain $$\label{Pr1Eq3}
\prod_{i=1}^n{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u_0\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{p/{\left(}np_i{\right)}}\le\frac{p}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{\theta_i}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u_0\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{\theta_i/p_i}.$$ For any function $u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, simple calculations give $$\label{Pr1Eq4}
\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{\theta_i}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{\theta_i/p_i}={\left(}\prod_{j=1}^ n\theta_j^{-p/{\left(}n\theta_j{\right)}}{\right)}\sum_{i=1}^n{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{\theta_i/p_i}$$ and $$\label{Pr1Eq5}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|u\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\big|^{p^*}dx=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\,.$$ By invertibility of $\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}$ and since $u_0$ is an extremal function of , it follows from and that $$\label{Pr1Eq6}
\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{1}{\theta_i}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u_0\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{\theta_i/p_i}}{\big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|u_0\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}\big|^{p^*}dx\big)^{p/p^*}}=\inf_{\underset{u\ne0}{u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{1}{\theta_i}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{\theta_i/p_i}}{\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}\,.$$ Now, we claim that $$\label{Pr1Eq7}
\inf_{\underset{u\ne0}{u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{1}{\theta_i}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{\theta_i/p_i}}{\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}\le\frac{n}{p}\cdot\inf_{\underset{u\ne0}{u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\prod}}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{p/{\left(}np_i{\right)}}}{\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}\,.$$ We prove this claim. For any function $u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, $u\ne0$, by applying the change of scale , we obtain $$\label{Pr1Eq8}
{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{\theta_i/p_i}=\prod_{j=1}^n{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}u\right|^{p_j}dx{\right)}^{p/{\left(}np_j{\right)}}$$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$, and $$\label{Pr1Eq9}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|u\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u}\big|^{p^*}dx=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\,.$$ Since $\sum_{i=1}^n1/\theta_i=n/p$, it follows from and that $$\label{Pr1Eq10}
\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{1}{\theta_i}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{\theta_i/p_i}}{\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|u\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u}\big|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}=\frac{n}{p}\cdot\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\prod}}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{p/{\left(}np_i{\right)}}}{\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}\,,$$ and hence we obtain . It follows from , and that $u_0\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}$ is an extremal function of . This ends the proof of Point (i).
Now, we prove Point (ii). We fix an extremal function $u_0$ of . By and since $\sum_{i=1}^n1/\theta_i=n/p$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pr1Eq11}
\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{1}{\theta_i}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(u_0\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u_0}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{\theta_i/p_i}}{\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|u_0\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u_0}\big|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}&=\frac{n}{p}\cdot\inf_{\underset{u\ne0}{u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\prod}}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{p/{\left(}np_i{\right)}}}{\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}\nonumber\\
&\le\inf_{\underset{u\ne0}{u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{1}{\theta_i}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{\theta_i/p_i}}{\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx\right)^{p/p^*}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ It follows from and that $u_0\circ\sigma_{\overrightarrow{\theta},u_0}\circ\tau_{\overrightarrow{\theta}}^{-1}$ is an extremal function of . This ends the proof of Point (ii).
Now, we can prove Theorem \[Th5\] by using Proposition \[Pr1\].
We prove the results for the sole inequality . The results for and then follow from Proposition \[Pr1\].
First, in case $p_+<p^*$, the existence of extremal functions of follows from the work of El Hamidi–Rakotoson [@ElHRak]. Indeed, it has been proven in [@ElHRak] that there exist minimizers for $$\label{Th5Eq1}
\mathcal{I}:=\inf_{\underset{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx=1}{u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{p_i}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx\,.$$ This infimum is connected with by the change of scale $u\mapsto\mu_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},u}^{-1}\cdot u\circ\rho_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},u}$, where $$\rho_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},u}{\left(}x{\right)}:=\mu_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},u}\cdot\tau_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}x{\right)},\quad\mu_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},u}:={\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx{\right)}^{p/{\left(}np^*{\right)}},$$ and $\tau_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}x{\right)}$ is as in for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, $u\ne0$. More precisely, simple calculations give $$\label{Th5Eq2}
\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{p_i}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}\big(\mu_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},u}^{-1}\cdot u\circ\rho_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},u}\big)\big|^{p_i}dx={\left(}\prod_{j=1}^np_j^{-p/{\left(}np_j{\right)}}{\right)}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}u\big|^{p_i}dx}{{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx{\right)}^{p/p^*}}$$ and $$\label{Th5Eq3}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|\mu_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},u}^{-1}\cdot u\circ\rho_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},u}\big|^{p^*}dx=1\,,$$ and hence $$\label{Th5Eq4}
\mathcal{I}\le{\left(}\prod_{j=1}^np_j^{-p/{\left(}np_j{\right)}}{\right)}\inf_{\underset{u\ne0}{u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}}\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}u\big|^{p_i}dx}{{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx{\right)}^{p/p^*}}\,.$$ In particular, for any minimizer $u$ of , since $\mu_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},u}=1$ and $\rho_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},u}=\tau_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}$, it follows from – that $u\circ\tau_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}^{-1}$ is an extremal function of .
Next, we prove that the extremal functions of do not change sign. We let $C_0$ be the best constant and $u$ be an extremal function of . By writing $u=u_+-u_-$, where $u_+:=\max{\left(}u,0{\right)}$ and $u_-:=\max{\left(}-u,0{\right)}$, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Th5Eq5}
\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}dx={\left(}\frac{1}{C_0}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx{\right)}^{p/p_*}={\left(}\frac{1}{C_0}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}u_-^{p^*}dx+\frac{1}{C_0}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}u_+^{p^*}dx{\right)}^{p/p_*}\\
\le{\left(}{\left(}\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u_-\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{p^*/p}+{\left(}\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u_+\right|^{p_i}dx{\right)}^{p^*/p}{\right)}^{p/p_*}.\end{gathered}$$ It follows from that either $u_-=0$ or $u_+=0$, and hence we obtain that the function $u$ has constant sign.
Finally, from the Euler-Lagrange equation satisfied by $u$, namely $$-\sum_{i=1}^np_i\partial_{x_i}{\left(}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i-2}\partial_{x_i}u{\right)}=\lambda{\left(}u{\right)}\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u,\quad\text{where}\quad\lambda{\left(}u{\right)}:=\frac{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}p_i\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\big|\partial_{x_i}u\big|^{p_i}dx}{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*}dx}\,,$$ we derive that the function $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\mapsto\mu u{\left(}\mu_1x_1,\dotsc,\mu_nx_n{\right)}$ with $\mu_i:={\left(}\lambda{\left(}u{\right)}/p_i{\right)}^{1/p_i}$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$ is a solution of with $f{\left(}x,u{\right)}=\left|u\right|^{p^*-2}u$. This ends the proof of Theorem \[Th5\].
Preliminary results {#Sec3}
===================
From now on, we are concerned with the general case of an arbitrary solution of .
For any $s\in{\left(}0,\infty{\right)}$ and any domain $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, we define the weak Lebesgue space $L^{s,\infty}{\left(}\Omega{\right)}$ as the set of all measurable functions $u:\Omega\to{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\left\|u\right\|_{L^{s,\infty}{\left(}\Omega{\right)}}:=\sup_{h>0}\big(h\cdot\operatorname{meas}{\left(}\left\{\left|u\right|>h\right\}{\right)}^{1/s}\big)<\infty\,,$$ where $\operatorname{meas}{\left(}\left\{\left|u\right|>h\right\}{\right)}$ is the measure of the set $\left\{x\in\Omega:\,\left|u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|>h\right\}$. The map $\left\|\cdot\right\|_{L^{s,\infty}{\left(}\Omega{\right)}}$ defines a quasi-norm on $L^{s,\infty}{\left(}\Omega{\right)}$. We refer, for instance, to the book of Grafakos [@Gra] for the material on weak Lebesgue spaces.
The first result in this section is as follows.
\[Lem1\] Assume that $p_+<p^*$. Let $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Caratheodory function such that holds true. Then any solution of belongs to $W^{1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}\cap L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, and hence by interpolation, to $L^s{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ for all $s\in{\left(}p_*-1,\infty{\right]}$.
The $L^\infty$–boundedness of the solutions follows from a straightforward adaptation of El Hamidi–Rakotoson [@ElHRak]\*[Propositions 1 and 2]{}, the first proposition being in turn adapted from Fragalà–Gazzola–Kawohl [@FraGazKaw]\*[Theorem 2]{}.
Once we have the $L^\infty$–boundedness of the solutions, we obtain the $L^\infty$–boundedness of the derivatives by applying Lieberman’s gradient estimates [@Lie].
The proof of the $L^{p_*-1,\infty}$–boundedness of the solutions follows exactly the same arguments as in Vétois [@Vet3]\*[Lemma 2.2]{}. One only has to replace $\left|\nabla u\right|^p$ by $\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i}$.
For any solution $u$ of , by Proposition \[Pr2\] in Appendix \[App\], we obtain $$\label{Eq10}
-\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}\left|u\right|\le f{\left(}x,u{\right)}\cdot\operatorname{sgn}{\left(}u{\right)}\le\Lambda\left|u\right|^{p^*-1}\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ where $\operatorname{sgn}{\left(}u{\right)}$ denotes the sign of $u$ and the inequality is in the sense that for any nonnegative, smooth function $\varphi$ with compact support in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, we have $$\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}\left|u\right|\right|^{p_i-2}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}\left|u\right|{\right)}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}\varphi{\right)}dx\le\Lambda\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u\right|^{p^*-1}\varphi\,dx\,.$$
We prove the following result.
\[Lem2\] For any real number $\Lambda>0$ and any nonnegative, nontrivial solution $v\in D^{1,p}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ of the inequality $-\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}v\le\Lambda v^{p^*-1}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, we have $\left\|v\right\|_{L^{p^*}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}\ge\kappa_0$ for some constant $\kappa_0=\kappa_0{\left(}n,p,\Lambda{\right)}>0$.
By testing the inequality $-\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}v\le\Lambda v^{p^*-1}$ with the function $v$, and applying the anisotropic Sobolev inequality, we obtain $$\label{Lem2Eq}
\Lambda\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}v^{p^*}dx\ge\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}v\right|^{p_i}dx\ge K{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}v^{p^*}dx{\right)}^{\frac{n-p}{n}}$$ for some constant $K=K{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}$. The result then follows from with $\kappa_0:={\left(}K/\Lambda{\right)}^{\frac{n-p}{p^2}}$.
As a last result in this section, we prove the following decay estimate. This result is not sharp, but it turns out to be a crucial ingredient in what follows.
\[Lem3\] Assume that $p_+<p^*$. Let $\kappa_0$ be as in Lemma \[Lem2\], $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Caratheodory function such that holds true, and $u$ be a solution of . For any $\kappa>0$, we define $$\label{Lem3Eq1}
r_\kappa{\left(}u{\right)}:=\inf\big(\big\{r>0\,:\,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p^*}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n\backslash B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,r{\right)}{\right)}}<\kappa\big\}\big),$$ where $B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,r{\right)}$ is the open ball of center 0 and radius $r$ with respect to the distance function $d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}$ defined as $$\label{Lem3Eq2}
d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}x,y{\right)}:=\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i-y_i\right|^{\frac{\delta p_i}{p^*-p_i}}\quad\text{with}\quad\delta:=\frac{p^*-p_+}{p_+},$$ for all $x,y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$. Then for any $\kappa\in{\left(}0,\kappa_0{\right)}$ and $r>r_\kappa{\left(}u{\right)}$, there exists a constant $K_0=K_0\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,\kappa,r,r_\kappa{\left(}u{\right)},\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p^*}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}\big)$ such that $$\label{Lem3Eq3}
\left|u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|\le K_0\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{p_i}{p^*-p_i}}\bigg)^{-1}\quad\text{for all }x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\backslash B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,r{\right)}.$$
This proof is adapted from Vétois [@Vet3]\*[Lemma 3.1]{} We fix $\Lambda>0$, $\kappa\in{\left(}0,\kappa_0{\right)}$, $\kappa'>\kappa_0$, $r>0$, and $r'\in{\left(}0,r{\right)}$. We claim that in order to obtain Lemma \[Lem3\], it is sufficient to prove that there exists a constant $K_1=K_1{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\kappa,\kappa',r,r'{\right)}$ such that for any solution $u$ of such that $r_\kappa{\left(}u{\right)}\le r'$ and $\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p^*}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}\le\kappa'$, we have $$\label{Lem3Eq4}
d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}x,B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,r''{\right)}{\right)}\left|u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^\delta\le K_1\quad\text{for all }x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\backslash B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,r{\right)},$$ where $r'':={\left(}r+r'{\right)}/2$. Indeed, for any $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\backslash B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,r{\right)}$, we can write $$\label{Lem3Eq5}
d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}x,0{\right)}\le d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}x,B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,r''{\right)}{\right)}+r''\le d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}x,B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,r''{\right)}{\right)}+\frac{r''}{r}d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}x,0{\right)},$$ and hence by putting together and , we obtain $$\label{Lem3Eq6}
d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}x,0{\right)}\left|u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^\delta\le\frac{r}{r-r''}\cdot K_1=\frac{2r}{r-r'}\cdot K_1.$$ By definition of $d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}$, then follows from . This proves our claim.
We prove by contradiction. Suppose that for any $\alpha\in{\mathbb{N}}$, there exists a Caratheodory function $f_\alpha:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ such that holds true, a solution $u_\alpha$ of with $f=f_\alpha$ such that $r_\kappa{\left(}u_\alpha{\right)}\le r'$ and $\left\|u_\alpha\right\|_{L^{p^*}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}\le\kappa'$, and a point $x_\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\backslash B{\left(}0,r{\right)}$ such that $$\label{Lem3Eq7}
d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}x_\alpha,B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,r''{\right)}{\right)}\left|u_\alpha{\left(}x_\alpha{\right)}\right|^\delta>2\alpha\,.$$ It follows from and Poláčik–Quittner–Souplet [@PolQuiSou]\*[Lemma 5.1]{} that there exists $y_\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\backslash B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,r''{\right)}$ such that $$\label{Lem3Eq8}
d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}y_\alpha,B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,r''{\right)}{\right)}\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|^\delta>2\alpha\,,\quad\left|u_\alpha{\left(}x_\alpha{\right)}\right|\le\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|,$$ and $$\label{Lem3Eq9}
\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y{\right)}\right|\le2^{1/\delta}\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|\quad\text{for all }y\in B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}\big(y_\alpha,\alpha\,\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|^{-\delta}\big).$$ For any $\alpha$ and $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, we define $$\label{Lem3Eq10}
\widetilde{u}_\alpha{\left(}y{\right)}:=\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|^{-1}\cdot u_\alpha{\left(}\tau_\alpha{\left(}y{\right)}{\right)},$$ where $$\tau_\alpha{\left(}y{\right)}:=y_\alpha+\big(\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|^{\frac{p_1-p^*}{p_1}}y_1,\dots,\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|^{\frac{p_n-p^*}{p_n}}y_n\big).$$ It follows from and that $$\label{Lem3Eq11}
\left|\widetilde{u}_\alpha{\left(}0{\right)}\right|=1\quad\text{and}\quad\left|\widetilde{u}_\alpha{\left(}y{\right)}\right|\le2^{1/\delta}\quad\text{for all }y\in B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,\alpha{\right)}.$$ Moreover, by , we obtain $$\label{Lem3Eq12}
-\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}\widetilde{u}_\alpha=\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|^{1-p^*}\cdot f_\alpha{\left(}\tau_\alpha{\left(}y{\right)},\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|\cdot\widetilde{u}_\alpha{\right)}\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ and gives $$\label{Lem3Eq13}
\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|^{1-p^*}\cdot\left|f_\alpha{\left(}\tau_\alpha{\left(}y{\right)},\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|\cdot\widetilde{u}_\alpha{\right)}\right|\le\Lambda\left|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right|^{p^*-1}.$$ By Lieberman’s gradient estimates [@Lie], it follows from and that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for any $R>0$, we have $$\label{Lem3Eq14}
\left\|\nabla\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right\|_{L^\infty(B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,R{\right)})}\le C$$ for large $\alpha$. By Arzela–Ascoli Theorem and a diagonal argument, it follows from and that ${\left(}\widetilde{u}_\alpha{\right)}_\alpha$ converges up to a subsequence in $C^0_{\operatorname{loc}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ to some Lipschitz continuous function $\widetilde{u}_\infty$ such that $\left|\widetilde{u}_\infty{\left(}0{\right)}\right|=1$. Moreover, by testing – with $\widetilde{u}_\alpha$, we obtain $$\label{Lem3Eq15}
\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right|^{p_i}dx\le\Lambda\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right|^{p^*}dx=\Lambda\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|u_\alpha\right|^{p^*}dx\le\Lambda{\left(}\kappa'{\right)}^{p^*}.$$ Since $\left|\partial_{x_i}\left|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right|\right|=\left|\partial_{x_i}\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right|$ a.e. in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, it follows from that ${\left(}\left|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right|{\right)}_\alpha$ converges weakly up to a subsequence to $\left|\widetilde{u}_\infty\right|$ in $D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$. Passing to the limit into –, we then obtain that $\left|\widetilde{u}_\infty\right|$ is a weak solution of the inequality $$\label{Lem3Eq16}
-\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}\left|\widetilde{u}_\infty\right|\le\Lambda\left|\widetilde{u}_\infty\right|^{p^*-1}\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^n.$$ In particular, since $\left|\widetilde{u}_\infty{\left(}0{\right)}\right|=1$, it follows from Lemma \[Lem2\] that $\left\|u_\infty\right\|_{L^{p^*}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}\ge\kappa_0$, and hence there exists a real number $R>0$ such that $$\label{Lem3Eq17}
\left\|u_\infty\right\|_{L^{p^*}{\left(}B{\left(}0,R{\right)}{\right)}}>\kappa\,.$$ On the other hand, we have $$\label{Lem3Eq18}
\left\|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right\|_{L^{p^*}(B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,R{\right)})}=\left\|u_\alpha\right\|_{L^{p^*}{\left(}B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}y_\alpha,R\cdot\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|^{-\delta}{\right)}{\right)}}.$$ By and since $r_\kappa{\left(}u_\alpha{\right)}<r''$, we obtain $$\label{Lem3Eq19}
B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}\big(y_\alpha,R\cdot\left|u_\alpha{\left(}y_\alpha{\right)}\right|^{-\delta}\big)\cap B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,r_\kappa{\left(}u_\alpha{\right)}{\right)}=\emptyset$$ for large $\alpha$. By definition of $r_\kappa{\left(}u_\alpha{\right)}$, it follows from and that $$\label{Lem3Eq20}
\left\|\widetilde{u}_\alpha\right\|_{L^{p^*}(B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,R{\right)})}\le\kappa$$ for large $\alpha$, which is in contradiction with . This ends the proof of Lemma \[Lem3\].
The reverse Hölder-type inequalities {#Sec4}
====================================
The following result is a key step in the Moser-type iteration scheme that we develop in the next section.
\[Lem4\] Assume that $p_+<p^*$. Let $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Caratheodory function such that holds true, $u$ be a solution of , and $\kappa$, $r$, and $K_0$ be as in Lemma \[Lem3\]. Let $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ be two disjoint subsets of $\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$, $\mathcal{I}_2\ne\emptyset$, and ${\overrightarrow{q}}={\left(}q_i{\right)}_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}$ be such that $q_i>1$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$. Then there exists a constant $c_0=c_0{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,K_0{\right)}>1$ such that for any $R_1,R_2>0$, $\lambda<\lambda'\in{\left(}0,1/2{\right]}$, and $\gamma>p_*-1$ such that $\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)}\cap B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,\max{\left(}r,1{\right)}{\right)}=\emptyset$ and $\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)}\cap\operatorname{supp}{\left(}u{\right)}$ is bounded, where $\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda{\right)}$ is as in , we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Lem4Eq1}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^\gamma{\left(}\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda{\right)}{\right)}}^\gamma\le c_0\gamma^{p^*}\max_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}\Big(\min{\left(}1,\gamma-p_*+1{\right)}^{-p_i}{\left(}\lambda'-\lambda{\right)}^{-p_i}q_i^{p_i}\\
\times R_{\delta_i}^{-\frac{p_i}{q_i}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_i}{\left(}\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)}{\right)}}^{\gamma_i}\Big)^\frac{n}{n-p},\end{gathered}$$ where $\delta_i:=1$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_1$, $\delta_i:=2$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_2$, and $\gamma_i:=\frac{n-p}{n}\gamma+p_i-p$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$.
Preliminary to the proof of Lemma \[Lem4\], we prove the following result.
\[Lem5\] Let $v$ be a nonnegative solution in $D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ of $$\label{Lem5Eq1}
-\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}v\le\Lambda v^{p^*-1}\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ for some real number $\Lambda>0$, where the inequality must be understood in the weak sense as in . Let $\beta>-1$ and $\eta\in C^1{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ be such that $0\le\eta\le1$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, $\eta v$ has compact support, and $\eta^{{\left(}\beta+p_-{\right)}/p_+}\in C^1{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, where $p_-:=\min{\left(}\left\{p_i\in\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}\right\}{\right)}$ and $p_+:=\max{\left(}\left\{p_i\in\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}\right\}{\right)}$. Then there exists a constant $C=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Lem5Eq2}
{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}{\left(}\eta v{\right)}^{\frac{n{\left(}\beta+p{\right)}}{n-p}}dx{\right)}^{\frac{n-p}{n}}\le C{\left(}\left|\beta\right|^p+1{\right)}\bigg(\Lambda{\left(}\beta+1{\right)}^{-1}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\eta^{\beta+p_-}v^{\beta+p^*}dx\\
+\sum_{i=1}^n\min{\left(}1,\beta+1{\right)}^{-p_i}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}\eta\right|^{p_i}\eta^{\beta+p_--p_i}v^{\beta+p_i}dx\bigg).\end{gathered}$$
The finiteness of the integrals in is ensured by the fact that $v\in L^\infty{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, $\eta v$ has compact support, and $\eta^{{\left(}\beta+p_-{\right)}/p_+}\in C^1{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$.
For any $\varepsilon>0$, we define $v_\varepsilon:=v+\varepsilon\overline\eta$, where $\overline\eta$ is a cutoff function on a neighborhood of the support of $\eta v$ such that $\overline\eta^{\beta+1}\in C^1{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$. Since $v\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}\cap L^\infty{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, $\eta^{{\left(}\beta+p_-{\right)}/p_+}\in C^1{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, and ${\left(}\beta+p_-{\right)}/p_+\le{\left(}\beta+p_-{\right)}/p_-=1+\beta/p_-$, we get ${\left(}\eta v_\varepsilon{\right)}^{\min{\left(}1,1+\beta/p_-{\right)}}\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$. By a generalized version of the anisotropic Sobolev inequality (see Cîrstea–Vétois [@CirVet]\*[Lemma A.1]{}), we then obtain $$\label{Lem5Eq3}
\left\|\eta v_\varepsilon\right\|_{L^{\frac{n{\left(}\beta+p{\right)}}{n-p}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}^{\beta+p}\le C{\left(}\beta+p{\right)}^p\prod_{i=1}^n\left\|{\left(}\eta v_\varepsilon{\right)}^{\frac{\beta}{p_i}}\partial_{x_i}{\left(}\eta v_\varepsilon{\right)}\right\|_{L^{p_i}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}^{\frac{p}{n}}<\infty$$ for some constant $C=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}$. For any $i=1,\dotsc,n$, we have $$\label{Lem5Eq4}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}{\left(}\eta v_\varepsilon{\right)}^\beta\left|\partial_{x_i}{\left(}\eta v_\varepsilon{\right)}\right|^{p_i}dx\le2^{p_i-1}{\left(}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}\eta\right|^{p_i}\eta^\beta v_\varepsilon^{\beta+p_i}dx+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i} v_\varepsilon\right|^{p_i}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v_\varepsilon^\beta dx{\right)}.$$ Since $v\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}\cap L^\infty{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, $\overline\eta^{\beta+1}\in C^1{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, $\eta^{{\left(}\beta+p_-{\right)}/p_+}\in C^1{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, and ${\left(}\beta+p_-{\right)}/p_+\le\beta+p_-$, we get $\eta^{\beta+p_i}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$. For any $i=1,\dotsc,n$, since $v_\varepsilon\equiv v+\varepsilon$ on the support of $\eta v$, testing with $\eta^{\beta+p_i}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}$ gives $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Lem5Eq5}
{\left(}\beta+1{\right)}\sum_{j=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}v\right|^{p_j}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v_\varepsilon^\beta dx\le\Lambda\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v^{p^*-1}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}dx\\
-{\left(}\beta+p_i{\right)}\sum_{j=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}v\right|^{p_j-2}{\left(}\partial_{x_j}v{\right)}{\left(}\partial_{x_j}\eta{\right)}\eta^{\beta+p_i-1}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}dx\,.\end{gathered}$$ For any $i,j=1,\dotsc,n$, Youngs inequality yields $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Lem5Eq6}
-{\left(}\beta+p_i{\right)}\left|\partial_{x_j}v\right|^{p_j-2}{\left(}\partial_{x_j}v{\right)}{\left(}\partial_{x_j}\eta{\right)}\eta^{\beta+p_i-1}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}\\
\le\frac{p_j-1}{p_j}\cdot{\left(}\beta+1{\right)}\left|\partial_{x_j}v\right|^{p_j}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v_\varepsilon^{\beta}+\frac{1}{p_j}\cdot\frac{{\left(}\beta+p_i{\right)}^{p_j}}{{\left(}\beta+1{\right)}^{p_j-1}}\left|\partial_{x_j}\eta\right|^{p_j}\eta^{\beta+p_i-p_j}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+p_j}.\end{gathered}$$ It follows from and that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Lem5Eq7}
\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{1}{p_j}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}v\right|^{p_j}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v_\varepsilon^\beta dx\le\Lambda{\left(}\beta+1{\right)}^{-1}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v^{p^*-1}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}dx\\
+\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{1}{p_j}\cdot{\left(}\frac{\beta+p_i}{\beta+1}{\right)}^{p_j}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}\eta\right|^{p_j}\eta^{\beta+p_i-p_j}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+p_j}dx\,.\end{gathered}$$ In particular, by and , we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Lem5Eq8}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}{\left(}\eta v_\varepsilon{\right)}^\beta\left|\partial_{x_i}{\left(}\eta v_\varepsilon{\right)}\right|^{p_i}dx\le C\bigg(
\Lambda{\left(}\beta+1{\right)}^{-1}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\eta^{\beta+p_i}v^{p^*-1}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+1}dx\\
+\sum_{j=1}^n\min{\left(}1,\beta+1{\right)}^{-p_j}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_j}\eta\right|^{p_j}\eta^{\beta+p_i-p_j}v_\varepsilon^{\beta+p_j}dx+\varepsilon^{\beta+p_i}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}\overline\eta\right|^{p_i}\eta^{\beta+p_i}\overline\eta^{\beta}dx\bigg)\end{gathered}$$ for some constant $C=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}$. Finally, since $\eta^{p_i}\le\eta^{p_-}$, we get by plugging into and passing to the limit as $\varepsilon\to0$. This ends the proof of Lemma \[Lem5\].
Now, we can prove Lemma \[Lem4\] by using Lemma \[Lem5\].
We denote $\beta:=\frac{n-p}{n}\gamma-p$. In particular, $\gamma>p_*-1$ is equivalent to $\beta>-1$. In connexion with the sets $\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda{\right)}$, we define test functions of the form $$\label{Lem4Eq2}
\eta{\left(}x{\right)}:=\bigg[\overline\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}\bigg(R_1^{-1}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1}\left|x_i\right|^{q_i}\bigg)\widetilde\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}\bigg(R_2^{-1}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_2}\left|x_i\right|^{q_i}\bigg)\bigg]^{\max{\left(}1,\frac{p_+}{\beta+p_-}{\right)}}$$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, where $\overline\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'},\,\widetilde\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}\in C^1{\left(}0,\infty{\right)}$ satisfy $0\le\overline\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'},\,\widetilde\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}\le1$ in ${\left(}0,\infty{\right)}$, $\overline\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}=1$ in ${\left[}0,1+\lambda{\right]}$, $\overline\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}=0$ in ${\left[}1+\lambda',\infty{\right)}$, $\left|\overline\eta'_{\lambda,\lambda'}\right|\le2$ in ${\left[}1+\lambda,1+\lambda'{\right]}$, $\widetilde\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}=1$ in ${\left[}1-\lambda,1+\lambda{\right]}$, $\widetilde\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}=0$ in ${\left[}0,1-\lambda'{\right]}\cup{\left[}1+\lambda',\infty{\right)}$, and $\left|\widetilde\eta'_{\lambda,\lambda'}\right|\le2/{\left(}\lambda'-\lambda{\right)}$ in ${\left[}1-\lambda',1-\lambda{\right]}\cup{\left[}1+\lambda,1+\lambda'{\right]}$. With these properties of $\overline\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}$ and $\widetilde\eta_{\lambda,\lambda'}$, we obtain $$0\le\eta\le1\text{ in }{\mathbb{R}}^n,\,\eta=1\text{ in }\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda{\right)},\text{ and }\eta=0\text{ in }{\mathbb{R}}^n\backslash \Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)}.$$ Since $\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)}\cap\operatorname{supp}{\left(}u{\right)}$ is bounded by assumption, we get that $\eta u$ has compact support. Moreover, since $q_i>1$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$, we get $\eta^{{\left(}\beta+p_-{\right)}/p_+}\in C^1{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ and $$\label{Lem4Eq3}
\left|\partial_{x_i}\eta{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^{p_i}\eta{\left(}x{\right)}^{\beta+p_--p_i}\le{\left(}\frac{4q_i}{\lambda'-\lambda}\max{\left(}1,\frac{p_+}{\beta+p_-}{\right)}{\right)}^{p_i}R_{\delta_i}^{-\frac{p_i}{q_i}}$$ for all $x\in\operatorname{supp}{\left(}\eta{\right)}$, where $\delta_i:=1$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_1$, $\delta_i:=2$ if $i\in\mathcal{I}_2$. By applying Lemma \[Lem5\] with $v=\left|u\right|$ and $\eta$ as in , and using , we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Lem4Eq4}
{\left(}\int_{\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda{\right)}}u^\gamma dx{\right)}^{\frac{n-p}{n}}\le C{\left(}\left|\beta\right|^p+1{\right)}\bigg(\Lambda{\left(}\beta+1{\right)}^{-1}\int_{\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)}}u^{\beta+p^*}dx\\
+\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}\min{\left(}1,\beta+1{\right)}^{-p_i}{\left(}\lambda'-\lambda{\right)}^{-p_i}q_i^{p_i}R_{\delta_i}^{-\frac{p_i}{q_i}}\int_{\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)}}u^{\beta+p_i}dx\bigg)\end{gathered}$$ for some constant $C=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}$.
Now, we estimate the first integral in the right-hand side of . We claim that there exists a constant $C'=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},K_0{\right)}$ such that $$\label{Lem4Eq5}
u{\left(}x{\right)}^{p^*-p_{i_0}}\le C'R_2^{-\frac{p_{i_0}}{q_{i_0}}}\quad\text{for all }x\in\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)},$$ where $K_0$ is the constant given by Lemma \[Lem3\] and $i_0\in\mathcal{I}_2$ is such that $$\label{Lem4Eq6}
\frac{q_{i_0}{\left(}p^*-p_{i_0}{\right)}}{p_{i_0}}=\max_{i\in\mathcal{I}_2}{\left(}\frac{q_i{\left(}p^*-p_i{\right)}}{p_i}{\right)}\,.$$ We prove this claim. For any $x\in\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)}$, since $\lambda'\le1/2$, we obtain $$\label{Lem4Eq7}
\frac{R_2}{2}\le\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_2}\left|x_i\right|^{q_i}\le n\cdot|x_{i{\left(}x{\right)}}|^{q_{i{\left(}x{\right)}}}\le n\cdot d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}x,0{\right)}^{\frac{q_{i{\left(}x{\right)}}(p^*-p_{i{\left(}x{\right)}})}{\delta p_{i{\left(}x{\right)}}}},$$ where $i{\left(}x{\right)}\in\mathcal{I}_2$ is such that $|x_{i{\left(}x{\right)}}|^{q_{i{\left(}x{\right)}}}=\max{\left(}\left\{\left|x_i\right|^{q_i}:\,i\in\mathcal{I}_2\right\}{\right)}$, and the distance function $d_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}$ and the real number $\delta$ are as in . Since $\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)}\cap B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,\max{\left(}r,1{\right)}{\right)}=\emptyset$ by assumption, follows from , , and Lemma \[Lem3\]. In particular, implies $$\label{Lem4Eq9}
\int_{\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)}}u^{\beta+p^*}dx\le C'R_2^{-\frac{p_{i_0}}{q_{i_0}}}\int_{\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda'{\right)}}u^{\beta+p_{i_0}}dx\,.$$ Finally, follows from , , and the fact that $\beta+1=\frac{n-p}{n}{\left(}\gamma-p_*+1{\right)}$ and $\beta+p_i=\gamma_i$. This ends the proof of Lemma \[Lem4\].
The iteration scheme {#Sec5}
====================
In this section, we describe the iteration scheme which leads to the proofs of our main results.
Let $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ be two disjoint subsets of $\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$, $\mathcal{I}_2\ne\emptyset$, and ${\overrightarrow{q}}={\left(}q_i{\right)}_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}$ be such that $q_i>1$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$. The idea is to apply Lemma \[Lem4\] by induction. For any $\gamma>p_*-1$, Lemma \[Lem4\] provides an estimate of the $L^\gamma$–norm of $u$ with respect to the set of $L^{\gamma_{i_1}}$–norms of $u$, where $\gamma_{i_1}:=\frac{n-p}{n}\gamma+p_{i_1}-p$ for all $i_1\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$. If $\gamma_{i_1}>p_*-1$, then another application of Lemma \[Lem4\] gives estimates of the $L^{\gamma_{i_1}}$–norms of $u$ with respect to the set of $L^{\gamma_{i_1i_2}}$–norms of $u$, where $\gamma_{i_1i_2}:=\frac{n-p}{n}\gamma_{i_1}+p_{i_2}-p$, etc... By induction, we define $$\label{Eq11}
\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{j+1}}:=\frac{n-p}{n}\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_j}+p_{i_{j+1}}-p$$ for all $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $i_1,\dotsc,i_{j+1}\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$, with the convention that $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_j}:=\gamma$ if $j=0$. In particular, we obtain the formula $$\label{Eq12}
\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}={\left(}\frac{n-p}{n}{\right)}^k\gamma+\sum_{j=1}^k{\left(}\frac{n-p}{n}{\right)}^{k-j}{\left(}p_{i_j}-p{\right)}$$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. The stopping condition in our induction argument is $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}$, where $$\label{Eq13}
p_\varepsilon:={\left(}1+\varepsilon{\right)}p_0\,,\quad p_0:=\max{\left(}p_*,\left\{p_i\,:\,i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2\right\}{\right)},$$ and $\varepsilon$ is a fixed real number in ${\left(}0,1{\right)}$. Note that $\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}>\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_*-p{\right)}=p_*-1$ so that we can apply Lemma \[Lem4\] as long as our stopping condition is not satisfied. For any $k\ge1$, we let $\Phi_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ be the set of all sequences of indices for which our induction argument stops after exactly $k$ iterations, namely $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Eq14}
\Phi_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}:=\Big\{{\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2{\right)}^k\,:\quad\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_j}\ge\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}\text{ for all }j=0,\dotsc,k-1\\
\text{and}\quad\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}\Big\}.\end{gathered}$$ The following result provides a control on the number of iterations in our induction argument.
\[Lem6\] Let $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ be two disjoint subsets of $\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$, $\mathcal{I}_2\ne\emptyset$, and ${\overrightarrow{q}}={\left(}q_i{\right)}_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}$ be such that $q_i>1$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$, $\gamma\ge\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}$, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and ${\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2{\right)}^k$, we have $$\label{Lem6Eq1}
\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}>\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}\quad\text{if }k<k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-\quad\text{and}\quad\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}\quad\text{if }k\ge k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+\,,$$ where $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}$ is as in , $p_\varepsilon$ is as in , and $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-$ and $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+$ are the smallest and largest natural numbers, respectively, such that $$\label{Lem6Eq2}
\frac{n}{p}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-1}\varepsilon p_0<\gamma<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p_-{\right)},$$ where $p_-:=\min{\left(}\left\{p_i\in\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}\right\}{\right)}$. In particular, we have $\Phi_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}=\emptyset$ for all $k<k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-$ and $k>k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+$, where $\Phi_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ is as in .
Since $p_-\le p_{i_j}\le p_0$ for all $j=1,\dotsc,k$, it follows from that $$\label{Lem6Eq3}
-\sum_{j=1}^k{\left(}\frac{n-p}{n}{\right)}^{k-j}{\left(}p-p_-{\right)}\le\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}-{\left(}\frac{n-p}{n}{\right)}^k\gamma\le\sum_{j=1}^k{\left(}\frac{n-p}{n}{\right)}^{k-j}{\left(}p_0-p{\right)}.$$ Moreover, by a simple calculation, we obtain $$\label{Lem6Eq4}
\sum_{j=1}^k{\left(}\frac{n-p}{n}{\right)}^{k-j}=\frac{n}{p}{\left(}1-{\left(}\frac{n-p}{n}{\right)}^k{\right)}<\frac{n}{p}\,.$$ It follows from and that $$\label{Lem6Eq5}
-\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p-p_-{\right)}<\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}-{\left(}\frac{n-p}{n}{\right)}^k\gamma<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_0-p{\right)}.$$ Finally, follows from together with the definitions of $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-$ and $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+$.
Now, we can prove the main result of this section.
\[Lem7\] Assume that $p_+<p^*$. Let $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Caratheodory function such that holds true, $u$ be a solution of , and $\kappa$, $r$, and $K_0$ be as in Lemma \[Lem3\]. Let $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ be two disjoint subsets of $\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$, $\mathcal{I}_2\ne\emptyset$, and ${\overrightarrow{q}}={\left(}q_i{\right)}_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}$ be such that $q_i>1$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$. Then there exists a constant $c_1=c_1{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,K_0{\right)}>1$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$, $\gamma>\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}$, and $R_1,R_2>0$ such that $\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,1/2{\right)}\cap B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,\max{\left(}r,1{\right)}{\right)}=\emptyset$ and $\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,1/2{\right)}\cap\operatorname{supp}{\left(}u{\right)}$ is bounded, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Lem7Eq1}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma}{\left(}\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le c_1^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}\max{\left(}q_i{\right)}^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p_*{\right)}^{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}}\\
\times\max_{{\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}{\left(}{\left(}\prod_{j=1}^kR_{\delta_{i_j}}^{-\frac{1}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j\frac{p_{i_j}}{q_{i_j}}}{\right)}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k}{\right)},\end{gathered}$$ where $\delta_{i_j}:=1$ if $i_j\in\mathcal{I}_1$, $\delta_{i_j}:=2$ if $i_j\in\mathcal{I}_2$, $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}$ is as in , $p_\varepsilon$ is as in , $\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda_k{\right)}$ is as in , and $$\label{Lem7Eq2}
\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}:=\frac{1}{4}\big(1+2^{k-k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-1}\big)\quad\text{and}\quad\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}:=\bigcup_{k=k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-}^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+}\Phi_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$$ with $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-$ and $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+$ as in Lemma \[Lem6\], and $\Phi_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ as in .
Applying Lemma \[Lem4\] by induction with the stopping condition $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}$ gives $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Lem7Eq3}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma}{\left(}\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le\max_{{\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}\Big(\mathcal{A}_{k,\gamma}\times\mathcal{B}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}\times\mathcal{C}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma}\times\mathcal{D}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\\
\times{\left(}\prod_{j=1}^kR_{\delta_{i_j}}^{-\frac{1}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j\frac{p_{i_j}}{q_{i_j}}}{\right)}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R_1,\mathcal{I}_2,R_2,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k}\Big),\end{gathered}$$ where $\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ and $\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$ are as in , and $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{A}_{k,\gamma}:=\big(c_0\cdot\max\big(q_i^{\frac{np_i}{n-p}}\big)\big)^{\frac{1}{\gamma}\overset{k-1}{\underset{j=0}{\sum}}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j},\quad\mathcal{B}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}:=\prod_{j=1}^k\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{j-1}}^{\frac{p}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j},\allowdisplaybreaks\\
&\mathcal{C}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}:=\prod_{j=1}^k\min{\left(}1,\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{j-1}}-p_*+1{\right)}^{-\frac{p_{i_j}}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j},\allowdisplaybreaks\\
&\mathcal{D}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}:=\prod_{j=1}^k{\left(}\lambda_{j,\gamma,\varepsilon}-\lambda_{j-1,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}^{-\frac{p_{i_j}}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, we fix ${\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$ and estimate each of the terms in the right-hand side of .
By using the fact that $k\le k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+$ and applying , we obtain $$\label{Lem7Eq4}
\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j=\frac{n-p}{p}{\left[}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k-1{\right]}<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-1}<\frac{\gamma}{\varepsilon p_0}\,.$$ Since $c_0>1$, $q_i>1$, and $p_i\le p_0$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$, it follows from that $$\label{Lem7Eq5}
\mathcal{A}_{k,\gamma}<c_0^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_0}}\max{\left(}q_i{\right)}^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}}.$$
For any $j=1,\dotsc,k$, since $p_i\le p_0$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2$, by , , and , we obtain $$\label{Lem7Eq6}
\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{j-1}}\le{\left(}\frac{n-p}{n}{\right)}^{j-1}\gamma+\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_0-p{\right)}\le C\max\bigg(1,{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--j}\bigg)$$ for some constant $C=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}>1$. It follows from that $$\label{Lem7Eq7}
\mathcal{B}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}\le C^{\frac{p}{\gamma}\overset{k}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^{\frac{p}{\gamma}\overset{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j{\left(}k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--j{\right)}}.$$ A simple calculation gives $$\overset{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j{\left(}k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--j{\right)}=\frac{n^2}{p^2}{\left[}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--1}-\frac{p}{n}{\left(}k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--1{\right)}-1{\right]}<\frac{n^2}{p^2}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--1},$$ and hence by definition of $k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-$, we obtain $$\label{Lem7Eq8}
\overset{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^-}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j{\left(}k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^--j{\right)}\le\frac{n}{p}\cdot\frac{\gamma}{p_\varepsilon-p_-}<\frac{n}{p}\cdot\frac{\gamma}{p_*-p_-}\,.$$ It follows from , , and that $$\label{Lem7Eq9}
\mathcal{B}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}\le C^{\frac{p^*}{\varepsilon p_0}}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^{\frac{n}{p_*-p_-}}.$$
Since $p_*-1=\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_*-p{\right)}$ and $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{j-1}}>\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}$ for all $j=1,\dotsc,k$, we obtain $$\label{Lem7Eq10}
\mathcal{C}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}\le\min\Big(1,\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p_*{\right)}\Big)^{-\frac{1}{\gamma}\overset{k}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}p_{i_j}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j}.$$ Since $p_{i_j}\le p_0$ for all $j=1,\dotsc,k$, it follows from and that $$\label{Lem7Eq11}
\mathcal{C}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1},\gamma}\le\min\Big(1,\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p_*{\right)}\Big)^{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}}.$$
By and since $k\le k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+$ and $p_{i_j}\le p_0$ for all $j=1,\dotsc,k$, we obtain $$\label{Lem7Eq12}
\mathcal{D}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\le2^{\frac{1}{\gamma}\overset{k}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}p_{i_j}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j{\left(}k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-j+4{\right)}}\le2^{\frac{p_0}{\gamma}\overset{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j{\left(}k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-j+4{\right)}}.$$ We find $$\begin{aligned}
\overset{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j{\left(}k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-j+4{\right)}&=\frac{n}{p}{\left[}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+}{\left(}3+\frac{n}{p}{\right)}-k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-3-\frac{n}{p}{\right]}\\
&<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+}{\left(}3+\frac{n}{p}{\right)},\end{aligned}$$ and hence by , we obtain $$\label{Lem7Eq13}
\overset{k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j{\left(}k_{\gamma,\varepsilon}^+-j+4{\right)}<\frac{\gamma}{\varepsilon p_0}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}{\left(}3+\frac{n}{p}{\right)}.$$ It follows from and that $$\label{Lem7Eq14}
\mathcal{D}_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\le2^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}{\left(}3+\frac{n}{p}{\right)}}.$$
The estimate follows from , , , , and .
The vanishing result {#Sec6}
====================
In this section, we prove a vanishing result which will give Point (i) in Theorem \[Th3\]. We define $$\label{Eq15}
\overline{p}_0:=\max{\left(}p_*,\left\{p_i\in\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}\,:\,i\in\Theta\right\}{\right)},$$ where $p_*$ is as in and $\Theta$ is the set of all indices $i$ such that $$\label{Eq16}
\big(p_i-p_--\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_i-p_*{\right)}\big)\sum_{j=1}^n\max{\left(}\frac{p_i-p_j}{p_j},0{\right)}\ge{\left(}p_*-1{\right)}{\left(}p_i-p_-{\right)}$$ with $p_-:=\min{\left(}\left\{p_i\in\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}\right\}{\right)}$. We define $\mathcal{I}_0$ as the set of all indices $i$ such that $p_i>\overline{p}_0$.
When $p_+>p_*$, one easily sees that the condition does not hold true for $p_i=p_+$, and hence we have $\overline{p}_0<p_+$ and $\mathcal{I}_0\ne\emptyset$.
We prove the following result.
\[Th6\] Assume that $p_*<p_+<p^*$. Let $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Caratheodory function such that holds true and $u$ be a solution of . Then there exists a constant $R_0=R_0{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,u{\right)}$ such that $u{\left(}x{\right)}=0$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that $\sum_{i\in \mathcal{I}_0}\left|x_i\right|\ge R_0$.
The proof of Theorem \[Th6\] is based on the following result, which we obtain by applying the iteration scheme in Section \[Sec5\].
\[Lem8\] Assume that $p_*<p_+<p^*$. Let $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Caratheodory function such that holds true, $u$ be a solution of , and $\kappa$, $r$, and $K_0$ be as in Lemma \[Lem3\]. Let $\overline{p}_0$ be as in and $p_0\in\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}$ be such that $$\label{Lem8Eq1}
p_0>\overline{p}_0\quad\text{and}\quad R_i{\left(}u{\right)}<\infty\text{ for all indices }i\text{ such that }p_i>p_0\,,$$ where $$\label{Lem8Eq2}
R_i{\left(}u{\right)}:=\sup{\left(}\left\{\left|x_i\right|\,:\,x\in\operatorname{supp}{\left(}u{\right)}\right\}{\right)}.$$ Let $\mathcal{I}_1$, $\mathcal{I}_2$ be the sets of indices $i$ such that $p_i<p_0$, $p_i=p_0$, respectively. For any $\varepsilon,\lambda\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$ and $R>1$, we define $$\label{Lem8Eq3}
A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda{\right)}:=\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1,R^{1/\varepsilon},\mathcal{I}_2,R,\lambda{\right)}\quad\text{with}\quad q_i:=\left\{\begin{aligned}&\frac{p_\varepsilon p_i}{p_\varepsilon-p_i}&&\text{if }i\in\mathcal{I}_1\,,\\&p_\varepsilon&&\text{if }i\in\mathcal{I}_2\,,\end{aligned}\right.$$ where $p_\varepsilon:={\left(}1+\varepsilon{\right)}p_0$. If $A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,1/2{\right)}\cap B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,\max{\left(}r,1{\right)}{\right)}=\emptyset$, then $$\label{Lem8Eq4}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^\infty{\left(}A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,1/4{\right)}{\right)}}\le \big(c_2R^{-\frac{1}{p_\varepsilon}}\big)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}$$ for some constant $c_2=c_2(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}},R_0{\left(}u{\right)})$, where $$\label{Lem8Eq5}
R_0{\left(}u{\right)}:=\max{\left(}\left\{R_i{\left(}u{\right)}:i\in\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}\backslash{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2{\right)}\right\}{\right)}.$$
As is easily seen, we have $1<q_i<s_0$ for some constant $s_0=s_0{\left(}\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}$. Moreover, by , we obtain that $p_\varepsilon-p_*>p_0-p_*>0$ and $A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,1/2{\right)}\cap\operatorname{supp}{\left(}u{\right)}$ is bounded. By Lemma \[Lem7\], we then get that there exists a constant $\widetilde{c}_1=\widetilde{c}_1{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,K_0{\right)}$ such that for any $\gamma>\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}$, we have $$\label{Lem8Eq6}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma}{\left(}A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le \widetilde{c}_1^{\,\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}\max_{{\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}\Big(R^{-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k}\Big)$$ provided that $A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,1/2{\right)}\cap B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,\max{\left(}r,1{\right)}{\right)}=\emptyset$, where $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}$ is as in , $\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ and $\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$ are as in , and $$\label{Lem8Eq7}
\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}:=\frac{1}{\varepsilon\gamma p_\varepsilon}\sum_{j=1}^k{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p_{i_j}{\right)}\,.$$
We claim that for any $\nu\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$ and ${\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$, there exists a constant $c_\nu=c\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}},R_0{\left(}u{\right)},\nu\big)$ such that $$\label{Lem8Eq8}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k}\le c_\nu^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}R^{\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}},$$ where $$\label{Lem8Eq9}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}:=\max\bigg(0\,,\frac{1}{\varepsilon\gamma p_\varepsilon}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k{\left(}1-\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*-1+\nu}{\right)}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}\frac{p_\varepsilon-p_i}{p_i}\bigg).$$ We separate two cases:
- Case 1: $p_*-1+\nu\le\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}$ (in which case $\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}=0$).
- Case 2: $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<p_*-1+\nu$ (in which case $\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}>0$).
We begin with proving in Case 1. By interpolation (see, for instance, Grafakos [@Gra]\*[Proposition 1.1.14]{}), and by Lemmas \[Lem1\] and \[Lem3\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lem8Eq10}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}&\le{\left(}\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}-p_*+1}{\right)}^{\frac{1}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}^{\frac{p_*-1}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^\infty{\left(}A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}^{1-\frac{p_*-1}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}}\nonumber\\
&\le C\nu^{\frac{-1}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}}\le C\nu^{\frac{-1}{p_*-1}}\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C=C\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}\big)$. Moreover, since $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}$ and $k\le k^+_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$, by , we get $$\label{Lem8Eq11}
\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k\le\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_0}\cdot\frac{n}{n-p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}.$$ Then follows from and .
Now, suppose that we are in Case 2. By and since $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_{k-1}}\ge\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}$ and $p_\varepsilon>p_*$, we obtain $$\label{Lem8Eq12}
\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}\ge\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}+p_--p_\varepsilon>\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_*-p{\right)}+p_--p_*=p_--1\,.$$ By Hölder’s inequality, we then get $$\label{Lem8Eq13}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le\left|A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}\cap\operatorname{supp}{\left(}u{\right)}\right|^{\frac{1}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}-\frac{1}{p_*-1+\nu}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1+\nu}{\left(}A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}.$$ Direct computations yield $$\label{Lem8Eq14}
\left|A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}\cap\operatorname{supp}{\left(}u{\right)}\right|\le CR^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_\varepsilon}\cdot\underset{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}{\sum}\frac{p_\varepsilon-p_i}{p_i}}$$ for some constant $C=C\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},R_0{\left(}u{\right)}\big)$, where $R_0{\left(}u{\right)}$ is as in . Similarly to and , we obtain $$\label{Lem8Eq15}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1+\nu}{\left(}A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le C\nu^{\frac{-1}{p_*-1}}$$ for some constant $C=C\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}\big)$, and $$\label{Lem8Eq16}
\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k<\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_0}\cdot\frac{p}{n-p}{\left(}p_*-1+\nu{\right)}.$$ Then follows from –.
By and , we obtain $$\label{Lem8Eq17}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma}{\left(}A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le{\left(}\widetilde{c}_1c_\nu{\right)}^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}\max_{{\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}R^{\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}}$$ for all $\nu\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$, where $\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ and $\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}$ are as in and .
We claim that there exists a constant $\nu_0=\nu_0{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}$ such that for any $\nu\in{\left(}0,\nu_0{\right)}$, we have $$\label{Lem8Eq18}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\le-\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_\varepsilon}{\left(}1-\frac{n}{\gamma p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}{\right)}.$$ We prove this claim. By , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Lem8Eq19}
\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}&=\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_\varepsilon}\bigg(1-\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k+\frac{1}{\gamma}\sum_{j=1}^k{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_\varepsilon}\bigg(1+\frac{1}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k{\left(}\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}{\right)}-\frac{n}{\gamma p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ In case $p_*-1+\nu\le\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}$, since $\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}=0$, we deduce directly from . In the remaining case $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<p_*-1+\nu$, by and , we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Lem8Eq20}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\le-\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_\varepsilon}\bigg(1+\frac{1}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k\bigg(\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}\\
-{\left(}1-\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*-1+\nu}{\right)}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}\frac{p_\varepsilon-p_i}{p_i}\bigg)-\frac{n}{\gamma p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}\bigg)\,.\end{gathered}$$ If $\nu$ is small enough so that $p_*-1+\nu<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_0-p{\right)}$, i.e. $\nu<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_0-p_*{\right)}$, then $$\label{Lem8Eq21}
1-\frac{1}{p_*-1+\nu}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}\frac{p_\varepsilon-p_i}{p_i}<\frac{p}{n{\left(}p_0-p{\right)}}\sum_{i\in{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2{\right)}^c}\frac{p_0-p_i}{p_i}<0\,,$$ where ${\left(}\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2{\right)}^c:=\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}\backslash{\left(}\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2{\right)}$. It follows from , , and that $$\label{Lem8Eq22}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon,\nu}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,\gamma,\varepsilon}\le-\frac{1}{\varepsilon p_\varepsilon}\bigg(1+\frac{1}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k\varphi_\nu{\left(}p_\varepsilon{\right)}-\frac{n}{\gamma p}{\left(}p_\varepsilon-p{\right)}\bigg)$$ for all $\nu\in(0,\frac{n}{p}{\left(}p_0-p_*{\right)})$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_\nu{\left(}q{\right)}:&=q-p_--\bigg(1-\frac{\frac{n}{p}{\left(}q-p{\right)}+p_--q}{p_*-1+\nu}\bigg)\underset{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}{\sum}\frac{q-p_i}{p_i}\\
&=q-p_--\frac{q-p_--\frac{n}{p}{\left(}q-p_*{\right)}}{p_*-1+\nu}\underset{i\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2}{\sum}\frac{q-p_i}{p_i}\end{aligned}$$ for all $q\in{\mathbb{R}}$. By and by definition of $\overline{p}_0$, we obtain $\varphi_0{\left(}p_0{\right)}>0$. Moreover, it can easily be seen that $\varphi_0{\left(}p_*{\right)}\le0$. Observing that $\varphi_0$ is a quadratic polynomial with positive leading coefficient, we then get that $\varphi_0$ is increasing in ${\left[}p_0,\infty{\right)}$. By continuity of $\varphi_\nu$ with respect to $\nu$, it follows that $\varphi_\nu{\left(}p_\varepsilon{\right)}\le0$ provided that $\nu<\nu_0$ for some constant $\nu_0=\nu_0{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}$. By , we then get .
Finally, we fix $\nu=\nu_0/2$, and we obtain by passing to the limit as $\gamma\to\infty$ into and and using the fact that $p_\varepsilon>p_0$ and $R>1$. This ends the proof of Lemma \[Lem8\].
Now, we can conclude the proof of Theorem \[Th6\].
We proceed by contradiction. Suppose that there exists a solution $u$ of such that $$\label{Th6Eq1}
p_0:=\max{\left(}\left\{p_i\in\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}\,:\,R_i{\left(}u{\right)}=\infty\right\}{\right)}>\overline{p}_0\,,$$ where $R_i{\left(}u{\right)}$ is as in . Then we can apply Lemma \[Lem8\]. For any $\varepsilon\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$ and $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, it follows from that $$\label{Th6Eq2}
\left|u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|\le \big(c_2R_\varepsilon{\left(}x{\right)}^{-\frac{1}{p_\varepsilon}}\big)^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}\quad\text{where}\quad R_\varepsilon{\left(}x{\right)}:=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_2}\left|x_i\right|^{p_\varepsilon}$$ provided that $\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_1}\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{p_\varepsilon p_i}{p_\varepsilon-p_i}}<\frac{5}{4}R_\varepsilon{\left(}x{\right)}^{1/\varepsilon}$ and $A_\varepsilon{\left(}R_\varepsilon{\left(}x{\right)},1/2{\right)}\cap B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,\max{\left(}r,1{\right)}{\right)}=\emptyset$, where $\mathcal{I}_1$ and $\mathcal{I}_2$ are as in Lemma \[Lem8\], and $r$ is as in Lemma \[Lem3\]. One easily gets that there exists a constant $R_r=R{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},r{\right)}>1$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$ and $R>R_r$, we have $A_\varepsilon{\left(}R,1/2{\right)}\cap B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,\max{\left(}r,1{\right)}{\right)}=\emptyset$. By passing to the limit as $\varepsilon\to0$ into , we then obtain that $u{\left(}x{\right)}=0$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that $$\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_2}\left|x_i\right|^{p_0}>\max{\left(}R_r,c_2^{\,p_0}{\right)},$$ and hence $R_i{\left(}u{\right)}<\infty$ for all $i\in\mathcal{I}_2$, which is in contradiction with . This ends the proof of Theorem \[Th6\].
\[Rem2\] As one can see from the above proof, the constant $R_0$ that we obtain in Theorem \[Th6\] depends on $n$, $\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}$, $\Lambda$, $\kappa$, $r$, $r_\kappa{\left(}u{\right)}$, and $\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}$.
The decay estimates {#Sec7}
===================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[Th1\] in case $p_+<p_*$ and Theorem \[Th7\] below in case $p_*\le p_+<p^*$. The latter implies Theorem \[Th2\] in case $p_+=p_*$ and allows us to complete the proof of Theorem \[Th3\] in case $p_*<p_+<p^*$.
We let $\overline{p}_0$ and $\mathcal{I}_0$ be as in Section \[Sec6\]. We define $q_0$ as the largest real number such that for any $q>q_0$, we have $$\label{Eq17}
\big(q-p_--\frac{n}{p}{\left(}q-p_*{\right)}\big)\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0^c}\frac{q-p_i}{p_i}<{\left(}p_*-1{\right)}{\left(}q-p_-{\right)},$$ where $\mathcal{I}_0^c:=\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}\backslash\mathcal{I}_0$. It easily follows from the definition of $\overline{p}_0$ and the fact that $\overline{p}_0<p_+$ in case $p_+>p_*$ that $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
&q_0=\overline{p}_0=p_*&&\text{in case }p_+\le p_*\,,\\
&\overline{p}_0\le q_0<p_+&&\text{in case }p_+>p_*\,.
\end{aligned}\right.$$
We prove the following result.
\[Th7\] Assume that $p_*\le p_+<p^ *$. Let $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Caratheodory function such that holds true and $u$ be a solution of . Let $q_0$ be defined as above. Then for any $q>q_0$, there exists a constant $C_q=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,u,q{\right)}$ such that $$\label{Th7Eq}
\left|u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^q+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\partial_{x_i}u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^{p_i}\le C_q\bigg(1+\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0^c}\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{qp_i}{q-p_i}}\bigg)^{-1}\quad\text{for a.e. }x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n.$$
We conclude the proofs of Theorems \[Th2\] and \[Th3\] as follows.
In case $p_+=p_*$, since $q_0=\overline{p}_0=p_*$, we get that holds true for all $q>p_*$. Since in this case we have $\mathcal{I}_0^c=\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$, this is exactly the result in Theorem \[Th2\].
In case $p_*<p_+<p^ *$, Points (i) and (ii) in Theorem \[Th3\] follow directly from Theorems \[Th6\] and \[Th7\] and the fact that $\overline{p}_0\le q_0<p_+$.
Now, it remains to prove Theorems \[Th1\] and \[Th7\]. By another application of the iteration scheme in Section \[Sec5\], we prove the following result.
\[Lem9\] Assume that $p_+<p^*$. Let $f:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Caratheodory function such that holds true, $u$ be a solution of , and $\kappa$, $r$, and $K_0$ be as in Lemma \[Lem3\]. Let $q=p_*$ in case $p_+<p_*$ and $q\in{\left(}q_0,p^*{\right)}$ in case $p_*\le p_+<p^*$. For any $\lambda\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$ and $R>1$, we define $$\label{Lem9Eq1}
A_q{\left(}R,\lambda{\right)}:=\Omega_{{\overrightarrow{q}}}{\left(}\emptyset,1,\mathcal{I}^c_0,R,\lambda{\right)}\quad\text{with}\quad q_i:=\frac{qp_i}{q-p_i}\text{ for all }i\in\mathcal{I}^c_0\,.$$ If $A_q{\left(}R,1/2{\right)}\cap B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,\max{\left(}r,1{\right)}{\right)}=\emptyset$, then $$\label{Lem9Eq2}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^\infty{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,1/4{\right)}{\right)}}\le c_qR^{-\frac{1}{q}},$$ for some constant $c_q=c\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}},R_0,q\big)$, where $R_0$ is as in Theorem \[Th6\].
By Theorem \[Th6\], we obtain that $A_q{\left(}R,\lambda{\right)}\cap\operatorname{supp}{\left(}u{\right)}$ is bounded. By Lemma \[Lem7\], we then get that for any $\varepsilon\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$, there exists a constant $c_{q,\varepsilon}=c{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,K_0,q,\varepsilon{\right)}$ such that for any $\gamma>\frac{n}{p}{\left(}\overline{p}_\varepsilon-p{\right)}$, where $\overline{p}_\varepsilon:={\left(}1+\varepsilon{\right)}\overline{p}_0$, we have $$\label{Lem9Eq3}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le c_{q,\varepsilon}\max_{{\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}\Big(R^{-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k}\Big),$$ provided that $A_q{\left(}R,1/2{\right)}\cap B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,\max{\left(}r,1{\right)}{\right)}=\emptyset$, where $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}$ is as in , $\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}$ and $\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$ are as in , and $$\label{Lem9Eq4}
\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma}:=\frac{1}{\gamma q}\sum_{j=1}^k{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^j{\left(}q-p_{i_j}{\right)}.$$
In this case, we follow in large part the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma \[Lem8\]. We set $\varepsilon:={\left(}q-\overline{p}_0{\right)}/\overline{p}_0$ so that $q=\overline{p}_\varepsilon$. Since $q<p^*$ and $\overline{p}_0\ge p_*$, we get $\varepsilon<{\left(}p^*-p_*{\right)}/p_*\le1$. Similarly to , we then obtain that for any ${\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$ and $\nu\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$, there exists a constant $c_\nu=c\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}},R_0,\nu\big)$ such that $$\label{Lem9Eq5}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k}\le c_\nu^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}R^{\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma,\nu}},$$ where $$\label{Lem9Eq6}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma,\nu}:=\max\bigg(0\,,\frac{1}{q\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k{\left(}1-\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*-1+\nu}{\right)}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0^c}\frac{q-p_i}{p_i}\bigg).$$ It follows from and that $$\label{Lem9Eq7}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le c_{q,\varepsilon}c_\nu^{\frac{1}{\varepsilon}}\max_{{\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}R^{\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma,\nu}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma}}$$ for all $\nu\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$, where $\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma}$ and $\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma,\nu}$ are as in and .
In the same way as in the proof of , we then obtain $$\label{Lem9Eq8}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma,\nu}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,q,\gamma}\le-\frac{1}{q}{\left(}1-\frac{n}{\gamma p}{\left(}q-p{\right)}{\right)}$$ provided that $$\label{Lem9Eq9}
q-p_--\frac{q-p_--\frac{n}{p}{\left(}q-p_*{\right)}+\nu}{p_*-1+\nu}\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0^c}\frac{q-p_i}{p_i}>0\,.$$ By , we get that holds true provided that $\nu<\nu_0$ for some constant $\nu_0=\nu_0{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}$.
Finally, we fix $\nu=\nu_q/2$, and we obtain by passing to the limit as $\gamma\to\infty$ into and . This ends the proof of Lemma \[Lem9\].
In this case, we have $\overline{p}_0=p^*$ and $\mathcal{I}_0^c=\left\{1,\dotsc,n\right\}$. We claim that there exists a constant $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_0{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$ such that for any $\varepsilon\in{\left(}0,\varepsilon_0{\right)}$ and ${\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$, we have $$\label{Lem9Eq10}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}^{\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k}\le c_\varepsilon R^{\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}}$$ for some constant $c_\varepsilon=c\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}},\varepsilon\big)$, where $$\label{Lem9Eq11}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}:=\frac{p_*-1-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k.$$ We assume that ${\left(}1-\varepsilon{\right)}p_*>p$, i.e. $\varepsilon<\frac{p-1}{n-1}$, and we separate two cases:
- Case 1: $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}\le\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1-\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}$,
- Case 2: $\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1-\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}<\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1+\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}$.
We begin with proving in Case 1. By a generalized version of Hölder’s inequality (see for instance Grafakos [@Gra]\*[Exercise 1.1.11]{}), we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Lem9Eq12}
\left\|u\right\|^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le\frac{p_*-1}{p_*-1-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\left|A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}\right|^{1-\frac{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*-1}}\left\|u\right\|^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}.\end{gathered}$$ Direct computations give $$\label{Lem9Eq13}
\left|A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}\right|\le CR^{\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\frac{p_*-p_i}{p_*p_i}}=CR^{\frac{p_*-1}{p_*}}$$ for some constant $C=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}$. Since $\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}\le\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1-\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}$ and $u\in L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, it follows from and that $$\label{Lem9Eq14}
\left\|u\right\|^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le C\varepsilon^{-1}R^{\frac{p_*-1-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*}}$$ for some constant $C=C\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}\big)$. Moreover, since $k\le k^+_{\gamma,\varepsilon}$, by , we get $$\label{Lem9Eq15}
\frac{1}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k<\frac{1}{\varepsilon{\left(}n-1{\right)}}\,.$$ Then follows from and .
Now, suppose that we are in case 2. By interpolation, we obtain $$\label{Lem9Eq16}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le\left\|u\right\|^\theta_{L^{\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1-\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\left\|u\right\|^{1-\theta}_{L^{\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1+\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}},$$ where $\theta\in{\left(}0,1{\right)}$ is such that $$\label{Lem9Eq17}
\frac{\theta}{\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1-\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}}+\frac{1-\theta}{\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1+\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}}=\frac{1}{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}\,.$$ Similarly to , we get $$\label{Lem9Eq18}
\left\|u\right\|^{\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1-\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}}_{L^{\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1-\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le C\varepsilon^{-1}R^{\frac{n}{p}\varepsilon}$$ for some constant $C=C\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}\big)$. On the other hand, Lemma \[Lem4\] gives $$\label{Lem9Eq19}
\left\|u\right\|^{\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1+\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}}_{L^{\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1+\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le C\max_{i=1,\dotsc,n}\Big(\varepsilon^{-p_i}R^{\frac{p_i-p_*}{p_*}}\left\|u\right\|_{L^{\varepsilon{\left(}n-1{\right)}+p_i-1}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,1/2{\right)}{\right)}}^{\varepsilon{\left(}n-1{\right)}+p_i-1}\Big)^{\frac{n}{n-p}}$$ for some constant $C=C{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,K_0{\right)}$. We define $\varepsilon_0:={\left(}p_*-p_+{\right)}/{\left(}p_*+2n-2{\right)}$ so that for any $\varepsilon\in{\left(}0,\varepsilon_0{\right)}$ and $i=1,\dotsc,n$, we have $$\varepsilon{\left(}n-1{\right)}+p_i-1<\frac{n}{p}{\left(}{\left(}1-\varepsilon{\right)}p_*-p{\right)}.$$ Similarly to , we then get $$\label{Lem9Eq20}
\left\|u\right\|^{\varepsilon{\left(}n-1{\right)}+p_i-1}_{L^{\varepsilon{\left(}n-1{\right)}+p_i-1}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k+1,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le CR^{\frac{p_*-p_i-\varepsilon{\left(}n-1{\right)}}{p_*}}$$ for some constant $C=C\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}\big)$. By putting together –, we obtain $$\label{Lem9Eq21}
\left\|u\right\|^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}_{L^{\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{k,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le C\varepsilon^{-s}R^{\frac{p_*-1-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}}{p_*}}$$ for some constants $C=C\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}\big)$ and $s=s{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}{\right)}>0$. Then follows from and .
By and , we obtain that for any $\varepsilon\in{\left(}0,\varepsilon_0{\right)}$, there exists a constant $\widetilde{c}_\varepsilon=c\big(n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,K_0,\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}},\varepsilon\big)$ such that $$\label{Lem9Eq22}
\left\|u\right\|_{L^\gamma{\left(}A_q{\left(}R,\lambda_{0,\gamma,\varepsilon}{\right)}{\right)}}\le \widetilde{c}_\varepsilon\max_{{\left(}i_1,\dotsc,i_k{\right)}\in\Phi_{\gamma,\varepsilon}}R^{\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}},$$ where $\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}$ and $\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}$ are as in and .
From , we derive $$\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}=\frac{1}{p_*}\bigg(1+\frac{1}{\gamma}{\left(}\frac{n}{n-p}{\right)}^k{\left(}p_*-1-\gamma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k}{\right)}-\frac{p_*-1}{\gamma}\bigg),$$ and hence $$\label{Lem9Eq23}
\tau_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}-\sigma_{i_1,\dotsc,i_k,p_*,\gamma}=-\frac{1}{p_*}\bigg(1-\frac{p_*-1}{\gamma}\bigg).$$ Finally, we fix $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_0/2$, and we obtain by passing to the limit as $\gamma\to\infty$ into and . This ends the proof of Lemma \[Lem9\] in case $p_+<p_*$ and $q=p_*$.
Now, we can prove Theorems \[Th7\] and \[Th1\].
As is easily seen, it is sufficient to prove for $q\in{\left(}q_0,p^*{\right)}$. Let $u$ be a solution of and $q>q_0$. We define $$u_R{\left(}y{\right)}:=R^{\frac{1}{q}}\cdot u{\left(}\tau_R{\left(}y{\right)}{\right)},\quad\text{where}\quad\tau_R{\left(}y{\right)}:=\big(R^{\frac{q-p_1}{qp_1}}y_1,\dotsc,R^{\frac{q-p_n}{qp_n}}y_n\big)$$ for all $R>1$ and $y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$. By Lemma \[Lem9\], we obtain $$\label{Th1Eq13}
\left\|u_R\right\|_{L^\infty{\left(}A_q{\left(}1,1/4{\right)}{\right)}}\le c_q\,.$$ provided that $A_q{\left(}R,1/2{\right)}\cap B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,\max{\left(}r,1{\right)}{\right)}=\emptyset$, where $r$ be as in Lemma \[Lem3\]. One easily gets the existence of a constant $R_r=R{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},r{\right)}>1$ such that $A_q{\left(}R,1/2{\right)}\cap B_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}0,\max{\left(}r,1{\right)}{\right)}=\emptyset$ for all $R>R_r$. Moreover, by , we obtain $$\label{Th1Eq14}
-\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}u_R=R^{\frac{q-1}{q}}\cdot f\big(\tau_R{\left(}y{\right)},R^{-\frac{1}{q}}\cdot u_R\big)\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ and gives $$\label{Th1Eq15}
\big|R^{\frac{q-1}{q}}\cdot f\big(\tau_R{\left(}y{\right)},R^{-\frac{1}{q}}\cdot u_R\big)\big|\le\Lambda\cdot R^{\frac{q-p^*}{q}}\cdot\left|u_R\right|^{p^*-1}.$$ Since $q-p^*\le0$, by – and Lieberman’s gradient estimates [@Lie], we get that there exists a constant $c'_q=c{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,c_q{\right)}$ such that $$\label{Th1Eq16}
\left\|\nabla u_R\right\|_{L^\infty{\left(}A_q{\left(}1,1/8{\right)}{\right)}}\le c'_q\,.$$ For any $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, it follows from and that $$\left|u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^q+\sum_{i=1}^n\left|\partial_{x_i}u{\left(}x{\right)}\right|^{p_i}\le c''_qR{\left(}x{\right)}^{-1}\quad\text{where}\quad R{\left(}x{\right)}:=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}_0^c}\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{qp_i}{q-p_i}}$$ for some constant $c''_q=c{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},\Lambda,c_q{\right)}$, provided that $R{\left(}x{\right)}>R_r$. This ends the proof of Theorem \[Th7\].
We fix $q=p^*$ in this case and we follow the same arguments as in the above proof of Theorem \[Th7\].
\[Rem3\] As one can see from the above proofs, the constants $C_0$ and $C_q$ that we obtain in and depend on $n$, $\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}$, $q$, $\Lambda$, $\kappa$, $r$, $r_\kappa{\left(}u{\right)}$, $\left\|u\right\|_{L^{p_*-1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}}$, and $\left\|u\right\|_{W^{1,\infty}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n\backslash\Omega_r{\right)}}$, where $\Omega_r:=\big\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n:\,\sum_{i=1}^n\left|x_i\right|^{\frac{qp_i}{q-p_i}}>R_r\big\}$ for some constant $R_r=R{\left(}n,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}},r{\right)}$.
Kato-type inequality {#App}
====================
In this section, we prove a weak version of Kato’s inequality [@Kato] for the operator $\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}$. This result is used in Sections \[Sec3\] and \[Sec4\]. A similar result has been proven by Cuesta Leon [@Cue] in the context of the $p$–Laplace operator.
For any $f\in L^1_{\operatorname{loc}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, we say that a function $u\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ is a solution of the inequality $$-\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}u\le f\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^n$$ if we have $$\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u\right|^{p_i-2}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}u{\right)}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}\varphi{\right)}dx\le\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}f\varphi\,dx$$ for all nonnegative, smooth function $\varphi$ with compact support in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
We state our result as follows.
\[Pr2\] Let $f_1,f_2\in L^1_{\operatorname{loc}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ and $u_1,u_2\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ be solutions of the inequalities $$\label{Pr2Eq1}
-\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}u_j\le f_j\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^n$$ for $j=1,2$. Then the function $u:=\max{\left(}u_1,u_2{\right)}$ is a solution of the inequality $$\label{Pr2Eq2}
-\Delta_{\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}u\le f\quad\text{in }{\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ where $f{\left(}x{\right)}:=f_1{\left(}x{\right)}$ if $u_1{\left(}x{\right)}>u_2{\left(}x{\right)}$, $f{\left(}x{\right)}:=f_2{\left(}x{\right)}$ if $u_1{\left(}x{\right)}\le u_2{\left(}x{\right)}$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$.
We essentially follow the lines of Cuesta Leon [@Cue]\*[Proposition 3.2]{}. For any $\varepsilon>0$ and $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, we define $$\eta_{1,\varepsilon}{\left(}x{\right)}:=\eta_\varepsilon{\left(}u_1{\left(}x{\right)}-u_2{\left(}x{\right)}{\right)}\quad\text{and}\quad\eta_{2,\varepsilon}{\left(}x{\right)}:=1-\eta_{1,\varepsilon}{\left(}x{\right)},$$ where $\eta_\varepsilon\in C^1{\left(}R{\right)}$ is such that $\eta_\varepsilon\equiv0$ in ${\left(}-\infty,0{\right]}$, $\eta_\varepsilon\equiv1$ in ${\left[}1,\infty{\right)}$, $0\le\eta_\varepsilon\le1$ and $\eta'_\varepsilon\ge0$ in ${\left(}0,1{\right)}$. In particular, for $j=1,2$, we have $\eta_{j,\varepsilon}\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, $0\le\eta_{j,\varepsilon}\le1$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, and $$\label{Pr2Eq3}
\eta_{j,\varepsilon}{\left(}x{\right)}\longrightarrow\left\{\begin{aligned}&1&&\text{if }x\in\Omega_j\\&0&&\text{if }x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\backslash\Omega_j\end{aligned}\right.$$ as $\varepsilon\to0$ for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, where $\Omega_1:=\left\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n:\,u_1{\left(}x{\right)}>u_2{\left(}x{\right)}\right\}$ and $\Omega_2:={\mathbb{R}}^n\backslash\Omega_1$. For any nonnegative, smooth function $\varphi$ with compact support in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, testing with $\varphi\eta_{j,\varepsilon}$ gives $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Pr2Eq4}
\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u_j\right|^ {p_i-2}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}u_j{\right)}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}\varphi{\right)}\eta_{j,\varepsilon}dx\\
+{\left(}-1{\right)}^{j-1}\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u_j\right|^ {p_i-2}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}u_j{\right)}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}u_1-\partial_{x_i}u_2{\right)}\eta'_\varepsilon{\left(}u_1-u_2{\right)}\varphi\,dx\le\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}f_j\varphi\eta_{j,\varepsilon}dx\,.\end{gathered}$$ By and since $f_j\in L^1_{\operatorname{loc}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$ and $u_j\in D^{1,\operatorname{\overrightarrow{p}}}{\left(}{\mathbb{R}}^n{\right)}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}f_j\varphi\eta_{j,\varepsilon}dx&\longrightarrow\int_{\Omega_j}f_j\varphi\,dx\,,\label{Pr2Eq5}\\
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left|\partial_{x_i}u_j\right|^ {p_i-2}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}u_j{\right)}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}\varphi{\right)}\eta_{j,\varepsilon}dx&\longrightarrow\int_{\Omega_j}\left|\partial_{x_i}u_j\right|^ {p_i-2}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}u_j{\right)}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}\varphi{\right)}dx\label{Pr2Eq6}\end{aligned}$$ as $\varepsilon\to0$ for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$. Moreover, since $\eta'_\varepsilon\ge0$ and $\varphi\ge0$, we get $$\label{Pr2Eq7}
\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}{\left(}\left|\partial_{x_i}u_1\right|^ {p_i-2}\partial_{x_i}u_1-\left|\partial_{x_i}u_2\right|^ {p_i-2}\partial_{x_i}u_2{\right)}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}u_1-\partial_{x_i}u_2{\right)}\eta'_\varepsilon{\left(}u_1-u_2{\right)}\varphi\,dx\ge0\,.$$ It follows from – that $$\label{Pr2Eq8}
\sum_{j=1}^2\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{\Omega_j}\left|\partial_{x_i}u_j\right|^ {p_i-2}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}u_j{\right)}{\left(}\partial_{x_i}\varphi{\right)}dx\le\sum_{j=1}^2\int_{\Omega_j}f_j\varphi\,dx$$ and hence holds true since $u\equiv u_j$ and $f\equiv f_j$ on $\Omega_j$ for $j=1,2$.
[99]{}
[^1]: To appear in [*Advances in Mathematics*]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Identifying adversarial examples is beneficial for understanding deep networks and developing robust models. However, existing attacking methods for image object detection have two limitations: [*weak transferability*]{}—the generated adversarial examples often have a low success rate to attack other kinds of detection methods, and [*high computation cost*]{}—they need much time to deal with video data, where many frames need polluting. To address these issues, we present a generative method to obtain adversarial images and videos, thereby significantly reducing the processing time. To enhance transferability, we manipulate the feature maps extracted by a feature network, which usually constitutes the basis of object detectors. Our method is based on the Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) framework, where we combine a high-level class loss and a low-level feature loss to jointly train the adversarial example generator. Experimental results on PASCAL VOC and ImageNet VID datasets show that our method efficiently generates image and video adversarial examples, and more importantly, these adversarial examples have better transferability, therefore being able to simultaneously attack two kinds of representative object detection models: proposal based models like Faster-RCNN and regression based models like SSD.'
author:
- |
Xingxing Wei$^1$, Siyuan Liang$^2$, Ning Chen$^1$, Xiaochun Cao$^2$\
$^1$Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University\
$^2$Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences\
{xwei11, ningchen}@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn, {liangsiyuan, caoxiaochun}@iie.ac.cn
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: Transferable Adversarial Attacks for Image and Video Object Detection
---
![An example of the comparisons between DAG (Dense Adversary Generation) and our UEA (Unified and Efficient Adversary) against proposal and regression based detectors. In the first row, Faster-RCNN and SSD300 detect the correct objects. The second row lists the adversarial examples from DAG. We see it succeeds to attack Faster-RCNN, but fails to attack SSD300. In this third row, neither Faster-RCNN nor SSD300 detects the cars on the adversarial images. Moreover, the UEA’s processing time is almost 1000 times faster than DAG for generating an adversarial image. []{data-label="fig:figure1"}](fig1.pdf){width="43.00000%"}
Introduction
============
Deep learning techniques have achieved great success in various computer vision tasks [@li2018textbook; @wei2018video]. However, it is also proved that neural networks are vulnerable to adversarial examples [@szegedy2013intriguing], thereby attracting a lot of attention on attacking (e.g., FGSM [@goodfellow2014explaining; @Dong_2018_CVPR], deepfool [@moosavi2016deepfool], C&W attack [@carlini2017towards]) and defending (e.g., [@raghunathan2018certified]) a network. Attacking is beneficial for deeply understanding neural networks [@dong2017towards] and motivating more robust solutions [@pang2018towards]. Though much work has been done for image classification, more and more methods are presented to attack other tasks [@akhtar2018threat], such as face recognition [@sharif2016accessorize], video action recognition [@wei2018sparse], and the physical-world adversarial attack on road signs [@evtimov2017robust].
For example, [@sharif2016accessorize] designs the real and stealthy attacks on state-of-the-art face recognition. [@wei2018sparse] proposes the sparse adversarial perturbations for video action recognition. [@evtimov2017robust] explores the physical-world attack for road signs detection. We refer readers to [@akhtar2018threat] for a survey of adversarial attacks on computer vision.
{width="93.00000%"}
As the core task in computer vision, object detection for image data has also been attacked. It is known that the current object detection models can be roughly categorized into two classes: proposal based models and regression based models. The various mechanisms make attacking object detection more complex than image classification. [@xie2017adversarial] proposes a white-box attacking method for proposal based models: Dense Adversary Generation (DAG). They choose Faster-RCNN [@ren2017faster] as the threat model. DAG firstly assigns an adversarial label for each proposal region and then performs iterative gradient back-propagation to misclassify the proposals. The similar methods are also presented in [@chen2018robust; @li2018robust]. Because regression-based methods don’t use region proposals, DAG cannot directly transfer to attack them. That means DAG has weak black-box attacking ability. In addition, DAG is an optimization method, which often needs 150 to 200 iterations to meet the end for an image [@xie2017adversarial]. The high computation cost makes DAG not available for attacking video object detection, which usually considers temporal interactions between adjacent frames [@zhu2017flow; @zhu2017deep] and therefore the most reliable attacking method for video object detection is to pollute all the frames or many key frames in the video.
To address these issues, in this paper, we propose the Unified and Efficient Adversary (UEA) for image and video object detection. “Efficient" specifies that our method is able to quickly generate adversarial images, and thus can efficiently deal with every frame in the video. To this end, we utilize a generative mechanism instead of the optimization procedure. Specifically, we formulate the problem into Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) framework like [@xiao2018generating; @Poursaeed_2018_CVPR], and train a generator network to generate adversarial images and key frames. Because the testing step only involves the forward network, the running time is fast. As for “Unified", it means that the proposed adversary has better transferability than DAG, and thus has strong black-box attacking ability. It can not only perform reliable attack to Faster-RCNN like DAG, but also effectively attack regression based detectors. We observe that both the proposal and regression based detectors utilize feature networks as their backends. For examples, Faster-RCNN and SSD [@liu2016ssd] use the same VGG16 [@simonyan2014very]. If we manipulate the features maps in Faster-RCNN, the generated adversarial examples will also make SSD fail to detect objects. This idea is implemented as a multi-scale attention feature loss in our paper, i.e., manipulating the feature maps from multiple layers. To fool detectors, only the regions of foreground objects need perturbing. Therefore, an attention weight is integrated into the feature loss to manipulate the feature subregions. The usage of attention weight also improves the imperceptibility of generated adversarial examples because the number of perturbed pixels is limited. In the viewpoint of DNNs’ depth, DAG’s class loss is applied on the high-level softmax layer, and attention feature loss is performed on the low-level backend layer. Besides class loss, UEA incorporates an additional feature loss to get the strong transferability, which is reasonable. Figure \[fig:figure1\] gives an example of UEA, and Figure \[fig:figure2\] illustrates the overall framework.
In summary, this paper has the following contributions:
- We propose the Unified and Efficient Adversary (UEA) for attacking image and video detection. To the best of our knowledge, UEA is the first attacking method that can not only efficiently deal with both images and videos, but also simultaneously fool the proposal based detectors and regression based detectors.
- We propose a multi-scale attention feature loss to enhance the UEA’s black-box attacking ability. Furthermore, we formulate the existing high-level class loss and the proposed low-level feature loss within GAN framework to jointly train a better generator.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we briefly review the related work. We present the proposed Unified and Efficient Adversary framework in Section 3. Section 4 reports all experimental results. Finally, we summarize the conclusion in Section 5.
Related Work
============
The related work comes from two aspects: image and video object detection and adversarial attack for object detection.
Image and Video Object Detection
--------------------------------
Object detection is an area where deep learning has shown its great power. Currently, the dominant image object detection models can be roughly categorized into two classes: proposal based models and regression based models. The former class typically contains R-CNN [@girshick2016region], Faster-RCNN [@ren2017faster], Mask-RCNN [@he2017mask], etc. These kinds of methods use a two-step procedure. They firstly detect proposal regions, and then classify them to output the final detected results. The latter class is represented by YOLO [@redmon2016you] and SSD [@liu2016ssd]. They regard the detection task as the regression process, and directly predict the coordinates of bounding boxes. Compared with the image scenario, video object detection incorporates temporal interactions between adjacent frames into the procedure. They usually apply the existing image detector on the selected key frames, and then propagate the bounding boxes via temporal interactions [@zhu2017flow; @zhu2017deep; @chen2018optimizing]. Therefore, image object detection forms the basis of the video object detection. In this paper, we aim to present a unified method that can attack both the image and video detectors.
Adversarial Attack for Object Detection
---------------------------------------
Currently, adversarial attacks for the object detection are rare. The first method is proposed by [@xie2017adversarial], named DAG. They firstly assign an adversarial label for each proposal region and then perform iterative gradient back-propagation to misclassify the proposals. DAG is based on the optimization, and is time consuming, it needs many iterations to accomplish an adversarial image. [@chen2018robust; @li2018robust] present the similar idea. In addition, [@bose2018adversarial] tries to attack the face detector. But their threat model is also based on proposal based detectors (Faster-RCNN). All these works attack the proposal based object detectors, and they are all based on the the optimization manner. A unified adversary, which can simultaneously attack both the proposal based and regression based detectors, is absent. In this paper, we aim to fill in this gap, and present a unified method that can attack both the detectors.
**Methods** Image Video Proposal Regression
------------------------ ------- ------- ---------- ------------
[@bose2018adversarial]
[@chen2018robust]
[@li2018robust]
[@xie2017adversarial]
Our UEA
: The difference between our method and the existing attacking methods for object detection.
\[tab:tab1\]
Methodology
===========
In this section, we introduce the details of UEA.
Problem Definition
------------------
Given an image $I$, our goal is to generate its corresponding adversarial image $\hat{I}$. We hope that $\hat{I}$ can attack the object detector $Dt$. For a ground-truth object $(B_i, C_i)$ on $I$, where $B_i$ is the bounding box, and $C_i$ is the label. Suppose the object detector $Dt$ succeeds to detect this object and outputs $(b_i, c_i)$, where the IOU between $B_i$ and $b_i$ is more than 0.5, and $C_i=c_i$. We let $(\hat{b}_i,\hat{c}_i)$ denote the detected result of this object on the adversarial image $\hat{I}$ (Note that $\hat{b}_i$ may be empty, which represents $Dt$ doesn’t detect this object). If the IOU between $\hat{b}_i$ and $B_i$ is less than 0.5 or $\hat{c}_i\neq C_i$, we can say the object detector $Dt$ is successfully attacked or fooled. In order to measure the performance of attacking methods, we will compute the detection accuracy using mAP (mean Average Precision) on the entire dataset, and check the mAP drop after attacks. For videos, we regard the key frames in a video as images, and perform the same operation. We expect the adversarial video can also fool the state-of-the-art video detection models. The $Dt$ is based on proposals or regression.
Unified and Efficient Adversary
-------------------------------
In this section, we introduce the technical details of UEA. Overall, we utilize a generative mechanism to accomplish this task. Specifically, we formulate our problem into the conditional GAN framework. The objective of the conditional GAN can be expressed as: $$\label{eq:eq1}
\mathcal{L}_{cGAN}(\mathcal{G,D})= \mathbb{E}_I[\log\mathcal{D}(I)]+\mathbb{E}_I[\log(1-\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{G}(I)))],$$ where $\mathcal{G}$ is the generator to compute adversarial examples, and $\mathcal{D}$ is the discriminator to distinguish the adversarial examples from the clean images. Because adversarial examples are defined as close as as possible with original examples [@szegedy2013intriguing], we input the original images (or frames) and adversarial images (or frames) to the discriminator to compute GAN loss in Eq.(\[eq:eq1\]). In addition, an $L_2$ loss between the clean images (or frames) and adversarial images (or frames) is applied to measure their similarity: $$\label{eq:eq2}
\mathcal{L}_{L_2}(\mathcal{G})= \mathbb{E}_I[\vert\vert I-\mathcal{G}(I)\vert\vert_2].$$ After training the generator based on GAN framework, we use this generator to generate adversarial examples for testing images and videos. The adversarial examples are then fed into object detectors to accomplish the attacking task.
Network Architecture
--------------------
Essentially, the adversarial example generation can be formulated into an image-to-image translation problem. The clean images or frames are input, and the adversarial images or frames are output. Therefore, we can refer to the training manner of pix2pix [@pix2pix2017]. In this paper, we utilize the network architecture in [@xiao2018generating] for ImageNet images, that is the first framework to generate adversarial examples using a pix2pix adversarial generative network. The generator is an encoder-decoder network with 19 components. The discriminator is similar to ResNet-32 for CIFAR-10 and MNIST. Please refer to [@xiao2018generating] for the detailed structure of the generator and discriminator.
Loss Functions
--------------
To simultaneously attack the current two kinds of object detectors, we need additional loss functions on the basis of Eq.(\[eq:eq1\]) and Eq.(\[eq:eq2\]). To fool Faster-RCNN detector, DAG [@xie2017adversarial] uses a misclassify loss to make the predictions of all proposal regions go wrong. We also integrate this loss. The class loss function is defined as follows: $$\label{eq:eq3}
\mathcal{L}_{DAG}(\mathcal{G})= \mathbb{E}_I[\sum_{n=1}^N[f_{l_n}(\textbf{X},t_n)-f_{\hat{l}_n}(\textbf{X},t_n)]],$$ where **X** is the extracted feature map from the feature network of Faster-RCNN on $I$, and $\tau=\{t_1,t_2,...,t_N\}$ is the set of all proposal regions on **X**. $t_n$ is the $n$-th proposal region from the Region Proposal Network (RPN). $l_n$ is the ground-truth label of $t_n$, and $\hat{l}_n$ is the wrong label randomly sampled from other incorrect classes. $f_{l_n}(\textbf{X}, t_n) \in \mathbb{R}^C$ denotes the classification score vector (before softmax normalization) on the $n$-th proposal region. In the experiments, we pick the proposals with score $\geq$0.7 to form $\tau=\{t_1,t_2,...,t_N\}$.
DAG loss function is specially designed for attacking Faster-RCNN, therefore its transferability to other kinds of models is weak. To address this issue, we propose the following multi-scale attention feature loss: $$\label{eq:eq4}
\mathcal{L}_{Fea}(\mathcal{G})= \mathbb{E}_I[\sum_{m=1}^M\vert\vert \textbf{A}_m\circ(\textbf{X}_m-\textbf{R}_m)\vert\vert_2],$$ where $\textbf{X}_m$ is the extracted feature map in the $m$-th layer of the feature network. $\textbf{R}_m$ is a randomly predefined feature map, and is fixed during training. To fool detectors, only the regions of foreground objects need perturbing. We use the attention weight $\textbf{A}_m$ to measure the objects in $\textbf{X}_m$. $\textbf{A}_m$ is computed based on the region proposals of RPN. We let $s_n$ denote the score of region proposal $t_n$. For each pixel in the original image, we collect all the region proposals covering this pixel, and compute the sum $\textbf{S}$ of these proposals’ scores $s_n$, and then divide $\textbf{S}$ by the number of proposals $N$ to obtain the attention weight in the original image. Finally, $\textbf{A}_m$ is obtained by mapping the original attention weight to the $m$-th feature layer. For the pixels within objects, their weights will have large values and vice verse. $\circ$ is the Hadamard product between two matrices. By making $\textbf{X}_m$ as close as $\textbf{R}_m$, Eq.(\[eq:eq4\]) enforces the attention feature maps to be random permutation, and thus manipulates the feature patterns of foreground objects. $\textbf{R}_m$ can also be replaced by other feature maps different from $\textbf{X}_m$. In the experiments, we choose the Relu layer after conv3-3 and the Relu layer after conv4-2 in VGG16 to manipulate their feature maps. To compute $\textbf{A}_m$, we use the top 300 region proposals according to their scores.
Finally, our full objective can be expressed as: $$\label{eq:eq5}
\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{cGAN}+\alpha\mathcal{L}_{L_2}+\beta\mathcal{L}_{DAG}+\epsilon\mathcal{L}_{Fea},$$ where $\alpha,\beta,\epsilon$ are the relative importance of each objective. We set $\alpha=0.05, \beta=1$. For $\epsilon$, we set $1 \times10^{-4}$ and $2 \times10^{-4}$ for the selected two layers, respectively. $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ are obtained by solving the minmax game $arg min_\mathcal{G} max_\mathcal{D} \mathcal{L}$. To optimize our networks under Eq.(\[eq:eq5\]), we follow the standard approach from [@pix2pix2017] and apply the Adam solver [@kingma2014adam]. The best weights are obtained after 6 epochs.
Experiments
===========
Datasets
--------
**Image Detection** In order to train the adversarial generator in UEA, we use the training dataset of PASCAL VOC 2007 with totally 5011 images. They are categorized into 20 classes. In testing phase, we use the PASCAL VOC 2007 testing set [@pascal-voc-2007] with 4952 images.
**Video Detection** For video detection, we use ImageNet VID dataset[^1]. There are 759 video snippets for training set, and 138 for testing set. The frame rate is 25 or 30 fps for most snippets. There are 30 object categories, which are a subset of the categories in the ImageNet dataset.
Metrics
-------
We use two metrics: attacking performance against object detectors; the generating time for adversarial examples.
**Fooling Rate**: to test the fooling rate of different attacking methods, we use the mAP drop (mean Average Precision). The mAP is usually to evaluate the recognition accuracy of object detectors both for image and video data. If the adversary is strong, detectors will achieve a lower mAP on adversarial examples than clean examples. The reducing error can be used to measure the attacking methods.
**Time**: to tackle with video data, the time for generating adversarial examples is important. In the experiments, we report the processing time for each image (frame) against different attacking methods.
Threat Models
-------------
**Image Detection** In this setting, our goal is to simultaneously attack the proposal based detectors and regression based detectors. We select two representative methods: Faster-RCNN and SSD300. There are a lot of implementation codes for them. Here we use the Simple Faster-RCNN[^2] and torchCV SSD300[^3]. We retrain their models on PASCAL VOC training datasets. Specifically, Faster-RCNN is trained on the PASCAL VOC 2007 training dataset, and tested on the PASCAL VOC 2007 testing set. The detection accuracy (mAP) reaches 0.70. SSD300 is trained on the hybrid dataset consisting of PASCAL VOC 2007 and 2012 training set, and tested on the PASCAL VOC 2007 testing set. The mAP reaches 0.68.
**Video Detection** The current video detection methods are based on image detection. They usually perform image detection on key frames, and then propagate the results to other frames [@zhu2017flow; @zhu2017deep; @chen2018optimizing]. However, as shown in [@zhu2017deep], the detection accuracy of these efficient methods cannot even outperform the simple dense detection method, that densely runs the image detection on each frame in a video. In [@zhu2017flow], although their method beats dense detection method, they cost more time. If they reduce the processing time, the accuracy also falls below the dense detection. Therefore, we choose the dense detection method as the threat model. We argue if the dense detection method is successfully attacked, the efficient methods will also fail.
Results on Image Detection
--------------------------
### Comparisons with State-of-the-art Methods
The current state-of-the-art attacking method for image detection is DAG. Therefore, we use DAG as our compared method. For that, we generate adversarial image using DAG and UEA, respectively, and then perform the same Faster-RCNN and SSD300 on the adversarial examples to observe the accuracy drop (compared with the accuracy on clean images). Meanwhile, we also check the generating time (Time). The comparison results are reported in Table \[tab:tab2\].
[|p[2cm]{}<|p[2cm]{}<|p[1.4cm]{}<|p[1.4cm]{}<|]{} & &\
& Faster-RCNN & SSD300 &\
Clean Images &0.70 &0.68 &`\`\
DAG &0.05 &0.64 & 9.3\
UEA &**0.05** &**0.20** &**0.01**\
\[tab:tab2\]
From the table, we see: **(1):** Both DAG and UEA work well on attacking Faster-RCNN detector. They achieve the same 0.65 accuracy drop (0.70-0.05). This is expected because DAG and UEA formulate the same class loss of Eq.(\[eq:eq3\]) into their methods, and they perform the white-box attack against Faster-RCNN. **(2):** DAG cannot attack SSD detector, the accuracy drop is only 0.04 (0.68-0.64). By contrast, UEA obtains a 0.48 accuracy drop (0.68-0.20), which is 12 times larger than DAG. This verifies the weak black-box attacking ability of DAG. Instead, UEA integrates a feature loss to manipulate the shared feature networks between Faster-RCNN and SSD. The feature loss enhances the transferability and black-box attacking ability to other kinds of detectors. Theoretically, UEA is able to attack a large class of object detectors besides SSD and Faster-RCNN, because the majority of object detectors use the feature network. **(3):** As for the generating time of adversarial examples, UEA is almost 1000 times faster than DAG (0.01 vs 9.3). The efficiency is helpful to tackle with video data. Even for the video with 100 frames, UEA will only cost one second to pollute all the frames.
We also evaluate the perceptibility of adversarial examples. Figure \[fig:figure9\] gives the comparisons. As an optimization method, DAG is highly relevant with different images. Their perturbations are increasing with the rising iterations. For example, DAG only costs 1 iteration for “cat" image, and the perturbations are imperceptible. But for “motorbike" image, DAG costs 81 iterations, and the perturbations are very obvious. The “cow" and “boat" images have the similar trend. UEA is a generative method. We see the adversarial examples are always imperceptible, and almost the same as the clean images.
![The perceptibility comparison of adversarial images. The first row is clean images. The second row is output by DAG (the iteration is 1, 81, 133, 41, respectively). The third row is our output. []{data-label="fig:figure9"}](fig6.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
### Ablation Study of UEA
Now we look into the ablation study of UEA. As introduced in Section 3, UEA utilizes two key loss functions in the training phase. The first is class loss, i.e., Eq.(\[eq:eq3\]), and the second is multi-scale attention feature loss, i.e., Eq.(\[eq:eq4\]). We study the function of each loss, and report the results for each category detection in Figure \[fig:figure3\]. In this figure, “class loss" denotes the absence of “feature loss" in UEA, i.e., only the DAG’s loss. “hybrid loss" is the full version of UEA with both “class loss" and “feature loss". From the figure, we see that “class loss" works well on Faster-RCNN, but shows the limited attacking ability on SSD300. After adding the proposed “feature loss", UEA has the similar attacking performance with “class loss" on Faster-RCNN, but shows stronger attacking ability on SSD300. These results demonstrate that hybrid the high-level class loss and low-level feature loss is a reasonable choice for attacking object detectors.
![The ablation study of UEA for each category detection.[]{data-label="fig:figure3"}](fr.pdf "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![The ablation study of UEA for each category detection.[]{data-label="fig:figure3"}](ssd.pdf "fig:"){width="22.00000%"}
![The qualitative comparisons between DAG and UEA versus Faster-RCNN and SSD300. Please see the texts for details.[]{data-label="fig:figure4"}](fig5.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
### Qualitative Comparisons
We give some qualitative comparisons between DAG and UEA in Figure \[fig:figure4\]. From the figure, we see both Faster-RCNN and SSD300 work well on the clean images, and detect the correct bounding boxes and labels. For DAG, it succeeds to attack Faster-RCNN (see the sixth row where Faster-RCNN doesn’t detect any object on two images and predicts wrong labels on three images). However, SSD300 still works well on the adversarial examples generated by DAG. For UEA, Faster-RCNN cannot detect any bounding box on five adversarial examples, and SSD300 detects wrong objects on two images and zero detection on three images.
![The feature visualization of adversarial examples via DAG and UEA, respectively. Please see the texts for details. []{data-label="fig:figure5"}](fig7.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
To better show the intrinsic mechanism of UEA, we visualize the feature maps extracted from adversarial examples via DAG and UEA, respectively. Because Faster-RCNN and SSD300 utilize the same VGG16 as their feature network, we select the feature maps extracted on conv4 layer and visualize them using the method in [@zeiler2014visualizing]. From Figure \[fig:figure5\], we see that the feature maps via UEA have been manipulated. Therefore, the Region Proposal Network within Faster-RCNN cannot output the available proposal regions, and thus Faster-RCNN doesn’t detect any bounding box. For SSD300, the manipulated features make the regression operation not work, leading to wrong or vacant predictions.
![The qualitative result of attacking video object detection []{data-label="fig:figure8"}](fig11.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
![The detecting performance of object detectors on clean videos and adversarial videos for each category detection.[]{data-label="fig:figure10"}](video_fr.pdf "fig:"){width="23.00000%"} ![The detecting performance of object detectors on clean videos and adversarial videos for each category detection.[]{data-label="fig:figure10"}](video_ssd.pdf "fig:"){width="23.00000%"}
Results on Video Detection
--------------------------
In this section, we report the results on video object detection. We here use the ImageNet VID dataset. As discussed in section 4.3, we attack the dense frame detection methods. Specifically, we train Faster-RCNN and SSD300 on ImageNet VID dataset, and then run the detectors on each frame in the testing video. We believe that if the dense frame detection method can be successfully attacked, other efficient methods will be also fooled. Figure \[fig:figure8\] reports the qualitative attacking results versus “airplane". Similarly, UEA simultaneously fools Faster-RCNN and SSD300. In Figure \[fig:figure10\], we list the comparison mAP performance for each category detection. Readers can have a clear observation for the mAP drop for each class on ImageNet VID.
Table \[tab:tab5\] shows the quantitative attacking performance of UEA on ImageNet VID. Specifically, we train Faster-RCNN and SSD300 on the training set of ImageNet VID, and run the trained detectors on the testing set. In addition, we use UEA to generate the corresponding adversarial videos for the testing set of ImageNet VID, and then run the same detectors. In Table \[tab:tab5\], we see UEA achieves 0.40 mAP drop for Faster-RCNN, and 0.44 mAP drop for SSD300, which shows UEA achieves a good attacking performance in the video data.
We here use the VGG16 based Faster-RCNN and SSD300. [@zhu2017deep] shows that if we use ResNet 101 as the backbone network, and replace Faster-RCNN with FCN [@dai2016r] as the object detector, the original mAP will reach 0.73. Because our paper aims at measuring the attacking ability of UEA, rather than the detecting performance, the mAP drop is the key metric, rather than mAP. Therefore, we here don’t use ResNet 101+FCN. Similarly, we also don’t use the SSD500, although it has better detection than SSD300. The current mAP drop has verified the powerful attacking ability of UEA both against the proposal based detector (Faster-RCNN) and regression based detector (SSD300). We believe that if we use the advanced object detectors, the mAP drop will also improve.
[|p[2cm]{}<|p[2cm]{}<|p[1.4cm]{}<|p[1.4cm]{}<|]{} & &\
& Faster-RCNN & SSD300 &\
Clean Videos &0.43 &0.50 &`\`\
UEA &0.03 &0.06 &0.3s\
mAP drop &**0.40** &**0.44** &`\`\
\[tab:tab5\]
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we proposed the Unified and Efficient Adversary (UEA). UEA was able to efficiently generate adversarial examples, and its processing time was 1000 times faster than the current attacking methods. Therefore, UEA could deal with not only image data, but also video data. More importantly, UEA had better transferability than the existing attacking methods, and thus, it could meanwhile attack the current two kinds of representative object detectors. Experiments conducted on PASCAL VOC and ImageNet VID verified the effectiveness and efficiency of UEA.
[^1]: http://bvisionweb1.cs.unc.edu/ILSVRC2017/download-videos-1p39.php
[^2]: https://github.com/chenyuntc/simple-faster-rcnn-pytorch
[^3]: https://github.com/kuangliu/torchcv
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A *$(t,s)$-rack* is a rack structure defined on a module over the ring $\ddot\Lambda=\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1},s]/(s^2-(1-t)s)$. We identify necessary and sufficient conditions for two $(t,s)$-racks to be isomorphic. We define enhancements of the rack counting invariant using the structure of $(t,s)$-racks and give some computations and examples. As an application, we use these enhanced invariants to obtain obstructions to knot ordering.'
author:
- 'Jessica Ceniceros[^1]'
- 'Sam Nelson[^2]'
title: '**$(t,s)$-racks and their link invariants**'
---
**Introduction**
================
Introduced in [@FR], the *fundamental rack* of a framed link is a complete invariant of unsplit framed links in $S^3$ up to homeomorphism of $S^3$. Counting homomorphisms from a fundamental rack into a finite rack $X$ yields an invariant of framed isotopy. In [@N] it is shown that this counting invariant is periodic with respect to framings modulo an integer $N(X)$ known as the *rack rank* of $X$, and that summing these counting invariants over a complete period of framings module $N(X)$ yields an invariant of ambient isotopy.
In this paper we study a type of rack structure on modules over the ring $\ddot\Lambda=\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1},s]/(s^2-(1-t)s)$ known as *$(t,s)$-racks* and the counting invariants they define. We obtain a result specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for two $(t,s)$-racks to be isomorphic, similar to results for Alexander quandles and Alexander biquandles in [@N1] and [@LN] respectively. We are able to exploit the module structure of these racks to enhance the rack counting invariant, yielding stronger invariants which specialize to the unenhanced counting invariant.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec2\] we review the basics of racks and the rack counting invariant. In section \[sec3\] we introduce $(t,s)$-racks and provide necessary and sufficient conditions for two $(t,s)$-racks to be isomorphic. In section \[sec4\] we define the new enhanced invariants, give examples and provide an application to knot ordering. In section \[sec5\] we collect questions for future research.
**Rack basics** {#sec2}
===============
We have the following standard result (or see [@N]):
If $X$ is a finite rack, then $N(x)\ne \infty$ for all $x\in X$ and $N(X)=\mathrm{lcm}\{N(x)\ |\ x\in X\}$.
Let $X$ be a finite rack and condsider the map $f_x:X\to X$ defined by $f_x(y)=y\tr x$. For each $x$, $f_x$ is a element of the symmetric group $S_{|X|}$ and hence has finite order equal to $N(x)$. Since $N(x)$ must divide $N(X)$, for all $x\in X$, we must have $N(X)=\mathrm{lcm}\{N(x)\ |\ x\in X\}$.
As with other algebraic structures, we have some useful standard concepts:
[$\bullet$]{}
$$f(x\tr y)=f(x)\tr f(y)\quad \mathrm{and} \quad
f(x\tr^{-1} y)=f(x)\tr^{-1} f(y).$$
We will find the following observations useful in section \[sec2\].
\[lem:qord\] Let $f:X\to Y$ be a rack homomorphism. Then for any $x\in X$, the rack rank of $f(x)$ divides the rack rank of $x$.
Let $f:X\to Y$ be a rack homomorphism. Then for any $x\in X$ we have $$f(\pi_X(x))=f(x\tr x)=f(x)\tr f(x)=\pi_Y(f(x)).$$ Then if $\pi_X^N(x)=x$, we have $\pi_Y^N(f(x))=f(\pi_X^N(x))=f(x)$ so $\pi_Y^{N(X)}(f(x))=f(x)$, and $N(f(x))|N(x)$ as required.
If $f:X\to Y$ is an isomorphism of racks then $\pi_X=f^{-1}\pi_Yf$, i.e. the kink maps of $X$ and $Y$ are conjugate.
If two racks $X$ and $Y$ are isomorphic, then the rack ranks of $X$ and $Y$ are equal.
The rack axioms come from the blackboard-framed oriented Reidemeister moves where we interpret $x\tr y$ as the arc resulting from $x$ crossing under $y$ from right to left with respect to the orientation of the overcrossing strand and $x\tr^{-1} y$ as crossing under from left to right [@FR]. $$\includegraphics{jessc-sn-1.png}\quad
\includegraphics{jessc-sn-2.png}$$
Axiom (i) comes from Reidemeister move II, axiom (ii) comes from the oriented Reidemeister III move with all positive crossings.
$$\includegraphics{jessc-sn-3.png}\quad
\includegraphics{jessc-sn-4.png}$$
$$\includegraphics{jessc-sn-5.png}\quad
\includegraphics{jessc-sn-6.png}$$
The other oriented Reidemeister III moves follow from the listed moves, with corresponding rack equations such as $$(x\tr y)\tr^{-1} z=(x\tr^{-1}z)\tr(y\tr^{-1}z).$$ See [@FR] for more.
The blackboard-framed oriented Reidemeister I moves do not impose any additional axioms, but provide a visual interpretation of the kink map: $\pi(x)$ is the result of $x$ going through a positive-writhe kink, and $\pi^{-1}(x)$ is the result of going through a negative-writhe kink.
$$\includegraphics{jessc-sn-7.png}\quad
\includegraphics{jessc-sn-8.png}$$
Standard examples of rack structures include:
[$\bullet$]{}
[*Constant action racks:* A set $X$ with a bijection $\sigma:X\to X$ is a rack with $x\tr y=\sigma(x)$,]{}
[*Conjugation racks:* A group $G$ is a rack with $x\tr y=y^{-n}xy^n$ for each $n\in \mathbb{Z}$,]{}
[*Coxeter racks:* The subset $S\subset V$ of an $\mathbb{F}$-vector space $V$ which is non-degenerate with respect to a symmetric bilinear form $\langle,\rangle:V\times V\to \mathbb{F}$ is a rack with $$\mb{x}\tr\mb{y}=\mb{y}-2\frac{\langle \mb{x},\mb{y}
\rangle}{\langle \mb{x},\mb{x} \rangle}\mb{x},$$]{}
*Fundamental rack of a link $L$:* Let $L$ be a blackboard-framed oriented link diagram and let $G$ be a set of generators corresponding bijectively with the set of arcs in $L$. Define the set $W(G)$ of *rack words in $G$* recursively by the rules
- $g\in G\ \Rightarrow\ g\in W(G)$ and
- $g,h\in W(G)\ \Rightarrow\ g\tr h\in W(G)\ \mathrm{and}
\ g\tr^{-1} h\in W(G)$.
Let $\sim$ be the equivalence relation on $W(G)$ generated by the the rack axioms (e.g., $(x\tr y)\tr z\sim (x\tr z)\tr(y\tr z)$ etc.) together with the crossing relations in $L$, i.e., for every crossing $$\includegraphics{jessc-sn-27.png}$$ we obtain a relation $z\sim x\tr y$ or, equivalently, $x\sim z\tr^{-1} y$. Then the set $FR(L)=W(G)/\sim$ of equivalence classes in $W(G)$ modulo the equivalence relation $\sim$ is a rack under the operations $$[x]\tr [y]=[x\tr y] \quad \mathrm{and} \quad
[x]\tr^{-1} [y]=[x\tr^{-1} y]$$ where $[x]$ is the equivalence class of $x$ in $W(G)/\sim$. In particular, the fundamental racks of any two oriented blackboard-framed link diagrams related by blackboard framed Reidemeister moves are isomorphic.
This last example is especially important; in [@FR] it is shown that the Fundamental Rack of a framed link is a complete invariant for unsplit framed links, up to homeomorphism of the ambient space $S^3$. For example, the blackboard-framed trefoil below has fundamental rack with the listed presentation: $$\includegraphics{jessc-sn-9.png} \quad \raisebox{0.5in}{$FR(K)=
\langle x,y,z,w \ |\ y\tr x=x, z\tr x=w, w\tr z=x, y\tr w=z \rangle.$}$$
A finite rack $X=\{x_1,\dots, x_n\}$ can be expressed in an algebra-agnostic way using a *rack matrix* which encodes the operation table of $X$. Specifically, the entry in row $i$ column $j$ of $M_X$ is $k$ where $x_i\tr x_j=x_k$. For example, the constant action rack on $X=\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}$ with $\sigma=(123)$ has rack matrix $$M_X=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
2 & 2 & 2 \\
3 & 3 & 3 \\
1 & 1 & 1 \\
\end{array}\right].$$ The kink map $\pi(x)$ is the permutation along the diagonal of the rack matrix; in this example, $\pi=(123)$ and $N=3$.
By construction, any labeling of a diagram $D$ of a blackboard-framed oriented link $L$ with elements of a rack $X$ satisfying the crossing condition at every crossing corresponds to a unique such labeling on any diagram obtained from $D$ by a blackboard-framed Reidemeister move. More abstractly, such a labeling is an assignment of an image $f(g)=x_i\in X$ to each generator $g$ of $FR(L)$, and satisfaction of the crossing conditions says that $f$ defines a unique homomorphism of racks $f:FR(L)\to X$. The set of such labelings or homomorphisms is an invariant of blackboard framed isotopy denoted $$\mathrm{Hom}(FR(L),X)=\{f:FR(L)\to X\ |\ f(x\tr y)=f(x)\tr f(y)\}.$$ The cardinality $|\mathrm{Hom}(FR(L),X)|$ is a numerical invariant known as the *basic counting invariant*.
For a finite rack $X$, the rack rank $N$ is always finite – indeed, $N$ is the exponent or order of the kink map $\pi:X\to X$ considered as an element of the symmetric group $S_{|X|}$. The finiteness of $N$ for a rack $X$ implies that the basic counting invariants are periodic in the writhe $w$ of each component of $L$ with period $N$ – in particular, the basic counting invariant is preserved by *$N$-phone cord moves*: $$\includegraphics{jessc-sn-10.png}$$
Thus, if we let $W=(\mathbb{Z}_N)^c$ where $c$ is the number of components of $L$ and let $D(L,\mb{w})$ be a diagram of $L$ with framing vector $\mb{w}$ for a fixed ordering of the components of $L$, then the number $$\Phi^{\mathbb{Z}}_{X}(L)=\sum_{\mb{w}\in W} |\mathrm{Hom}(FR(D(L,\mb{w})),X)|$$ is an invariant of the unframed link $L$ called the *integral rack counting invariant*. In the special case that $X$ is a quandle, i.e. $N=1$, this is just the basic counting invariant $|\mathrm{Hom}(FR(L),X)|$.
\[ex1\] $$\includegraphics{jessc-sn-11.png} \quad
\includegraphics{jessc-sn-12.png} \quad
\includegraphics{jessc-sn-13.png} \quad
\includegraphics{jessc-sn-14.png} \quad$$ $$\includegraphics{jessc-sn-15.png} \quad
\includegraphics{jessc-sn-16.png} \quad
\includegraphics{jessc-sn-17.png} \quad
\includegraphics{jessc-sn-18.png} \quad$$
In example \[ex1\], the integral counting invariants defined by the given rack $X$ do not distinguish the two links, but we can define an *enhancement*, i.e. a stronger invariant with the original invariant as a specialization, which does (see[@N]):
$$\phi^W_X(L)=\sum_{\mb{w}\in W}|\mathrm{Hom}(FR(D(L,\mb{w})),X)|q^{\mb{w}}.$$
**$(t,s)$-racks** {#sec3}
=================
We will now focus on a particular type of rack described in [@FR]. Let $\ddot\Lambda=\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1},s]/(s^2-(1-t)s)$ and similarly let $\ddot\Lambda_n=\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1},s]/(n,s^2-(1-t)s)
=\mathbb{Z}_n[t^{\pm 1},s]/(s^2-(1-t)s)$.
Let $X$ be a $(t,s)$-rack. Then for any $x\in X$, we have $$\pi(x)=x\tr x=tx+sx=(t+s)x.$$
For any $(t,s)$-rack $X$, the rack rank $N(X)$ is the minimal integer $N\ge 1$ such that $(t+s)^Nx=x$ for all $x\in X$.
Let $X=R$ for a commutative ring $R$. We can make $X$ a $(t,s)$-rack by selecting an invertible $t\in R$ and an element $s\in R$ satisfying $s^2=(1-t)s$. If $R$ is finite, e.g. $R=\mathbb{Z}_n$, then $X$ is a finite rack. Racks of this type with $R=\mathbb{Z}_n$ will be called *linear $(t,s)$-racks*, since we have $R=\ddot\Lambda_n/(t-a,s-b)$ for some $t=a,s=b \in \mathbb{Z}_n$. If $R$ is a field, then either $s=0$ and we have a constant action rack with $\sigma(x)=tx$, or $s$ is invertible; if $s$ is invertible, then $s^2=(1-t)s$ implies $s=1-t$ and our rack is a quandle. Thus, we have:
Every linear $(t,s)$-rack $X=\mathbb{Z}_p$ for $p$ prime is either a constant action rack or a linear Alexander quandle.
\[num4\] $$M_{X}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
3 & 1 & 3 & 1 \\
4 & 2 & 4 & 2 \\
1 & 3 & 1 & 3 \\
2 & 4 & 2 & 4 \\
\end{array}\right].$$
Another way to get finite $(t,s)$-racks is to take quotients of $\ddot\Lambda$. The relation $s^2=(1-t)s$ says we can replace any power of $s$ greater than 1 with an equivalent expression which is linear in $s$; thus as an abelian group, we have $\ddot\Lambda\cong \mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]\oplus \mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$. Then we can get finite $(t,s)$-racks by taking $\ddot\Lambda_n/(p(t))$ for a monic polynomial $p(t)$.
\[lin4\] $$\begin{array}{c|cccc}
\tr & 0 & 1 & s & 1+s \\ \hline
0 & 0 & s & 0 & s \\
1 & 1 & 1+s & 1 & 1+s \\
s & s & 0 & s & 0 \\
1+s & 1+s & 1 & 1+s & 1 \\
\end{array}$$
We can define a $(t,s)$-rack structure on any abelian group $A$ by selecting an automorphism $t:A\to A$ and an endomorphism $s:A\to A$ satisfying the conditions that $st=ts$ and that $s^2=(\mathrm{Id}-t)s$.
If $\phi:X\to Y$ is an isomorphism of $\ddot\Lambda$-modules, then $\phi$ is also an isomorphism of $(t,s)$-racks; however, it is clear from examples \[num4\] and \[lin4\] that rack isomorphism type does not determine $\ddot\Lambda$-module structure. What conditions on $\ddot\Lambda$-modules result in isomorphic $(t,s)$-racks? In [@AG; @N1] we have a theorem about Alexander quandles, namely:
\[alexq\] Two finite Alexander quandles $M$ and $M'$ are isomorphic as quandles iff
[$|M|=|M'|$ and]{}
[There exists a $\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$-module isomorphism $h:(1-t)M\to(1-t)M'$.]{}
More colloquially, theorem 1 says that two Alexander quandles of the same finite cardinality are isomorphic iff their *$(1-t)$-submodules* $(1-t)M$ and $(1-t)M'$ are isomorphic as $\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$-modules. We would like to generalize this result to $(t,s)$-racks. We first note that the straightforward generalization obtained by simply replacing $1-t$ with $s$ does not work; $X=\ddot\Lambda_4/(t-1,s-2)$ and $Y=\ddot\Lambda_4/(t-3,s-2)$ both have $s$-submodules $sX$ and $sY$ isomorphic to $\ddot\Lambda_2/(t-1,s-0)$ and $|X|=|Y|$, but $Y$ is a quandle while $X$ is a rack with rack rank 2.
As in the case of Alexander biquandles in [@LN], we are able to give necessary and sufficient conditions for two $(t,s)$-racks to be isomorphic. We first need a few lemmas:
If $\phi:X\to Y$ is a homomorphism of $(t,s)$-racks, then $\phi((t+s)x)=(t+s)\phi(x)$ for all $x\in X$.
$$\phi((t+s)x)=\phi(x\tr x)=\phi(x)\tr\phi(x)=(t+s)\phi(x).$$
\[qls\] Let $X$ be a $(t,s)$-rack and let $z\in X$. The bijective map $p_z:X\to X$ defined by $p_z(x)=x+z$ is a rack isomorphism if and only if $\pi(z)=z$.
Let $X$ be a $(t,x)$-rack. Then for any $x,y,z\in X$ we have $$p_z(x\tr y)=p_z(tx+sy)=tx+sy+z$$ while $$p_z(x)\tr p_z(y)=(x+z)\tr (y+z)=tx+tz+sy+sz=tx+sy+(t+s)z.$$ Then $p_z(x\tr y)=p_z(x)\tr p_z(y)$ iff $z=(t+s)z=\pi(z)$.
Let $X$ be a $(t,s)$-rack and $A\subset X$ a subset. The *$(t+s)$-orbit* of $A$, denoted $\mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(A)$, is the set $$\mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(A)=\{(t+s)^k\alpha \ |\ \alpha\in A,
k\in\mathbb{Z}\}.$$ We will be interested in the case where $A$ is a set of coset representatives of $X/sX$; note that in such a case multiple elements of $\mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(A)$ may belong to the same coset of $X/sX$. Moreover, note that since $(t+s)$ is invertible, every element $x\in X$ can be written as $x=(t+s)y$ for some $y=\alpha+\omega$ with $\alpha\in A$, $\omega\in sX$; then we have $$x=(t+s)\alpha+(t+s)\omega=(t+s)\alpha+\omega'$$ where $\alpha\in A$, $\omega'\in sX$. In particular, every element of $\mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(A)$ can be written as $(t+s)\alpha+\omega$ for some $\alpha\in A, \omega\in sX$.
\[main\] Two $(t,s)$-racks $X,Y$ are isomorphic if and only if
[There is an isomorphism of $\ddot\Lambda$-submodules $h:sX\to sY$ and]{}
[There are sets of coset representatives $A, B$ for $X/sX$ and $Y/sY$ and a bijection $$g:\mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(A)\to \mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(B)$$ such that $$h(s\alpha)=sg(\alpha)$$ for all $\alpha\in A$ and $$g((t+s)\alpha+\omega)=(t+s)g(\alpha)+h(\omega)$$ for all $(t+s)\alpha+\omega\in\mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(A)$ with $\alpha\in A$ and $\omega\in sX$.]{}
($\Rightarrow$) Let $\phi:X\to Y$ be an isomorphism of $(t,s)$-racks. In $X$ we have $0\tr 0=t0+s0=0+0=0$ so $N(0)=1$, and lemma \[lem:qord\] implies $N(\phi(0))=1$. Then by lemma \[qls\] we may assume without loss of generality that $\phi(0)=0$ since if not, we can replace $\phi$ with $p_{-\phi(0)}\circ\phi$.
Since $\phi$ is a $(t,s)$-rack homomorphism we have $$\phi(tx+sy)=\phi(x\tr y)=\phi(x)\tr\phi(y)=t\phi(x)+s\phi(y)$$ and since $\phi(0)=0$ we have $$\phi(tx)=\phi(tx+s0)=t\phi(x)+s\phi(0)=tx+s0=tx$$ and $$\phi(sy)=\phi(t0+sy)=t\phi(0)+s\phi(y)=t0+sy=sy.$$ Since $t$ is invertible, every element $x\in X$ is $t(t^{-1}x)$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(sx+sy) & = & \phi(t(t^{-1}sx)+sy) \\
& = & t\phi(t^{-1}sx)+s\phi(y) \\
& = & \phi(tt^{-1}sx)+\phi(sy) \\
& = & \phi(sx)+\phi(sy). \\\end{aligned}$$ Not every $x\in X$ need satisfy $x=sz$ for some $z\in X$, but for those that do, i.e. for the submodule $sX$, we have $\phi$ preserving multiplication by both $t$ and $s$ and preserving addition, so the restriction $h=\phi|_{sX}$ is an isomorphism of $\ddot\Lambda$-modules.
Now, let $A$ be any set of coset representatives of $X/sX$. Define $g=\phi|_{\mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(A)}$ and set $B=\{\phi(\alpha)\ |\ \alpha\in A\}$. Then for each $\alpha\in A$ we have $$h(s\alpha)=\phi(s\alpha)=s\phi(\alpha)=sg(\alpha)$$ and for any $(t+s)\alpha+\omega\in \mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(A)$ with $\omega=s\gamma$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
g((t+s)\alpha +\omega)
& = &\phi((t+s)\alpha+\omega)=\phi(tt^{-1}(t+s)\alpha+s\gamma) \\
& = & t\phi(t^{-1}(t+s)\alpha)+s\phi(\gamma) \\
& = & \phi(tt^{-1}(t+s)\alpha)+\phi(s\gamma) \\
& = & (t+s)\phi(\alpha) + \phi(\omega) \\
& = & (t+s)g(\alpha) +h(\omega)\end{aligned}$$ as required.
Finally, note that $B$ is a set of coset representatives for $Y/sY$ since if $\beta-\beta'\in sY$ for any $\beta,\beta'\in B$ then $\beta=\beta'+s\gamma$ and we have $$\phi^{-1}(\beta)
=\phi^{-1}(tt^{-1}\beta'+s\gamma)
=t\phi^{-1}(t^{-1}\beta')+s\phi^{-1}(\gamma)
=\phi^{-1}(tt^{-1}\beta)+\phi^{-1}(s\gamma)
=\phi^{-1}(\beta')+\phi^{-1}(s\gamma)$$ and the corresponding $\alpha=\phi^{-1}\beta$, $\alpha'=\phi^{-1}(\beta')$ satisfy $\alpha-\alpha'\in sX$.
($\Leftarrow$) Let $X$ and $Y$ be $(t,s)$-racks, $h:sX\to sY$ an isomorphism of $\ddot\Lambda$-modules, and suppose $A\subset X$ and $B\subset Y$ are sets of coset representatives of $X/sX$ and $Y/sY$ respectively, with a bijection $g:\mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(A)\to \mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(B)$ satisfying $$h(s\alpha)=sg(\alpha)$$ for all $\alpha\in A$ and $$g((t+s)\alpha+\omega)=(t+s)g(\alpha)+h(\omega)$$ for all $(t+s)\alpha+\omega\in\mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(A)$. In particular, $\omega=0$ says $g((t+s)^k\alpha)=(t+s)^kg(\alpha)$. Define $\phi:X\to Y$ by $$\phi(\alpha+\omega)=g(\alpha)+h(\omega)$$ where $\alpha\in A$ and $\omega\in sX$.
To see that $\phi$ is well-defined, suppose $\alpha+\omega=\alpha'+\omega'$ where $\alpha,\alpha'\in\mathcal{O}_{(t+s)}(A)$ and $\omega,\omega'\in sX$. Then $\alpha'=\alpha+(\omega-\omega')$ and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(\alpha'+\omega')
& = & g(\alpha')+h(\omega')\\
& = & g(\alpha +(\omega-\omega'))+h(\omega') \\
& = & g((t+s)(t+s)^{-1}\alpha +(\omega-\omega')) +h(\omega')\\
& = & (t+s)g((t+s)^{-1}\alpha) +h(\omega-\omega')+h(\omega') \\
& = & (t+s)g((t+s)^{-1}\alpha) +h(\omega)-h(\omega')+h(\omega') \\
& = & (t+s)g((t+s)^{-1}\alpha) +h(\omega) \\
& = & g(\alpha) +h(\omega) \\
& = & \phi(\alpha+\omega)\end{aligned}$$ To see that $\phi$ is bijective, note that we can define $\phi^{-1}:Y\to X$ by $\phi^{-1}(\beta+\gamma)=g^{-1}(\beta)+h^{-1}(\gamma)$.
To see that $\phi$ is a homomorphism of $(t,s)$-racks, let $x=\alpha+\omega$ and $y=\alpha'+\omega'$ with $\alpha,\alpha'\in A$ and $\omega,\omega'\in sX$, and note that $t\alpha=(t+s)\alpha-s\alpha$. Then
$$\begin{aligned}
\phi(x\tr y) & = & \phi(t(\alpha+\omega) +s(\alpha'+\omega')) \\
& = & \phi((t+s)\alpha -s\alpha +t\omega +s\alpha'+s\omega') \\
& = & g((t+s)\alpha) + h(-s\alpha +t\omega+s\alpha'+s\omega') \\
& = & (t+s)g(\alpha) -h(s\alpha)+ th(\omega)+h(s\alpha')+sh(\omega') \\
& = & tg(\alpha)+sg(\alpha)-h(s\alpha)+th(\omega)+h(s\alpha')+sh(\omega') \\
& = & tg(\alpha)+h(s\alpha)-h(s\alpha)+th(\omega)+sg(\alpha')+sh(\omega') \\
& = & tg(\alpha)+th(\omega)+sg(\alpha')+sh(\omega') \\
& = & t(g(\alpha)+ h(\omega))+s(g(\alpha)+h(\omega')) \\
& = & \phi(x)\tr \phi(y) \\\end{aligned}$$
as required.
We end this section with a few interesting observations about $(t,s)$-racks.
In every rack, the $\tr$ and $\tr^{-1}$ operations are right-distributive[^3]; if a quandle is Alexander, however, the quandle operations are also left-distributive. This property does not extend to more general $(t,s)$-racks:
A $(t,s)$-rack $X$ is left-distributive if and only if $X$ is an Alexander quandle.
Let $X$ be a $(t,s)$-rack. Then $$x\tr(y\tr z)=tx+s(ty+sz) =tx+tsy+s^2z$$ while $$(x\tr y)\tr (x\tr z)=t(tx+sy)+s(tx+sz)=(t^2+st)x+tsy+s^2z.$$ Then $x\tr(y\tr z)=(x\tr y)\tr (x\tr z)$ if and only if $(ts+t^2)x=tx$ for all $x\in X$, i.e., iff $t^2x=t(1-s)x$, which implies $tx=(1-s)x$ and hence $sx=(1-t)x$. We then have a $\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$-module structure on $X$ induced by taking the quotient of $\ddot\Lambda$ by the ideal generated by $s-(1-t)$, and the $(t,s)$-rack operation on $X$ becomes $$x\tr y=tx+sy=tx+(1-t)y$$ and $X$ is an Alexander quandle.
Our next observation notes that $(t,s)$-racks contain Alexander quandles not just in the categorical sense, but literally:
Let $X$ be a rack. The subset $Q(X)\subset X$ of all elements of $X$ of rack rank $N=1$ is a quandle, known as the *maximal subquandle* of $X.$ If $X$ is a $(t,s)$-rack, then $Q(X)$ is an Alexander quandle.
To see that $Q(X)=\{x\in X\ |\ x\tr x=x\}$ is a subrack, note that $x,y\in Q$ implies $$x\tr y=(x\tr x)\tr y =(x\tr y)\tr (x\tr y)$$ and $x\tr y\in Q$. Then $Q(X)$ is a rack with rack rank $N=1$, so $Q(X)$ is a quandle.
Now let $X$ be a $(t,s)$-rack. To see that $Q$ is Alexander, note that if $x\in Q$ then $(t+s)x=x$ and we have $sx=(1-t)x$. Then for any $x,y\in Q$, we have $$x\tr y=tx+sy=tx+(1-t)y$$ and $Q$ is an Alexander quandle.
For general racks $Q(X)$ may be empty (none of the quandle axioms are existentially quantified, so the empty set satisfies the quandle axioms vacuously), but for $(t,s)$-racks $Q(X)$ always contains at least $0$. Indeed, we have
\[q:x\] For any $(t,s)$-rack $X$, $sX$ is a subquandle of $Q(X)$.
To see that $sX$ is closed under $\tr$, note that $$sx\tr sy = tsx+s^2y=s(tx+sy)\in sX.$$ To see that $sX\subset Q(X)$, let $x=sx'$; then we have $$sx'\tr sx'=tsx'+s^2x'=(ts+s^2)x'=sx'$$ and $x\in Q(X)$.
We note that $sX$ may be a proper subquandle of $Q(X)$: take for instance $X=\mathbb{Z}_4$ with $t=3$ and $s=2$; then $t+s=1$ and $Q(X)=X$, but $sX=\{0,2\}\subsetneq X$.
**Enhanced link invariants** {#sec4}
============================
In this section we define a few enhancements of the rack counting invariant $\Phi_X^{\mathbb{Z}}$ when $X$ is a $(t,s)$-rack.
For our first enhancement, we note that a $(t,s)$-rack is not just a rack, but also has the structure of a $\ddot\Lambda$-module. We can use this extra structure to define enhancements of the rack counting invariant. Let $T$ be a finite $(t,s)$-rack with rack rank $N$ and let $A_T$ be $T$ considered as an abelian group. For any subset $S\subset T$, let $AC(S)$ be the additive closure of $S$, i.e. the subgroup of $A_T$ generated by $S$. For each homomorphism $f:FR(L,\mathbf{w})\to T$ we can use the additive closure of the image subrack of $f$, as a signature of $f$ to obtain an enhancement of $\Phi_X^{\mathbb{Z}}$.
$$\Phi^{ts,+M}_X(L)=
\left\{AC(\mathrm{Im}(f)) \ | \ f\in\mathrm{Hom}(FR(L,\mathbf{w}),X),\
\mathbf{w}\in W\right\}.$$ $$\Phi^{ts,+}_X(L)
=\sum_{\mathbf{w}\in W} \left(
\sum_{f\in\mathrm{Hom}(FR(L,\mathbf{w}),X)}u^{|AC(\mathrm{Im}(f))|}\right)$$
Note that for any $f\in\mathrm{Hom}(FR(L,\mathbf{w}),X)$, $X$-labeled blackboard-framed Reidemeister moves and $N$-phone cord moves do not change the image subrack $\mathrm{Im}(f)$, and thus the above quantities are link invariants. It is clear that the rack counting invariant can be obtained from either form of the enhanced invariant by taking the cardinality in the multiset case or by evaluating $u=1$ in the polynomial case. We also note that the multiset form of the invariant is stronger than the polynomial form since the polynomial form forgets the abelian group structure of the signatures, keeping only their cardinalities.
In the proof of proposition \[2n\] we illustrate a method for computing $\Phi^{ts,+}_X$ by computing $\Phi^{ts,+}_X(L)$ for all $(2,n)$-torus links for a choice of $(t,s)$-rack $X$.
\[2n\] $$\Phi_{X}^{ts,+}(T_{(2,n)})=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
4u+12u^2+20u^4, & n\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}\ 4, \\
2u+2u^2+2u^4, & n\equiv 1,3 \ \mathrm{mod}\ 4, \\
4u+12u^2+4u^4, & n\equiv 2 \ \mathrm{mod}\ 4. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Let $X$ be the $(t,s)$-rack $X=\mathbb{Z}_4$ with $t=1$ and $s=2$. Recall that the $(2,n)$ torus link $T_{(2,n)}$ is the closure of the 2-strand braid with $n$ positive twists. We first note that the set of rack labelings of $T_{(2,n)}$ is periodic with period 4: $$\includegraphics{jessc-sn-21.png}.$$
There are four cases; we will show the first two. Closing the braid gives us a system of equations in $\mathbb{Z}_4$; each solution to this system determines a valid rack labeling.
When $n\equiv 0\ \mathrm{mod}\ 4$, $T_{(2,n)}$ is a two-component link and we need to stabilize once on each component (the braid version of the Reidemeister I move) in order to get a complete set of writhes mod $2$: $$\begin{array}{|lllll|} \hline
\mathrm{Writhe\ vector} &
\mathrm{Diagram} & \mathrm{System} & \mathrm{Reduces\ to}
& \mathrm{Contribution} \\ \hline
(0,0) &
\raisebox{-0.25in}{\includegraphics{jessc-sn-24.png}} &
\begin{array}{rcl}
y & = & y \\
x & = & x \\
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{rcl}
y & = & y \\
x & = & x \\
\end{array}
&
u+3u^2+12u^4 \\ \hline
(0,1) &
\raisebox{-0.5in}{\includegraphics{jessc-sn-25.png}} &
\begin{array}{rcl}
z & = & y+2z \\
y & = & z \\
x & = & x
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{rcl}
y & = & 3y \\
x & = & x \\
\end{array}
& u+3u^2+4u^4 \\ \hline
(1,1) &
\raisebox{-0.5in}{\includegraphics{jessc-sn-26.png}} &
\begin{array}{rcl}
w & = & z+2w \\
z & = & w \\
y & = & x+2y \\
x & = & y
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{rcl}
z & = & 3z \\
x & = & 3x \\
\end{array}
& u+3u^2 \\ \hline
\end{array}$$ The writhe vector $(1,0)$ has the same contribution as the $(0,1)$ writhe vector due to the symmetry of the link. Thus, we have $\Phi^{ts,+}_{X}(T_{(2,n)})=4u+12u^2+20u^4$ for $n\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}\ 4.$
When $n\equiv 1\ \mathrm{mod}\ 4$, $T_{(2,n)}$ is a knot and we need to stabilize once: $$\begin{array}{|lllll|} \hline
\mathrm{Writhe} &
\mathrm{Diagram} & \mathrm{System} & \mathrm{Reduces\ to}
& \mathrm{Contribution} \\ \hline
0 &
\raisebox{-0.25in}{\includegraphics{jessc-sn-22.png}} &
\begin{array}{rcl}
y & = & x+2y \\
x & = & y \\
\end{array}
&
\begin{array}{rcl}
2x & = & 0 \\
x & = & y \\
\end{array}
&
u+u^2 \\ \hline
1 &
\raisebox{-0.5in}{\includegraphics{jessc-sn-23.png}} &
\begin{array}{rcl}
z & = & x+2y+2z \\
y & = & z \\
x & = & y
\end{array}
&
x=y=z
& u+u^2+2u^4 \\ \hline
\end{array}$$ Thus, we have $\Phi^{ts,+}_{X}(T_{(2,n)})=2u+2u^2+2u^4$ for $n\equiv 1 \ \mathrm{mod}\ 4.$
Similar computations give us the $n\equiv 2,3 \ \mathrm{mod\ 4}$ cases.
$$\Phi_{X}^{ts,+}(T_{(2,n)})=4u+22u^2+10u^4$$
Our next example gives a table of values of $\Phi^{ts,+}_X(L)$ for all prime knots with up to eight crossings and all prime links with up to seven crossings using our `python` code, available at `http://www.esotericka.org`. In particular, these values demonstrate that $\Phi^{ts,+}_X(L)$ is stronger in general than the integral counting invariant $\Phi^{\mathbb{Z}}_X(L)$.
$$\begin{array}{r|l}
\Phi^{ts,+}_X(L) & L \\ \hline
u+u^2+2u^3+2u^4+2u^6+4u^{12} & 4_1,5_1,5_2,6_2,6_3,7_1,7_2,7_3,7_5,7_6,8_1,8_2,8_3,8_4,8_6,8_7,8_8,8_9, \\
& 8_{12},8_{13},8_{14},8_{16},8_{17}, \\
u+u^2+8u^3+2u^4+8u^6+16u^{12} & 3_1,6_1,7_4,7_7,8_5,8_{10},8_{11},8_{15}, 8_{19}, 8_{20},8_{21} \\
u+u^2+26u^3+2u^4+26u^6+52u^{12} & 8_{18} \\
u+3u^2+2u^3+4u^4+6u^6+8u^{12} & L2a1, L6a2, L7a6 \\
u+3u^2+2u^3+12u^4+6u^6+24u^{12} & L4a1,L5a1,L7a2,L7a3,L7a4,L7n1,L7n2 \\
u+7u^2+2u^3+8u^4+14u^6+16u^{12} & L6n1,L7a7 \\
u+3u^2+8u^3+4u^4+24u^6+32u^{12} & L6a3, L7a5 \\
u+7u^2+8u^3+8u^4+56u^6+64u^{12} & L6a5 \\
u+3u^2+8u^3+12u^4+24u^6+96u^{12} & L6a1, L7a1 \\
u+7u^2+2u^3+56u^4+14u^6+112u^{12} & L6a4 \\
\end{array}$$
For our next enhancement, we note that multiplication by $s$ in a $(t,s)$-rack is a rack homomorphism which projects $X$ onto the Alexander subrack $sX$; if $z=x\tr y=tx+sy$ then we have $$sx\tr sy = t(sx)+s(sy)=s(tx+sy)=sz$$ In particular, for any $X$-labeling $f$ of a link diagram, there is a corresponding $sX$-labeling obtained by multiplying every label by $s$. Since this corresponding labeling is preserved by blackboard-framed Reidemeister moves and $N$-phone cord moves, the projection onto the subrack $s\mathrm{Im}(f)=\mathrm{Im}(s(f))$ can be used as a signature of $f$ to define enhancements. $$\includegraphics{jessc-sn-19.png}
\raisebox{0.5in}{$\stackrel{\times s}{\longrightarrow}$}
\includegraphics{jessc-sn-20.png}$$ Thus we have:
$$\Phi^{ts,sM}_{X}(L)=\left\{ s^{-1}(g) : g\in\mathrm{Hom}(FR(L,\mathbf{w}),sX),
\mathbf{w}\in W\right\}$$ $$\Phi^{ts,s}_{X}(L)=\sum_{\mathbf{w}\in W}\left(\sum_{g\in\mathrm{Hom}(FR(L,X),sX)}
u^{|s^{-1}(g)|}\right).$$
$$\begin{array}{r|l}
\Phi^{ts,s}_X & L \\ \hline
2u+2u^3 & L2a1, L6a2, L6a3, L7a5,L7a6 \\
2u+2u^2+2u^5 & L6a5, L6n1, L7a7 \\
4u+4u^3 & L4a1, L5a1, L6a1, L7a1, L7a2, L7a3, L7a4, L7n1, L7n2 \\
8u+8u^2+8u^5 & L6a4 \\
\end{array}$$
We end this section with an application. In recent works such as [@ORS; @HS], a partial ordering on knot types is defined by setting $$K>K' \iff \exists \phi:\pi_1(S^3\setminus K)\to \pi_1(S^3\setminus K')$$ where $\phi$ is a surjective group homomorphism. Replacing the knot group with the knot quandle yields a related ordering in which $\phi$ is required to preserve peripheral structure.
Let us define a partial ordering $\succ$ on $\mathbb{Z}[u]$ by $$\sum_{k=0}^n \alpha_ku^k \succ \sum_{k=0}^n \beta_ku^k \iff \alpha_k>\beta_k$$ for all $k=0,\dots,n$. Then we have:
If there exists a surjective homomorphism from the knot quandle of a knot $K$ onto the knot quandle of $K'$, then $$\Phi^{ts,+}_X(K)\succ\Phi^{ts,+}_X(K')$$ for all Alexander quandles $X$.
For any quandle homomorphism $f:Q(K')\to X$, the map $f\circ\phi:Q(K)\to X$ is a quandle homomorphism. Moreover, $\mathrm{Im}(f)\subset\mathrm{Im}(f\circ\phi)$, since $x\in \mathrm{Im}(f)$ says $x=f(a)$ for some $a\in Q(K')$, and surjectivity of $\phi$ then says $a=\phi(b)$ for some $b\in Q(K)$; then we have $x=f(a)=f(\phi(b))=f\circ\phi(b)$ and $x\in\mathrm{Im}(f\circ\phi)$. Conversely, if $x\in\mathrm{Im}(f\circ\phi)$ then $x=f\circ\phi(b)$ for some $b\in Q(X)$ and $x=f(\phi(b))$ implies $x\in\mathrm{Im}(f)$. Thus we have $\mathrm{Im}(f)=\mathrm{Im}(f\circ\phi).$
Then every contribution $u^{|AC(\mathrm{Im}(f))|}$ to $\Phi^{ts,+}_X(K')$ is matched by an equal contribution to $\Phi^{ts,+}_X(K)$, and we have $$\Phi^{ts,+}_X(K)\succ\Phi^{ts,+}_X(K')$$ as required.
This proposition means that for Alexander quandles $X$, $\Phi^{ts,+}_X(K)$ can provide us with obstructions for knot ordering. Indeed, every finite Alexander quandle $X$ defines its own partial ordering $>_X$ of knots by $$K>_X K' \iff \Phi^{ts,+}_X(K)\succ\Phi^{ts,+}_X(K').$$ For instance, in the quandle ordering defined by the Alexander quandle $X=\ddot\Lambda_{12}/(t-11,s-2)$ in example 6, we have $4_1<_X3_1<_X8_{18}$, etc.
**Questions** {#sec5}
=============
In this section we collect questions for future research.
Let $X$ be a $(t,s)$-rack. When $(t+s)x=x$ so that $X$ is an Alexander quandle, the enhanced invariants defined in section \[sec4\] are also defined for knotted surfaces in $\mathbb{R}^4$. We have not looked in any detail at how effective these enhancements may be at distinguishing knotted surfaces or what relationship they might have with triple point number, etc. This might prove to be an interesting direction for future investigation.
The enhanced invariants defined in section \[sec4\] are also well-defined without modification for virtual knots and links. It is known that certain writhe-enhanced rack counting invariant values are impossible for classical links but possible for virtual links, providing a method of detecting non-classicality. Does anything similar happen with $(t,s)$-rack enhanced invariants?
The conditions given in proposition \[main\] seem unsatisfying; is there a simpler necessary and sufficient condition which can replace $(ii)$, e.g., $X$ and $Y$ have conjugate kink maps in $S_{|X|}$ or equal rack polynomials?
In light of the observations at the end of section 3, a $(t,s)$-rack with rack rank $N$ of the form $\ddot\Lambda/I$ for an ideal $I$ can be viewed as an extension of an Alexander quandle $A=\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]/I'$ obtained by adjoining a variable $s$ and modding out by $s^2-(1-t)s$, $(s+t)^N-1$ and possibly additional polynomials. What conditions on these polynomials are required to yield isomorphic $(t,s)$-racks?
[00]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Department of Mathematical Sciences,\
Claremont McKenna College,\
850 Columbia Ave.,\
Claremont, CA 91711</span>
[^1]: Email: `[email protected]`
[^2]: Email: `[email protected]`
[^3]: At least, when we write the quandle operation as a right action following Joyce. In some works such as [@AG] the rack operations are written as left actions, in which case the rack axioms require left-distributivity.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a novel framework for evaluating multimodal deep learning models with respect to their language understanding and generalization abilities. In this approach, artificial data is automatically generated according to the experimenter’s specifications. The content of the data, both during training and evaluation, can be controlled in detail, which enables tasks to be created that require *true* generalization abilities, in particular the combination of previously introduced concepts in novel ways. We demonstrate the potential of our methodology by evaluating various visual question answering models on four different tasks, and show how our framework gives us detailed insights into their capabilities and limitations. By open-sourcing our framework, we hope to stimulate progress in the field of multimodal language understanding.'
author:
- |
Alexander Kuhnle\
University of Cambridge\
[[email protected]]{}\
Ann Copestake\
University of Cambridge\
[[email protected]]{}\
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: '[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{}: A new test methodology for multimodal language understanding'
---
Introduction
============
{width="\linewidth"}
training
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
$\,\Rightarrow\,$
evaluation
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
training
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
$\,\Rightarrow\,$
evaluation
{width="\linewidth"}
Deep learning methods have had a major impact on research in natural language processing and raised performance substantially in many of the standard evaluations. Moreover, multimodal tasks like image captioning [@Karpathy2015] or visual question answering (VQA) [@Antol2015] can now be tackled with great success. Such systems seem to solve the problems entirely on a sub-symbolic level, based only on raw image (and text) input, whereas previous approaches required a hand-crafted combination of various higher-level components.
There is, however, concern about how deep neural networks learn to solve such tasks. Investigations for image recognition [@Szegedy2014; @Nguyen2015; @Zhang2017] have shown surprising behavior very different from what would be expected of their *“surpassing human-level performance”* [@He2015]. Deep networks for language tasks may exhibit similarly odd behavior [@Sproat2016; @Arthur2016]. Moreover, it was recently found that datasets – for instance in VQA – contain various unexpected biases and peculiarities, which systems can exploit to answer complex questions, sometimes even without looking at the image at all [@Goyal2016; @Agrawal2016; @Zhang2016]. Such results cast doubt on whether deep learning systems actually acquire appropriate generalizations. However, given the recursive nature of language and the potentially enormous problem space of VQA and similar tasks, acquiring the ability for reliable generalization will eventually be essential.
A more theoretical issue is the ability of network architectures, in principle, to learn certain classes of structure. For instance, it has been shown that LSTMs possess the ability to handle long-range dependencies [@Hochreiter1997; @Gers2001]. However, the formal experiments that have been done along such lines are limited, particularly in the multimodal domain of vision and language. While recent work indicates that the information encoded in image embeddings might be rich enough for good captioning results, it is an open question whether current architectures are able, *in principle*, to combine visual information effectively to handle the full range of linguistic constructions.
This paper introduces a new test methodology for multimodal deep learning models. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} is a framework for specifying VQA-style datasets. An instance here consists of an image and a caption, and the evaluated model has to decide about their agreement, hence a form of yes/no question answering which we call *image caption agreement* (ICA). Figure \[figure:task\] illustrates the task and nature of the data with some example instances.
A [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} dataset differs from standard VQA evaluation datasets in three main ways. Firstly, a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} dataset defines a *process for generating artificial data* consisting of abstract colored shapes, which is randomly sampled during training/testing according to constraints specified by the experimenter. Secondly, the evaluation focus is on linguistic understanding capabilities of the type investigated by *formal semantics*. The visual complexity and open-class vocabulary size is reduced to a minimum, while potentially allowing indefinitely complex syntactic constructions. Finally, the distribution of the evaluation data is *deliberately kept different* from the training distribution. Controlled data generation enables us to introduce previously unseen instance configurations during evaluation, which require the system to recombine learned concepts to be able to understand these novel instances (see figure \[figure:task\]) – hence a form of *zero-shot learning*. We think of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} tasks as unit-testing multimodal systems for specific linguistic generalization capabilities, in a similar way to the bAbI tasks [@Weston2015] for text-only understanding.
We also present results for various VQA models on four [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} datasets targeting different multimodal language understanding abilities. The artificial data allows for a detailed analysis of the models’ strengths and weaknesses, and reveals unexpected shortcomings. As such, it offers a significantly different and interesting resource to complement standard evaluation practice. By exposing problematic instance patterns where these systems fail (e.g. spatial relations), and by providing *a configurable, extensible testbed for systematic, detailed and comparable evaluation*, we hope to stimulate progress in the field.
Related work
============
With the increasing popularity of deep learning approaches, artificial data of various kinds is again seen as a valuable tool in experimentation. Recently, the simulation paradigm has been argued to be a promising driver for artificial intelligence research [@Kiela2016]. Various platforms following this paradigm have been released, mostly aimed at reinforcement learning: the Arcade Learning Environment / Atari 2600 games [@Bellemare2013], OpenAI Gym [@OpenAI2016], DeepMind Lab [@DeepMindLab2016], Project Malmo [@Malmo2016], to name a few of the most popular. An important advantage of simulated data is its infinite availability, particularly in light of the need of many deep learning models for huge amounts of data. Automatically generating data greatly reduces the cost, time and human effort. Moreover, it allows researchers to focus on specific problem situations, isolated from a noisy and complex real-world environment.
When focusing on language tasks, the simulation paradigm faces the problem that interesting language generation is a difficult task in its own right, and that the difficulty increases with the complexity of the underlying world. The bAbI tasks [@Weston2015] are generated by internally simulating a short scene and extracting a few simple sentences from it. A similar approach is taken by , but here the simulation is more complex, comprising a text-based role-playing game. The MazeBase game environment [@Sukhbaatar2015] uses language as a mean to represent the game world. However, the descriptions are in an abstract, formulaic format, and the focus of the simulation is much more on the planning than the language component. The long-term research proposal of also simulates a world where an agent learns to solve tasks by communication with a teacher module. At least for a start, this module is supposed to be scripted to automatically generate appropriate responses, given its internal knowledge of the world state.
Automatically generated data is common for tasks specifically focusing on the ability to efficiently process data of a certain formal structure. Here, data is deliberately stripped of any real-world connection to create an abstract capability check. Recent work in the context of deep learning has investigated sequence patterns [@Joulin2015], combinatorial problems [@Vinyals2015], or executing programming language code [@Zaremba2014], amongst others. This kind of task is particularly common for neural network models (see, for instance, more than twenty years ago). The reason for interest in abstract capability checks is that the learning process and decisions of deep networks are more difficult to interpret than shallower machine learning methods. and are more similar to our work in focusing on specific linguistic aspects. Both generate artificial data automatically based on abstract models for tasks targeting logical semantics and quantifiers, respectively.
The multimodal tasks of image captioning and VQA are closely related to our evaluation goal, but usually consist of *“repurposed”* real-world photos and human-written descriptions.[^1] However, there have been experiments in which parts of the data are artificial and/or generated automatically, for instance, automatic question generation from annotation [@Ren2015] or systematic modification of captions [@Hodosh2016]. Abstract Clipart scenes have been used for image captioning [@Zitnick2016; @Zitnick2013b] and to balance existing VQA datasets [@Zhang2016]. Most similar to the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} framework is the CLEVR dataset [@Johnson2017]. It contains images of rendered abstract 3-dimensional scenes and complex questions generated from a variety of templates. As with our work, they propose that their artificial dataset *complements* evaluation on real-world VQA datasets.
Our own work is based on automatically generated, fully artificial data. This data is not specifically designed to address only a single structural problem, but is a testbed able to cover a whole range of linguistic phenomena. In fact, our generation system closely resembles classical work in formal semantics, where a statement corresponds to a logical expression which can be evaluated against an abstract world model [@Montague1970]. We utilize semantic representations based on *Minimal Recursion Semantics* [@Copestake2005] and broad-coverage, grammar-based realization driven by the *English Resource Grammar* [@Flickinger2000] to make the internal world model compatible with language. However, while [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} uses these abstract representations internally, the *external* representation presented to the system under evaluation does not involve any abstract formalization of visual and textual input. It nevertheless presents the intended problems clearly, without any uncontrolled noise, biases or hidden correlations, which can obfuscate results when using real-world images and text [@Goyal2016; @Agrawal2016].
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} framework
==========================================================================
The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} framework[^2] is based on [**microworlds**]{} – small and self-contained artificial scenarios – which guide the data creation process. The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} microworlds simply consist of colored shapes. This closed-world domain allows for exhaustive coverage of the space of possible microworlds and associated captions. The vocabulary used has an emphasis on closed-class words – the open-class vocabulary is currently far less than 100 words. In the following we explain the details of the data generation process inside the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} framework. A schematic illustration of the process is shown in figure \[figure:generation\].
Image caption agreement task
----------------------------
In this paper we focus on the task of [**image caption agreement (ICA)**]{}. The system to be evaluated is presented with an image and a natural language caption and has to decide whether they are consistent with each other.
Compared to the classic image captioning task, ICA emphasizes the understanding rather than the synthesis part of language use. We therefore avoid the problem of evaluating the *appropriateness* of a caption. The setup allows us to control the content of both modalities and consequently force a system to cope with difficult types of captions while obtaining a clear indicator of successful understanding. Although very similar to the VQA setup (i.e., yes/no questions), it neither requires the evaluated model to generate answers nor to rephrase the problem to fit it into a classification task of some sort – for instance, over the 1000/3000 most common answers, as is common practice recently [@Lu2016; @Fukui2016]. ICA most closely corresponds to the work of , who present VQA as a binary classification of image-question-answer triples.
One further motivation for the task is that human performance could be measured using the same setup. We would expect close-to-perfect human performance on the tasks described here, assuming time is not tightly constrained. Interesting comparisons are potentially possible where human performance depends on presentation: e.g., quantifiers such as [*most*]{} [@Pietroski2009]. However, we will not discuss this further in the current paper.
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
World and image generation
--------------------------
At the core of each microworld instance lies an abstract [**world model**]{}. The internal representation of a microworld is simply a list of [**entities**]{}, given as records containing their [**primary attributes**]{}, such as *position*, *shape*, *color*, which are considered to be high-level semantic aspects reflected in captions. In addition, an entity has [**secondary attributes**]{} and methods which control, for instance, details of visual appearance, visual noise infusion, or the collision-free placement of entities. Importantly, all these ways of infusing noise can be controlled as well, which is useful particularly since noise is often seen as important for successful training of deep models.
The [**generator module**]{} automatically generates a world model by randomly sampling all these attributes from a set of available values. Both these values and other aspects of the generation process can be specified and adjusted appropriately for each dataset. The internal abstract representation is then used as a basis to extract a concrete microworld instance consisting of image and caption. The image (of size 64$\times$64 in this work) is just a straightforward visualization of the world model. The table below gives an overview of the primary and secondary attributes, together with the value ranges and sampling details used for experiments in this paper (“distortion” here means width divided by height for rectangles and ellipses).
------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shape $\text{choose}({\textit{square}}, {\textit{rectangle}}, {\textit{triangle}},\newline\hspace*{0.1cm} {\textit{pentagon}}, {\textit{cross}}, {\textit{circle}}, {\textit{semicircle}},\newline\hspace*{0.1cm} {\textit{ellipse}})$
color $\text{choose}({\textit{red}}, {\textit{green}}, {\textit{blue}}, {\textit{yellow}},\newline\hspace*{0.1cm} {\textit{magenta}}, {\textit{cyan}}, {\textit{white}})$
location $\text{uniform}(a=(0,0),\: b=(64,64))$
object size $\text{uniform}(a=0.15,\: b=0.3)$
distortion $\text{uniform}(a=2.0,\: b=3.0)$
rotation $\text{uniform}(a=0.0,\: b=1.0)$
shade $\text{trunc\_normal}(\mu=0.0,\: \sigma=0.5)$
pixel noise $\text{trunc\_normal}(\mu=0.0,\: \sigma=0.1)$
------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caption generation
------------------
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">OneShape</span>
{width="0.48\linewidth"}{width="0.48\linewidth"}
[*There is a blue rectangle.*]{}
[*There is a triangle.*]{}
[*There is a yellow shape.*]{}
**Training combinations:**
50 combinations
**Validation combinations:**
[*red square*]{}, [*green\
triangle*]{}, [*blue circle*]{}
**Test combinations:**
[*yellow rectangle*]{}, [*cyan\
ellipse*]{}, [*magenta cross*]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiShape</span>
{width="0.48\linewidth"}{width="0.48\linewidth"}
[*There is a magenta\
semicircle.*]{}
[*There is a pentagon.*]{}
[*There is a cyan shape.*]{}
(Same as for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">OneShape</span>)
**Number of objects**
Training: 1, 2, 3, 5
Validation: 4
Testing: 6
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Spatial</span>
{width="0.48\linewidth"}{width="0.48\linewidth"}
[*A red circle is to the left\
of a cyan semicircle.*]{}
[*A white circle is above a\
pentagon.*]{}
[*A red shape is to the right\
of a green triangle.*]{}
[*A shape is below a cross.*]{}
**Training / validation / test combinations:**
Same as for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">OneShape</span>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Quantification</span>
{width="0.48\linewidth"}{width="0.48\linewidth"}
[*The shape is green.*]{}
[*Most shapes are\
rectangles.*]{}
[*No shape is a red triangle.*]{}
[*All triangles are green.*]{}
[*Two blue shapes are\
pentagons.*]{}
**Number of objects**
Training: 3, 4, 5, 7
Validation: 6
Testing: 8
We currently provide an implementation of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} captioner interface using a grammar-based approach. More specifically, Dependency Minimal Recursion Semantics (DMRS) [@Copestake2016] is an abstract semantic graph representation designed for use with high-precision grammars, such as those distributed by the DELPH-IN consortium.[^3]
A semantic representation like DMRS is particularly suited for the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} framework, since it essentially mirrors the internal world model and hence acts like a (partial) language-specific annotation. Here, noun nodes correspond to entities, adjective nodes add attributes, and verb phrase nodes/sub-graphs specify relations between entities. The semantics of words like [*“square”*]{} or [*“red”*]{} is interpreted as iteratively filtering a subset of agreeing entities, while transitive relations like [*“to the left of”*]{} act similarly on pairs of entity sets, and quantifiers compare the cardinality of two entity sets. Below an example of a DMRS semantic graph with its compositional components colored:
{width="\linewidth"}
*Compositionality* of the semantic representation is a useful property and an important reason for our use of DMRS. Given compositionality, it is enough to specify the semantics of words – or, more precisely, of the linguistic atoms in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} context, which potentially are sub-graphs with multiple nodes and inner link structure – to be able to obtain the corresponding semantics of composed sub-graphs, and so generate a wide range of different captions.
Figure \[figure:dmrs\] shows an example of a more complex compositional caption, which contains the DMRS graph above as sub-graph. It also illustrates how various details are automatically inferred by the English Resource Grammar, including number-agreement between subject and verb, and between quantifier and noun, and realization of an adjective as relative clause. This greatly facilitates the generation of a combinatorially large amount of captions and makes the DMRS graph patterns reusable. Finally, figure \[figure:dmrs\] gives a formal semantic interpretation of the caption meaning as logical formula over a world model. This indicates how the agreement of a caption with a microworld is computed in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} framework.
Similar to the generator module, the [**captioner module**]{} randomly samples from a set of dataset-specific [**DMRS graph patterns**]{}, which are then applied to a world model to construct an *agreeing* [**caption object**]{} (see figure \[figure:generation\]). The DMRS graph can be turned into an MRS representation, from which a corresponding English sentence can be generated with a bi-directional grammar like the *English Resource Grammar* and a parser-generator like Packard’s *Answer Constraint Engine*.
The captioner module’s ability to check whether another world model would agree with the semantics of this caption is important for the generation of negative instances, i.e., caption/microworld pairs that do not agree. These instances are obtained by either sampling a second, *false* world model, or by producing a *false* caption object via modification of the agreeing caption. In either case, the system ensures that *false* microworld and caption object do not accidentally agree.
Training and testing on [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} datasets
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} datasets are actually data generation processes, training and evaluation work differently from classic datasets. Where usually one has a fixed set of instances, here models are trained and tested on a fixed set of higher-level [**generator configuration constraints**]{}. In particular, the constraints for evaluation differ from the training constraints, hence requiring true generalization abilities. For instance, a certain shape-color-combination, a specific number of objects, a spatial location or a caption type can be held-out and never generated during training, such that concepts need to be recombined at test time. It is thus possible for a system to achieve optimal performance during training, but completely fail the evaluation.
Another important property of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} datasets, particularly for future extensions, is their *compositionality*. Instead of having to define a dataset from scratch every time, we can specify [**atomic datasets**]{} and then combine them in a [**mixer dataset**]{}, which tests for various different aspects of multimodal language understanding simultaneously. Reusability in fact applies even further down in the component hierarchy. For instance, we use the same generic world generator module for all four datasets. This is also useful for caption generation where, for instance, a logical combinator dataset can reuse different world captioner modules to generate simple statements which then are merged by logical connectives.
Experiments
===========
Datasets
--------
In this paper we look at four datasets, each designed to investigate an aspect of the capability to understand language in a multimodal setup. Figure \[figure:datasets\] gives further information about these datasets. Note that since we first sample a microworld model and subsequently a caption, we cannot always easily control the generation process to sample each possible caption *perfectly* uniformly. This is in particular the case when focusing on more specific captions which might not apply to a microworld and hence require resampling.
Network architecture
--------------------
We evaluate several multimodal deep neural network architectures that were recently proposed for VQA [@Goyal2016; @Agrawal2016; @Jabri2016; @Antol2015; @Ren2015]. Figure \[figure:architecture\] shows the general architecture underlying all of these models. Implementations in TensorFlow, adapted for the ICA task, are included as part of the GitHub repository[^4]. Each model is trained end-to-end on the task, including the CNN module and the word embeddings, as opposed to using pre-trained, general-purpose versions. We train for 5000 iterations[^5] with a batch size of 128, using Adam optimization [@Kingma2014] with learning rate 0.001.
*LSTM-only* and *CNN-only* are simple unimodal baselines. *CNN+{BoW,LSTM,GRU}:Mult* obtain the caption embedding via BoW, LSTM or GRU, respectively, then fuse visual and textual information via pointwise multiplication. *CNN+LSTM:Add* and *CNN+LSTM:Concat*, i.e., pointwise addition and concatenation, are alternative basic ways of combining image and caption embeddings. Instead of concatenating the image embedding with the output of the LSTM, in *CNN:LSTM* it is concatenated with each word embedding before being processed by the LSTM. Finally, hierarchical co-attention [@Lu2016] combines visual information on word-, phrase- and sentence-level with the language input, which is processed by a CNN. *CNN+CNN:HCA-{par,alt}* implements this approach with the two proposed co-attention mechanisms, *parallel* and *alternating*.
In the near future, we plan to also adapt the technique of *multimodal compact bilinear pooling* [@Fukui2016], *neural module networks* [@Andreas2016b; @Andreas2016a] and potentially also *relation networks* [@Raposo2017] to the ICA task, and upload implementations to the GitHub repository.
Results
-------
Dataset configuration LSTM-only CNN+LSTM:Mult CNN+CNN:HCA-par CNN+CNN:HCA-alt
-------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -- --
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">OneShape</span> 51 / 46 / 50 81 / 70 / 66 90 / 77 / 78 **92 / 81 / 77**
C: no hypernyms 90 / 70 / 100 95 / 64 / 57 98 / 71 / 73 97 / 68 / 66
C: only hypernyms 100 / 100 / 100 52 / 34 / 30 96 / 78 / 82 95 / 75 / 73
I: changed shape 6 / 5 / 7 70 / 81 / 82 60 / 63 / 58 73 / 78 / 78
I: changed color 8 / 15 / 0 100 / 100 / 99 100 / 92 / 96 100 / 97 / 89
I: changed both 7 / 5 / 6 96 / 97 / 98 87 / 85 / 84 93 / 92 / 89
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MultiShape</span> 62 / 67 / 67 **72 / 71 / 72** **72 / 71 / 69** 71 / 68 / 68
correct instances 48 / 49 / 50 76 / 64 / 54 81 / 68 / 65 71 / 59 / 53
I: random attr. 58 / 63 / 68 67 / 74 / 79 64 / 67 / 68 70 / 73 / 78
I: random existing attr. 100 / 100 / 100 78 / 86 / 95 55 / 71 / 79 72 / 87 / 95
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Spatial</span> 52 / 51 / 50 57 / 52 / 54 **63 / 65 / 64** 54 / 52 / 55
C: no hypernyms 85 / 85 / 69 45 / 44 / 41 83 / 83 / 86 92 / 62 / 100
C: only hypernyms 95 / 95 / 97 4 / 6 / 4 60 / 59 / 65 49 / 40 / 52
I: swapped direction 11 / 13 / 16 98 / 97 / 98 36 / 39 / 30 50 / 61 / 47
I: object random attr. 15 / 12 / 16 88 / 88 / 91 69 / 68 / 68 63 / 66 / 60
I: subject random attr. 13 / 12 / 17 87 / 88 / 89 69 / 71 / 70 61 / 64 / 56
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Quantification</span> 57 / 57 / 56 56 / 56 / 58 **76 / 77 / 78** **74 / 77 / 78**
correct instances 23 / 22 / 18 25 / 30 / 26 74 / 71 / 72 70 / 71 / 75
incorrect instances 94 / 93 / 93 88 / 90 / 88 81 / 83 / 88 78 / 82 / 82
instances with [*no*]{} 52 / 51 / 48 61 / 60 / 61 56 / 56 / 51 55 / 55 / 58
instances with [*the*]{} 53 / 58 / 61 55 / 59 / 58 59 / 59 / 55 63 / 63 / 63
instances with [*a*]{} 34 / 35 / 36 34 / 36 / 37 49 / 50 / 51 48 / 52 / 50
instances with [*two*]{} 53 / 48 / 48 50 / 50 / 49 70 / 69 / 62 72 / 67 / 58
instances with [*most*]{} 49 / 50 / 49 48 / 48 / 49 69 / 68 / 60 60 / 52 / 51
instances with [*all*]{} 52 / 54 / 50 48 / 50 / 51 47 / 52 / 51 49 / 50 / 51
Figure \[figure:results\] reports the train[^6]/validation/test performance of four models. In addition to the overall accuracy, it contains a detailed analysis of the models’ ability to handle certain instance types. The accuracies for these *dataset partitions* were obtained by restricting the dataset generator to sample an evaluation set of only one instance type.
Due to space limitations, we do not report detailed numbers for the other models. Essentially, they all show the same (or worse) behavior as the *LSTM-only* model, apart from *CNN+GRU:Mult* which is similar to *CNN+LSTM:Mult*.
A number of conclusions from these results:
- The consistently low performance (best: 60%) indicates that all models essentially fail to learn spatial relations, in line with the findings of .[^7]
- The numbers for the *HCA* models on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Quantification</span> dataset indicate that quantifiers are not fully learned. They may be approximated by a rough number/existence/majority estimate – something we plan to investigate further.
- Unsurprisingly, *LSTM-only*, *CNN-only* and also *CNN+BoW:Mult* are not able to learn actual multimodal understanding, in contrast to their good performance on real-world data [@Jabri2016]. In our data, the failure in learning clearly shows in the tendency of these models to fall back to *always-correct* or *always-incorrect* predictions.
- Although sometimes lower than training accuracy, the above-chance-level validation/test accuracy indicate that in some cases the models are able to generalize (to some degree).
- Object recognition itself is not an issue – the *CNN-only* model trained for shape-color classification obtains $\sim$98% accuracy.
There are many more interesting aspects that could be discussed, including learning curves, transfer learning and so on. However, the main point here is that a detailed investigation and error analysis like the one in figure \[figure:results\] would be very difficult, if not impossible, to conduct with real-world data. It consequently shows the potential of artificial data as basis for a *complementary* evaluation methodology for multimodal language understanding systems.
Future work
-----------
The basic [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} framework can be elaborated in many ways. We plan to add new datasets addressing other aspects of language, as well as integrating options to enhance the language generation module, with the aim of providing more varied and natural image descriptions. For instance, we expect to integrate a subsequent step applying paraphrase rules after caption generation – describe how this can be implemented on the level of DMRS graphs.
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a new evaluation methodology and framework, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{}, for multimodal deep learning models, with a focus on formal-semantic style generalization capabilities. In this framework, artificial data is automatically generated according to predefined specifications. This controlled data generation makes it possible to introduce previously unseen instance configurations during evaluation, which consequently require the system to recombine learned concepts in novel ways, i.e., true generalization.
We evaluated various VQA models on four image caption agreement datasets, where the system has to decide whether a statement applies to an image. We showed how the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} framework can be used to investigate in detail what these models learn with respect to multimodal language understanding. By exposing specific multimodal scenarios where current multimodal systems fail (e.g. spatial relations), and by providing *a configurable, extensible testbed for systematic, detailed and comparable evaluation*, we hope to stimulate progress in the field of multimodal language understanding.
[^1]: Although we contrast such “real-world” data with artificial simulations, it should be clear that this is very unlike the visual experience of an entity situated in the real world.
[^2]: The [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} code is written in Python 3 and is available on GitHub ([<https://github.com/AlexKuhnle/ShapeWorld>]{}). The generated data is returned as NumPy arrays, so that it is possible to integrate it into Python-based deep learning projects using common frameworks like TensorFlow, Theano, etc. In our experiments, we use TensorFlow and we provide the models in this paper as part of the package. For the internal DMRS-based caption generation, the Python package *pydmrs* [@Copestake2016], as well as a reduced version of the *English Resource Grammar* [@Flickinger2000] and of Packard’s *Answer Constraint Engine* (<http://sweaglesw.org/linguistics/ace/>) is included.
[^3]: Although we currently use the English Resource Grammar [@Flickinger2000], other DELPH-IN grammars use a compatible approach, so [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ShapeWorld</span>]{} can easily be ported to other languages.
[^4]: [<https://github.com/AlexKuhnle/ShapeWorld>]{}
[^5]: We tracked the validation performance and found that learning essentially plateaus after at most half the iterations.
[^6]: Note that training accuracy here represents an interesting measure on its own, since no exact same instance is ever seen twice.
[^7]: Contrary to what they report, our instances almost always require relational spatial reasoning.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Christopher Deninger
date:
title: 'Representations attached to vector bundles on curves over finite and $p$-adic fields, a comparison'
---
The comparison {#sec:1}
==============
In [@DW2] and [@DW4] a partial analogue of the classical Narasimhan–Seshadri correspondence between vector bundles and representations of the fundamental group was developed. See also [@F] for a $p$-adic theory of Higgs bundles. Let ${\mathfrak{o}}$ be the ring of integers in ${{\mathbb{C}}}_p = \hat{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}}_p$ and let $k = {\mathfrak{o}}/ {{\mathfrak{m}}}= {\overline{\mathbb{F}}}_p$ be the common residue field of ${\overline{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}}_p$ and ${\mathfrak{o}}$. Consider a smooth projective (connected) curve $X$ over ${\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}_p$ and let $E$ be a vector bundle of degree zero on $X_{{{\mathbb{C}}}_p} = X \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}_p$. If $E$ has potentially strongly semistable reduction in the sense of [@DW4] Definition 2, then for any $x \in X ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$ according to [@DW4] Theorem 10 there is a continuous representation $$\label{eq:1}
\rho_{E,x} : \pi_1 (X,x) \longrightarrow {\mathrm{GL}\,}(E_x) \; .$$ We now describe a special case of the theory where one can define the reduction of $\rho_{E,x} {\mathrm{mod}\,}{{\mathfrak{m}}}$. Assume that we are given the following data:
i\) A model ${{\mathfrak X}}$ of $X$ i.e. a finitely presented proper flat ${\overline{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}}_p$-scheme ${{\mathfrak X}}$ with $X = {{\mathfrak X}}\otimes_{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}}_p} {\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}_p$,\
ii) A vector bundle ${{\mathcal E}}$ over ${{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}} = {{\mathfrak X}}\otimes_{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}}_p} {\mathfrak{o}}$ extending $E$.
Such models ${{\mathfrak X}}$ and ${{\mathcal E}}$ always exist. Consider the special fibre ${{\mathfrak X}}_k = {{\mathfrak X}}\otimes_{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}}_p} k = {{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}} \otimes_{{\mathfrak{o}}} k$ and set ${{\mathcal E}}_k = {{\mathcal E}}\otimes_{{\mathfrak{o}}} k$, a vector bundle on ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$. We assume that ${{\mathcal E}}_k$ restricted to ${{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k$ is strongly semistable of degree zero in the sense of section \[sec:2\] below.
In this case we say that ${{\mathcal E}}$ has strongly semistable reduction of degree zero on ${{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}}$. Then [@DW2] provides a continuous representation $$\label{eq:2}
\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} : \pi_1 (X,x) \longrightarrow {\mathrm{GL}\,}({{\mathcal E}}_{x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}}) \; ,$$ which induces . Here $x_{{\mathfrak{o}}} \in {{\mathfrak X}}({\mathfrak{o}}) = X ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$ is the section of ${{\mathfrak X}}$ corresponding to $x$ and ${{\mathcal E}}_{x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} = \Gamma ({\mathrm{spec}\,}{\mathfrak{o}}, x^*_{{\mathfrak{o}}} {{\mathcal E}})$ is an ${\mathfrak{o}}$-lattice in ${{\mathcal E}}_x$.\
Denoting by $x_k \in {{\mathfrak X}}_k (k) = {{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k (k)$ the reduction of $x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}$, we have ${{\mathcal E}}_{x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} \otimes_{{\mathfrak{o}}} k = {{\mathcal E}}_{x_k}$ the fibre over $x_k$ of the vector bundle ${{\mathcal E}}_k$.
The aim of this note is to describe the reduction ${\mathrm{mod}\,}{{\mathfrak{m}}}$ of $\rho_{{{\mathcal E}},x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}}$ i.e. the representation $$\label{eq:3}
\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} \otimes k : \pi_1 (X,x) \longrightarrow {\mathrm{GL}\,}({{\mathcal E}}_{x_k})$$ using Nori’s fundamental group scheme [@N].
Let us recall some of the relevant definitions. Consider a perfect field $k$ and a reduced complete and connected $k$-scheme $Z$ with a point $z \in Z (k)$. A vector bundle $H$ on $Z$ is [*essentially finite*]{} if there is a torsor $\lambda : P \to Z$ under a finite group scheme over $k$ such that $\lambda^* H$ is a trivial bundle. Nori has defined a profinite algebraic group scheme $\pi (Z,z)$ over $k$ classifying the essentially finite bundles $H$ on $Z$. Every such bundle corresponds to an algebraic representation $$\label{eq:4}
\bm{\lambda}_{H,z} : \pi (Z,z) \longrightarrow \mathbf{GL}_{H_z} \; .$$ The group scheme $\pi (Z,z)$ also classifies the pointed torsors under finite group schemes on $Z$. If $k$ is algebraically closed, it follows that the group of $k$-valued points of $\pi (Z,z)$ can be identified with Grothendieck’s fundamental group $\pi_1 (Z,z)$. On $k$-valued points the representation $\bm{\lambda}_{H,z}$ therefore becomes a continuous homomorphism $$\label{eq:5}
\lambda_{H,z} = \bm{\lambda}_{H,z} (k) : \pi_1 (Z,z) \longrightarrow {\mathrm{GL}\,}(H_z) \; .$$ We will show the following result:
\[t1\] With notations as above, consider a vector bundle ${{\mathcal E}}$ on ${{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}}$ with strongly semistable reduction of degree zero. Then ${{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k$, the bundle ${{\mathcal E}}_k$ restricted to ${{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k$ is essentially finite. For the corresponding representation: $$\lambda = \lambda_{{{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k , x_k} : \pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k , x_k) \longrightarrow {\mathrm{GL}\,}({{\mathcal E}}_{x_k}) \; ,$$ the following diagram is commutative: $$\xymatrix{
\pi_1 (X,x) \ar[r]^{\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} \otimes k} \ar[d] & {\mathrm{GL}\,}({{\mathcal E}}_{x_k}) \ar@{=}[dd] \\
\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}, x) \ar@{=}[d] & \\
\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k , x_k) \ar[r]^{\lambda} & {\mathrm{GL}\,}({{\mathcal E}}_{x_k}) \; .
}$$
In particular, the reduction ${\mathrm{mod}\,}{{\mathfrak{m}}}$ of $\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}}$ factors over the specialization map $\pi_1 (X,x) \to \pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k , x_k)$. In general this is not true for $\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}}$ itself according to Example \[t6\].
This note originated from a question of Vikram Mehta. I am very thankful to him and also to Hélène Esnault who once drew my attention to Nori’s fundamental group.
$sss$-bundles on curves over finite fields {#sec:2}
==========================================
In this section we collect a number of definitions and results related to Nori’s fundamental group [@N]. The case of curves over finite fields presents some special features.
Consider a reduced complete and connected scheme $Z$ over a perfect field $k$ with a rational point $z \in Z (k)$. According to [@N] the $\otimes$-category of essentially finite vector bundles $H$ on $Z$ with the fibre functor $H \mapsto H_z$ is a neutral Tannakian category over $k$. By Tannakian duality it is equivalent to the category of algebraic representations of an affine group scheme $\pi (Z,z)$ over $k$ which turns out to be a projective limit of finite group schemes.
Let $f : Z \to Z'$ be a morphism of reduced complete and connected $k$-schemes. The pullback of vector bundles induces a tensor functor between the categories of essentially finite bundles on $Z'$ and $Z$ which is compatible with the fibre functors in $f (z)$ and $z$. By Tannakian functoriality we obtain a morphism $f_* : \pi (Z,z) \to \pi (Z' , f(z))$ of group schemes over $k$. If $k$ is algebraically closed the induced map on $k$-valued points $$\pi_1 (Z,z) = \pi (Z,z) (k) \to \pi (Z' , f (z)) (k) = \pi_1 (Z' , f (z))$$ is the usual map $f_*$ between the Grothendieck fundamental groups.
We will next describe the homomorphism $$\lambda_{H,z} = {\bm{\lambda}}_{H,z} (k) : \pi_1 (Z,z) = \pi (Z,z) (k) \to {\mathrm{GL}\,}(H_z)$$ in case $H$ is trivialized by a finite étale covering. Consider a scheme $S$ with a geometric point $s \in S (\Omega)$. We view $\pi_1 (S,s)$ as the automorphism group of the fibre functor $F_s$ which maps any finite étale covering $\pi : S' \to S$ to the set of points $s' \in S'(\Omega)$ with $\pi (s') = s$.
\[t2n\] Let $Z$ be a reduced complete and connected scheme over the algebraically closed field $k$ with a point $z \in Z (k)$. Consider a vector bundle $H$ on $Z$ for which there exists a connected finite étale covering $\pi : Y \to Z$ such that $\pi^* H$ is a trivial bundle. Then $H$ is essentially finite and the map $\lambda_{H,z} : \pi_1 (Z,z) \to {\mathrm{GL}\,}(H_z)$ in has the following description. Choose a point $y \in Y (k)$ with $\pi (y) = z$. Then for every $\gamma \in \pi_1 (Z,z)$ there is a commutative diagram: $$\label{eq:6n}
\xymatrix{
(\pi^* H)_y \ar@{=}[d] & \Gamma (Y , \pi^* H) \ar[l]_{\overset{y^*}{\sim}} \ar[r]^{\overset{(\gamma y)^*}{\sim}} & (\pi^* H)_{\gamma y} \ar@{=}[d] \\
H_z \ar[rr]^{\lambda_{H, z} (\gamma)} && H_z
}$$
The covering $\pi : Y \to Z$ can be dominated by a finite étale Galois covering $\pi' : Y' \to Z$. Let $y' \in Y' (k)$ be a point above $y$. If the diagram with $\pi , Y , y$ replaced by $\pi' , Y' , y'$ is commutative, then itself commutes. Hence we may assume that $\pi : Y \to Z$ is Galois with group $G$. In particular $H$ is essentially finite. Consider the surjective homomorphism $\pi_1 (Z,z) \to G$ mapping $\gamma$ to the unique $\sigma \in G$ with $\gamma y = y^{\sigma}$. The right action of $G$ on $Y$ induces a left action on $\Gamma (Y , \pi^* H)$ by pullback and it follows from the definitions that $\lambda_{H,z}$ is the composition $$\lambda_{H,z} : \pi_1 (Z,z) \to G \to {\mathrm{GL}\,}(\Gamma (Y , \pi^* H)) \xrightarrow{\overset{\mathrm{via}\,y^*}{\sim}} {\mathrm{GL}\,}(H_x) \; .$$ Now the equations $$(\gamma y)^* {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}(y^*)^{-1} = (y^{\sigma})^* {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}(y^*)^{-1} = (\sigma {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}y)^* {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}(y^*)^{-1} = y^* {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}\sigma^* {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}(y^*)^{-1} = \lambda_H (k) (\gamma)$$ imply the assertion. Here $\sigma^*$ is the automorphism of $\Gamma (Y , \pi^* H)$ induced by $\sigma$.
The following class of vector bundles contains the essentially finite ones. A vector bundle $H$ on a reduced connected and complete $k$-scheme $Z$ is called strongly semistable of degree zero $(sss)$ if for all $k$-morphisms $f : C \to Z$ from a smooth connected projective curve $C$ over $k$ the pullback bundle $f^* (H)$ is semistable of degree zero, c.f. [@DM] (2.34). It follows from [@N] Lemma (3.6) that the $sss$-bundles form an abelian category. Moreover a result of Gieseker shows that it is a tensor category, c.f. [@Gi]. If $Z$ is purely one-dimensional, a bundle $H$ is $sss$ if and only if the pullback of $H$ to the normalization ${\tilde{C}}_i$ of each irreducible component $C_i$ of $Z$ is strongly semistable of degree zero in the usual sense on the smooth projective curve ${\tilde{C}}_i$ over $k$, see e.g. [@DW3] Proposition 4.
Generalizing results of Lange–Stuhler and Subramanian slightly we have the following fact, where ${{\mathbb{F}}}_q$ denotes the field with $q = p^r$ elements.
\[t2\] Let $Z$ be a reduced complete and connected purely one-dimensional scheme over ${{\mathbb{F}}}_q$. Then the following three conditions are equivalent for a vector bundle $H$ on $Z$.\
[**1**]{} $H$ is strongly semistable of degree zero.\
[**2**]{} There is a finite surjective morphism $\varphi : Y \to Z$ with $Y$ a complete and purely one-dimensional scheme over ${{\mathbb{F}}}_q$ such that $\varphi^* H$ is a trivial bundle.\
[**3**]{} There are a finite étale covering $\pi : Y \to Z$ and some $s \ge 0$ such that for the composition $\varphi : Y \xrightarrow{F^s} Y \xrightarrow{\pi} Z$ the pullback $\varphi^* H$ is a trivial bundle. Here $F = {\mathrm{Fr}}_q = {\mathrm{Fr}}^r_p$ is the $q$-linear Frobenius morphism on $Y$.
If $Z$ has an ${{\mathbb{F}}}_q$-rational point, these conditions are equivalent to
[**4**]{} $H$ is essentially finite.
If $Z ({{\mathbb{F}}}_q) \neq \emptyset$, then according to [**4**]{} the trivializing morphism $\varphi : Y \to Z$ in [**2**]{} can be chosen to be a $G$-torsor under a finite group scheme $G / {{\mathbb{F}}}_q$.
The equivalence of [**1**]{} to [**3**]{} is shown in [@DW2] Theorem 18 by slightly generalizing a result of Lange and Stuhler. It is clear that [**4**]{} implies [**2**]{}. Over a smooth projective curve $Z / {{\mathbb{F}}}_q$ the equivalence of [**1**]{} and [**4**]{} was shown by Subramanian in [@S], Theorem (3.2) with ideas from [@MS] and [@BPS]. His proof works also over our more general bases $Z$ and shows that [**1**]{} implies [**4**]{}. Roughly the argument goes as follows: Using the fibre functor in a point $z \in Z ({{\mathbb{F}}}_q)$ the abelian tensor category ${{\mathcal T}}_Z$ of $sss$-bundles on $Z$ becomes a neutral Tannakian category over ${{\mathbb{F}}}_q$. Note by the way that the characterization [**2**]{} of $sss$-bundles shows without appealing to [@Gi] that ${{\mathcal T}}_Z$ is stable under the tensor product. Consider the Tannakian subcategory generated by $H$. Its Tannakian dual is called the monodromy group scheme $M_H$ in [@BPS]. Let $n$ be the rank of $H$. The ${\mathrm{GL}\,}_n$-torsor associated to $H$ allows a reduction of structure group to $M_H$. Hence we obtain an $M_H$-torsor $\alpha : P \to Z$ such that $\alpha^* H$ is a trivial bundle. We have ${\mathrm{Fr}}^{s*}_q H = {\mathrm{Fr}}^{t*}_q H$ for some $s > t \ge 0$ because there are only finitely many isomorphism classes of semistable vector bundles of degree zero on a smooth projective curve over a finite field. See [@DW2] Proof of Theorem 18 for more details. A short argument as in [@S] now implies that $M_H$ is a finite group scheme and we are done.
Later on we will need the following fact:
\[t3\] Let $S_0$ be a scheme over ${{\mathbb{F}}}_q$ and let $F = {\mathrm{Fr}}_q$ be the $q$-linear Frobenius morphism on $S_0$. Set $k = \overline{{{\mathbb{F}}}}_q$ and let $\overline{F}= F \otimes_{{{\mathbb{F}}}_q}$ k be the base extension of $F$ to a morphism of $S = S_0 \otimes_{{{\mathbb{F}}}_q} k$. Then for any geometric point $s \in S (\Omega)$ the induced map $\overline{F}_* : \pi_1 (S , s) \to \pi_1 (S , \overline{F} (s))$ is an isomorphism.
Let $F_k$ be the automorphism of $k$ with $F_k (x) = x^q$ for all $x \in k$. Then $\psi = {\mathrm{id}}_{S_0} \otimes F_k$ is an automorphism of the scheme $S$ and hence it induces isomorphisms on fundamental groups. It suffices therefore to show that $$(\psi {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}\overline{F})_* : \pi_1 (S , s) \to \pi_1 (S , \psi (\overline{F} (s)))$$ is an isomorphism. The morphism $\psi {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}\overline{F}$ is the $q$-linear Frobenius morphism ${\mathrm{Fr}}_q$ on $S$. For any finite étale covering $\pi : T \to S$ the relative Frobenius morphism is known to be an isomorphism and hence the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
T \ar[r]^{{\mathrm{Fr}}_q} \ar[d]_{\pi} & T \ar[d]^{\pi} \\
S \ar[r]^{{\mathrm{Fr}}_q} & S
}$$ is [*cartesian*]{}. It follows that ${\mathrm{Fr}}_{q*} = (\psi {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}\overline{F})_*$ is an isomorphism on fundamental groups.
Proof of theorem \[t1\] {#sec:3}
=======================
For the proof of theorem \[t1\] we first give a description of the representation $\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} \otimes k$ which follows immediately from the construction of $\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}}$ in [@DW2] section 3.
We assume that we are in the situation of theorem \[t1\]. By assumption ${{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k$ is strongly semistable of degree zero on ${{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k$. According to [@DW2] theorem 17 there is a proper morphism $\pi : {\mathcal{Z}}\to {{\mathfrak X}}$ with the following properties:\
[**a**]{} The generic fibre $Z = {\mathcal{Z}}\otimes_{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}}_p} {\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}_p$ is a smooth projective connected ${\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}_p$-curve.\
[**b**]{} The induced morphism $\pi : Z \to X$ is finite and for an open dense subscheme $U \subset X$ the restriction $\pi : \pi^{-1} (U) = W \to U$ is étale. Moreover we have $x \in U ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$ for the chosen base point $x \in X ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$.\
[**c**]{} The scheme ${\mathcal{Z}}$ is a model of $Z$ over ${\overline{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}}_p$ whose special fibre ${\mathcal{Z}}_k$ is reduced. In particular ${\mathcal{Z}}/ {\overline{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}}_p$ is cohomologically flat in degree zero.\
[**d**]{} The pullback $\pi^*_k {{\mathcal E}}_k$ is a trivial vector bundle on ${\mathcal{Z}}_k$.
The following construction gives a representation of $\pi_1 (U,x)$ on ${{\mathcal E}}_{x_k}$. For $\gamma \in \pi_1 (U,x) = {\mathrm{Aut}}(F_x)$ choose a point $z \in W ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$ with $\pi (z) = x$. Then $\gamma z \in W ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$ is another point over $x$. From $z$ and $\gamma z$ in $W ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p) \subset Z ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$ we obtain points $z_k$ and $(\gamma z)_k$ in ${\mathcal{Z}}_k (k)$ as in the introduction. Consider the diagram $$\label{eq:6}
{{\mathcal E}}_{x_k} = (\pi^*_k {{\mathcal E}}_k)_{z_k} \xleftarrow{\overset{z^*_k}{\sim}} \Gamma ({\mathcal{Z}}_k , \pi^*_k {{\mathcal E}}_k) \xrightarrow{\overset{(\gamma z)^*_k}{\sim}} (\pi^*_k {{\mathcal E}}_k)_{(\gamma z)_k} = {{\mathcal E}}_{x_k} \; .$$ Here the pullback morphisms along $z_k : {\mathrm{spec}\,}k \to {\mathcal{Z}}_k$ and $(\gamma z)_k : {\mathrm{spec}\,}k \to {\mathcal{Z}}_k$ are isomorphisms because $\pi^*_k {{\mathcal E}}_k$ is a trivial bundle and ${\mathcal{Z}}/ {\overline{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}}_p$ is cohomologically flat in degree zero.
It turns out that the map $$\label{eq:7}
\rho : \pi_1 (U,x) \to {\mathrm{GL}\,}({{\mathcal E}}_{x_k}) \quad \mbox{defined by} \; \rho (\gamma) = (\gamma z)^*_k {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}(z^*_k)^{-1}$$ is a homomorphism of groups which (by construction) factors over a finite quotient of $\pi_1 (U,x)$. Thus $\rho$ is continuous if ${\mathrm{GL}\,}({{\mathcal E}}_{x_k})$ is given the discrete topology. Moreover $\rho$ does not depend on either the choice of the point $z$ above $x$ nor on the choice of morphism $\pi : {\mathcal{Z}}\to {{\mathfrak X}}$ satisfying [**a**]{}–[**d**]{}. It follows from [@DW2] Theorem 17 and Proposition 35 that $\rho$ factors over $\pi_1 (X,x)$. The resulting representation $\rho : \pi_1 (X,x) \to {\mathrm{GL}\,}({{\mathcal E}}_{x_k})$ agrees with $\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} \otimes k$.
In order to prove theorem \[t1\] we will now construct given ${{\mathcal E}}_k$ a suitable morphism ${\mathcal{Z}}\to {{\mathfrak X}}$. We use a modification of the method from the proof of theorem 17 in [@DW2]. In that proof the singularities were resolved at the level of ${\mathcal{Y}}$ which is too late for our present purposes because it creates an extension of ${\mathcal{Y}}_k$ which is hard to control discussing the Nori fundamental group. Instead, we will resolve the singularities of a model of $X$. Then ${\mathcal{Y}}$ does not have to be changed later. We proceed with the details:
Choose a finite extension $K / {{\mathbb{Q}}}_p$ with ring of integers ${\mathfrak{o}}_K$ and residue field $\kappa$ such that $({{\mathfrak X}}, {{\mathcal E}}_k , x_k)$ descends to $({{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} , {{\mathcal E}}_0 , x_0)$. Here ${{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ is a proper and flat ${\mathfrak{o}}_K$-scheme with ${{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \otimes_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} {\overline{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}}_p = {{\mathfrak X}}$ and ${{\mathcal E}}_0$ a vector bundle on ${{\mathfrak X}}_0 = {{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \otimes \kappa$ with ${{\mathcal E}}_0 \otimes_{\kappa} k = {{\mathcal E}}_k$. Since ${{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k$ is an $sss$-bundle on ${{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k$ the restriction ${{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_0$ of ${{\mathcal E}}_0$ to ${{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_0$ is an $sss$-bundle as well. Finally $x_0 \in {{\mathfrak X}}_0 (\kappa)$ is a point which induces $x_k$ after base change to $k$. Theorem \[t2\] implies that ${{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_0$ is essentially finite and hence ${{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k$ is essentially finite as well.
After replacing $K$ by a finite extension and performing a base extension to the new $K$ we can find a semistable model ${{\mathfrak X}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ of the smooth projective curve $X_K = {{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \otimes K$ together with a morphism $\alpha_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} : {{\mathfrak X}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \to {{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ extending the identity on the generic fibre $X_K$. This is possible by the semistable reduction theorem, c.f. [@A] for a comprehensive account. By Lipman’s desingularization theorem we may assume that ${{\mathfrak X}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ besides being semistable is also regular, c.f. [@Lip] 10.3.25 and 10.3.26. The irreducible regular surface ${{\mathfrak X}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ is proper and flat over ${\mathfrak{o}}_K$.
Let ${{\mathcal E}}'_0$ be the pullback of ${{\mathcal E}}_0$ along the morphism $\alpha_0 : {{\mathfrak X}}'_0 = {{\mathfrak X}}' \otimes \kappa \to {{\mathfrak X}}_0$. Since ${{\mathfrak X}}'_0$ is reduced the map factors as $\alpha_0 : {{\mathfrak X}}'_0 \to {{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_0 \subset {{\mathfrak X}}_0$ and ${{\mathcal E}}'_0$ is also the pullback of the $sss$-bundle ${{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_0$. Hence ${{\mathcal E}}'_0$ is an $sss$-bundle as well.
Using theorem \[t2\] we find a finite étale covering $\pi_0 : {\mathcal{Y}}_0 \to {{\mathfrak X}}'_0$ by a complete and one-dimensional $\kappa$-scheme ${\mathcal{Y}}_0$ and an integer $s \ge 0$ such that under the composed map $\varphi : {\mathcal{Y}}_0 \xrightarrow{F^s} {\mathcal{Y}}_0 \xrightarrow{\pi_0} {{\mathfrak X}}'_0$ the pullback $\varphi^* {{\mathcal E}}'_0$ is a trivial bundle. Here $F = {\mathrm{Fr}}_q$ is the $q = |\kappa|$-linear Frobenius morphism on ${\mathcal{Y}}_0$. Let ${\tilde{\kappa}}$ be a finite extension of $\kappa$ such that all connected components of ${\mathcal{Y}}_0 \otimes_{\kappa} {\tilde{\kappa}}$ are geometrically connected. Let ${\tilde{K}}/ K$ be the unramified extension with residue field ${\tilde{\kappa}}$. We replace ${{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}, {{\mathfrak X}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ and ${{\mathcal E}}_0 , {{\mathcal E}}'_0$ by their base extensions with ${\mathfrak{o}}_{{\tilde{K}}}$ resp. ${\tilde{\kappa}}$ and $F$ by the $|{\tilde{\kappa}}|$-linear Frobenius morphism. We also replace ${\mathcal{Y}}_0$ be a connected component of ${\mathcal{Y}}_0 \otimes_{\kappa} \tilde{\kappa}$ and $\pi_0$ by the induced morphism. Then the new ${{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} , {{\mathfrak X}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} , \varphi , \ldots$ keep the previous properties and ${\mathcal{Y}}_0$ is now geometrically connected. Using [@SGA1] IX Théorème 1.10 we may lift $\pi_0 : {\mathcal{Y}}_0 \to {{\mathfrak X}}'_0$ to a finite étale morphism $\pi_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} : {\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \to {{\mathfrak X}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$. The proper flat ${\mathfrak{o}}_K$-scheme ${\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ is regular with geometrically reduced fibres over ${\mathfrak{o}}_K$ because ${{\mathfrak X}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ has these properties. In particular, the morphism ${\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \to {\mathrm{spec}\,}{\mathfrak{o}}_K$ is cohomologically flat in degree zero. Since the special fibre ${\mathcal{Y}}_0$ is geometrically connected and reduced it follows that the generic fibre $Y_K$ of ${\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ is geometrically connected and hence a smooth projective geometrically irreducible curve over $K$. In particular ${\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ is irreducible in addition to being regular and proper flat over ${\mathfrak{o}}_K$. By a theorem of Lichtenbaum [@Li] there is thus a closed immersion $\tau_K : {\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \hookrightarrow {{\mathbb{P}}}^N_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ for some $N$. Composing with a suitable automorphism of ${{\mathbb{P}}}^N_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ we may assume that $\tau^{-1}_K ({\mathbb{G}}^N_{m,K}) \subset Y_K$ contains all points in $Y_K ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$ over $x \in X_K ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p) = X ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$. In particular, $\tau^{-1}_K ({\mathbb{G}}^N_{ m,K})$ is open and dense in $Y_K$ with a finite complement. Thus there is an open subscheme $U_K \subset X_K$ with $x \in U_K ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$ and such that $V_K = \pi^{-1}_K (U_K)$ is contained in $\tau^{-1}_K ({\mathbb{G}}^N_{m,K})$.
Consider the finite morphism $F_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} : {{\mathbb{P}}}^N_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \to {{\mathbb{P}}}^N_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ given on $A$-valued points where $A$ is any ${\mathfrak{o}}_K$-algebra, by sending $[x_0 : \ldots : x_N]$ to $[x^q_0 : \ldots : x^q_N]$. The reduction of $F_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ is the $q$-linear Frobenius morphism on ${{\mathbb{P}}}^N_{\kappa}$.
Let $\rho_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} : {\mathcal{Y}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \to {\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ be the base change of $F^s_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ via $\tau_K$. It is finite and its generic fibre $\rho_K : Y'_K \to Y_K$ is étale over $V_K$. Now we look at the reductions and we define a morphism $i : {\mathcal{Y}}_0 \to {\mathcal{Y}}'_0$ over $\kappa$ by the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\mathcal{Y}}_0 \ar[dr]^i \ar@/_/[ddr]_{\tau_0} \ar@/^/[drr]^{F^s} & & \\
& {\mathcal{Y}}'_0 \ar[r]^{\rho_0} \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & {\mathcal{Y}}_0 \ar@{^{(}->}[d]^{\tau_0} \\
& {{\mathbb{P}}}^N_{\kappa} \ar[r]^{F^s} & {{\mathbb{P}}}^N_{\kappa}
}$$ In [@DW2] Lemma 19 it is shown that $i$ induces an isomorphism $i : {\mathcal{Y}}_0 \xrightarrow{\sim} {\mathcal{Y}}^{'{\mathrm{red}}}_0$. Here the index $0$ always refers to the special fibre over ${\mathrm{spec}\,}\kappa$.
Taking the normalization of ${\mathcal{Y}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ in the function field of an irreducible component of $Y'_K$ we get a proper, flat ${\mathfrak{o}}_K$-scheme ${\mathcal{Y}}''_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ which is finite over ${\mathcal{Y}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$. Its generic fibre $Y''_K$ is a smooth projective connected curve over $K$ (maybe not geometrically connected). The following diagram summarizes the situation $$\xymatrix{
& & {\mathcal{Y}}''_0 \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\mathcal{Y}}''_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \ar[d] & Y''_K \ar[l] \ar[d] \\
{\mathcal{Y}}_0 \ar[r]^{\overset{i}{\sim}} \ar[d]_{F^s} & {\mathcal{Y}}^{'{\mathrm{red}}}_0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal{Y}}'_0 \ar[r] & {\mathcal{Y}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \ar[d]_{\rho_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}} & Y'_K \ar[l] \ar[d] \\
{\mathcal{Y}}_0 \ar[rrr] \ar[d]_{\pi_0} & & & {\mathcal{Y}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \ar[d]_{\pi_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}} & Y_K \ar[l] \ar[d] \ar@{}[r]|\supset & V_K \ar[d] \\
{{\mathfrak X}}'_0 \ar[rrr] \ar[d]_{\alpha_0} & & & {{\mathfrak X}}'_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \ar[d]_{\alpha_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}} & X_K \ar[l] \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[r]|\supset & U_K \\
{{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_0 \ar[rr] & & {{\mathfrak X}}_0 \ar[r] & {{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} & X_K \ar[l]
}$$ For a suitable finite extension ${\tilde{K}}/ K$ all connected components of $Y''_K \otimes_K {\tilde{K}}$ will be geometrically connected. Let $Y'''_{{\tilde{K}}}$ be one of them and let ${\mathcal{Y}}'''_{{\mathfrak{o}}_{{\tilde{K}}}}$ be its closure with the reduced scheme structure in ${\mathcal{Y}}''_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} \otimes {\mathfrak{o}}_{{\tilde{K}}}$. By the semistable reduction theorem there are a finite extension $L / {\tilde{K}}$ and a semistable model ${\mathcal{Z}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_L}$ of $Y'''_{{\tilde{K}}} \otimes_{{\tilde{K}}} L$ over ${\mathcal{Y}}'''_{{\mathfrak{o}}_{{\tilde{K}}}}$. Base extending ${{\mathfrak X}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K} , \ldots , {\mathcal{Y}}''_{{\mathfrak{o}}_K}$ over ${\mathfrak{o}}_K$ to ${\overline{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}}_p$ and ${\mathcal{Y}}'''_{{\mathfrak{o}}_{\tilde{K}}}$ over ${\mathfrak{o}}_{\tilde{K}}$ and ${\mathcal{Z}}_{{\mathfrak{o}}_L}$ over ${\mathfrak{o}}_L$ we get a commutative diagram, where $\delta$ is the composition $\delta : {\mathcal{Z}}\to {\mathcal{Y}}''' \to {\mathcal{Y}}'' \to {\mathcal{Y}}' \xrightarrow{\rho} {\mathcal{Y}}$, $$\label{eq:8}
\xymatrix{
{\mathcal{Z}}_k \ar[rr] \ar[d]_{\beta_k} & & {\mathcal{Z}}\ar[dd]_{\delta} & Z \ar[l] \ar[dd]^{\delta_{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}_p}} \\
{\mathcal{Y}}_k \ar[d]_{F^s \otimes_{\kappa} k} & & & \\
{\mathcal{Y}}_k \ar[rr] \ar[d]_{\pi_k} & & {\mathcal{Y}}\ar[d]_{\pi} & Y \ar[l] \ar[d]^{\pi_{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}_p}} \ar@{}[r]|\supset & V \ar[d] \\
{{\mathfrak X}}'_k \ar[rr] \ar[d]_{\alpha_k} & & {{\mathfrak X}}' \ar[d]_{\alpha} & X \ar[l] \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{}[r]|\supset & U \\
{{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k \ar@{^{(}->}[r] & {{\mathfrak X}}_k \ar[r] & {{\mathfrak X}}& X \ar[l]
}$$ Here the morphism $\beta_k : {\mathcal{Z}}_k \to {\mathcal{Y}}_k$ comes about as follows: Since ${\mathcal{Z}}_k$ is reduced, the composition ${\mathcal{Z}}_k \to {\mathcal{Y}}'''_k \to {\mathcal{Y}}''_k \to {\mathcal{Y}}'_k$ factors over ${\mathcal{Y}}^{'{\mathrm{red}}}_k \xleftarrow{\sim} {\mathcal{Y}}_k$ and this defines $\beta_k$. By construction, the map $\pi_{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}_p} {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}\delta_{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}_p} : Z \to X$ is finite and such that its restriction to a map $W = (\pi_{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}_p} {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}\delta_{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}_p})^{-1} (U) \to U$ is finite and étale. By construction the bundle ${{\mathcal E}}'_k = \alpha^*_k {{\mathcal E}}_k = {{\mathcal E}}'_0 \otimes_{\kappa} k$ is trivialized by pullback along $\pi_k {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}(F^s \otimes_{\kappa} k)$ and hence also along $(\pi {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}\delta)_k = \pi_k {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}(F^s \otimes_{\kappa} k) {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}\beta_k$. For later purposes note that we have a commutative diagram $$\label{eq:9}
\xymatrix{
{\mathcal{Y}}_k \ar[r]^{F^s \otimes_{\kappa} k} \ar[d]_{\pi_k} & {\mathcal{Y}}_k \ar[d]^{\pi_k} \\
{{\mathfrak X}}'_k \ar[r]^{F^s \otimes_{\kappa} k} & {{\mathfrak X}}'_k
}$$ obtained by base changing the corresponding diagram over $\kappa$: $$\xymatrix{
{\mathcal{Y}}_0 \ar[d]_{\pi_0} \ar[r]^{F^s} & {\mathcal{Y}}_0 \ar[d]^{\pi_0} \\
{{\mathfrak X}}'_0 \ar[r]^{F^s} & {{\mathfrak X}}'_0 \; .
}$$ The inclusion ${{\mathfrak X}}_k \to {{\mathfrak X}}$ induces a natural isomorphism $\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}_k , x_k) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}, x_k)$. This follows from [@SGA1] Exp. X, Théorème 2.1 together with an argument to reduce the finitely presented case to a Noetherian one as in the proof of [@SGA1], Exp. IX, Théorème 6.1, p. 254 above.
Next we note that there is a canonical isomorphism $$\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}, x_k) = {\mathrm{Aut}}(F_{x_k}) = {\mathrm{Aut}}F_x = \pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}, x) \; .$$ Namely, for a finite étale covering ${\mathcal{Y}}\to {{\mathfrak X}}$, by the infinitesimal lifting property, any point $y_k \in {\mathcal{Y}}_k (k)$ over $x_k$ determines a unique section $y_{{\mathfrak{o}}} \in {\mathcal{Y}}({\mathfrak{o}})$ over $x_{{\mathfrak{o}}} \in {{\mathfrak X}}({\mathfrak{o}})$ and hence a point $y \in Y ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$ over $x \in X ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$. In this way one obtains a bijection between the points $y_k$ over $x_k$ and the points $y$ over $x$. Thus the fibre functors $F_{x_k}$ and $F_x$ are canonically isomorphic.
Finally, by [@SGA1], Exp. IX, Proposition 1.7, the inclusion ${{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k \hookrightarrow {{\mathfrak X}}_k$ induces an isomorphism $\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k , x_k) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}_k , x_k)$. Thus we get an isomorphism $$\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k , x_k) {\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}}\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}_k , x_k) = \pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}, x_k) = \pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}, x)$$ and hence a commutative diagram $$\label{eq:10}
\xymatrix{
& \pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}' , x) \ar[dd]^{\alpha_*} \ar@{=}[r] & \pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}'_k , x'_k) \ar[dd]^{\alpha_{k*}} \\
\pi_1 (X,x) \ar[ur] \ar[dr] & & \\
& \pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}, x) \ar@{=}[r] & \pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k , x_k) \; .
}$$ For ${\overline{\gamma}}\in \pi_1 (X,x)$ choose an element $\gamma \in \pi_1 (U,x)$ which maps to ${\overline{\gamma}}$ and let ${\overline{\gamma}}_k$ be the image of ${\overline{\gamma}}$ in $\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}'_k , x'_k)$. Fix a point $z \in W ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$ which maps to $x \in U ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$ in diagram . As explained at the beginning of this section the automorphism $\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} ({\overline{\gamma}}) \otimes k$ of ${{\mathcal E}}_{x_k}$ is given by the formula $$\label{eq:11}
\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} ({\overline{\gamma}}) \otimes k = (\gamma z)^*_k {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}(z^*_k)^{-1} \; .$$ Here the isomorphisms $z^*_k$ and $(\gamma z)^*_k$ are the ones in the upper row of the following commutative diagram, where we have set ${{\mathcal F}}_k = (\pi_k {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}(F^s \otimes_{\kappa} k))^* {{\mathcal E}}'_k$, so that $(\alpha {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}\pi {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}\delta)^*_k {{\mathcal E}}_k = \beta^*_k {{\mathcal F}}_k$. Moreover ${\overline{y}}_1 := \beta_k (z_k)$ and ${\overline{y}}_2 := \beta_k ((\gamma z)_k)$ in ${\mathcal{Y}}_k (k)$, $$\label{eq:12}
\xymatrix{
{{\mathcal E}}_{x_k} \ar@{=}[r] & (\beta^*_k {{\mathcal F}}_k)_{z_k} \ar@{=}[d] & \Gamma ({\mathcal{Z}}_k , \beta^*_k {{\mathcal F}}_k) \ar[l]_{\overset{z^*_k}{\sim}} \ar[r]^{\overset{(\gamma_z)^*_k}{\sim}} & (\beta^*_k {{\mathcal F}}_k)_{(\gamma_z)_k} \ar@{=}[r] \ar@{=}[d] & {{\mathcal E}}_{x_k} \\
{{\mathcal E}}_{x_k} \ar@{=}[r] & ({{\mathcal F}}_k)_{{\overline{y}}_1} & \Gamma ({\mathcal{Y}}_k , {{\mathcal F}}_k) \ar[l]_{\overset{{\overline{y}}^*_1}{\sim}} \ar[u]^{\beta^*_k}_{\wr} \ar[r]^{\overset{{\overline{y}}^*_2}{\sim}} & ({{\mathcal F}}_k)_{{\overline{y}}_2} \ar@{=}[r] & {{\mathcal E}}_{x_k} \; .
}$$ Note here that ${{\mathcal F}}_k$ is already a trivial bundle and that ${\mathcal{Y}}_k$ and ${\mathcal{Z}}_k$ are both reduced and connected. It follows that all maps in this diagram are isomorphisms. Using we therefore get the formula: $$\label{eq:13}
\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} ({\overline{\gamma}}) \otimes k = {\overline{y}}^*_2 {\mbox{\scriptsize $\,\circ\,$}}({\overline{y}}^*_1)^{-1} \; .$$ The point $y = \delta_{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}_p} (z)$ in $V ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p) \subset Y ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p)$ lies above $x$ and we have $\gamma y = \delta_{{\overline{{{\mathbb{Q}}}}}_p} (\gamma z)$. Moreover the relations $$\label{eq:14}
(F^s \otimes_{\kappa} k) ({\overline{y}}_1) = y_k \quad \mbox{and} \quad (F^s \otimes_{\kappa} k) ({\overline{y}}_2) = (\gamma y)_k ={\overline{\gamma}}_k (y_k)$$ hold because $\gamma y = {\overline{\gamma}}y$ implies that $(\gamma y)_k = ({\overline{\gamma}}y)_k = {\overline{\gamma}}_k (y_k)$. Setting ${{\mathcal G}}_k = (F^s \otimes_{\kappa} k)^* {{\mathcal E}}'_k$, a bundle on ${{\mathfrak X}}'_k$, we have ${{\mathcal F}}_k = \pi^*_k {{\mathcal G}}_k$.
Next we look at representations of Nori’s fundamental group. For the point ${\overline{x}}_1 = \pi_k ({\overline{y}}_1)$ in ${{\mathfrak X}}'_k (k)$ we have $(F^s \otimes k) ({\overline{x}}_1) = x'_k$.
Consider the commutative diagram: $$\label{eq:16}
\xymatrix{
\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}'_k , {\overline{x}}_1) \ar[r]^{\lambda_{{{\mathcal G}}_k , {\overline{x}}_1}} \ar[d]^{\wr}_{(F^s \otimes k)_*} & {\mathrm{GL}\,}(({{\mathcal G}}_k)_{{\overline{x}}_1}) \ar@{=}[d] \\
\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}'_k , x'_k) \ar[r]^{\lambda_{{{\mathcal E}}'_k , x'_k}} \ar[d]_{\alpha_{k*}} & {\mathrm{GL}\,}(({{\mathcal E}}'_k)_{x'_k}) \ar@{=}[d] \\
\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k , x_k) \ar[r]^{\lambda_{{{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k , x_k}} & {\mathrm{GL}\,}({{\mathcal E}}_{x_k}) \; .
}$$ It is obtained by passing to the groups of $k$-valued points in the corresponding diagram for representations of Nori’s fundamental group schemes. Recall that as observed above ${{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k$ is an essentially finite bundle on ${{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k$. The fact that $(F^s \otimes k)_*$ is an isomorphism on fundamental groups was shown in Proposition \[t3\]. Let ${\tilde{\gamma}}_k \in \pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}'_k , {\overline{x}}_1)$ be the element with $(F^s \otimes k)_* ({\tilde{\gamma}}_k) = {\overline{\gamma}}_k$. Using the diagrams and , theorem \[t1\] will follow once we have shown the equation $$\label{eq:17}
\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} ({\overline{\gamma}}) \otimes k = \lambda_{{{\mathcal G}}_k , {\overline{x}}_1} ({\tilde{\gamma}}_k) \quad \mbox{in} \; {\mathrm{GL}\,}({{\mathcal E}}_{x_k}) \; .$$
We now use the description of $\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} \otimes k$ in formula and the one of $\lambda_{{{\mathcal G}}_k , {\overline{x}}_1}$ in Proposition \[t2n\] applied to the finite étale covering $\pi_k : {\mathcal{Y}}_k \to {{\mathfrak X}}'_k$ which trivializes ${{\mathcal G}}_k$. It follows that is equivalent to the following diagram being commutative where we recall that ${{\mathcal F}}_k = \pi^*_k {{\mathcal G}}_k$: $$\label{eq:18}
\xymatrix{
{{\mathcal E}}_{x_k} \ar@{=}[d] \ar@{=}[r] & ({{\mathcal F}}_k)_{{\overline{y}}_1} & \Gamma ({\mathcal{Y}}_k , {{\mathcal F}}_k) \ar[l]_{\overset{{\overline{y}}^*_1}{\sim}} \ar[r]^{\overset{{\overline{y}}^*_2}{\sim}} & ({{\mathcal F}}_k)_{{\overline{y}}_2} \ar@{=}[r] & {{\mathcal E}}_{x_k} \ar@{=}[d] \\
{{\mathcal E}}_{x_k} \ar@{=}[r] & ({{\mathcal F}}_k)_{{\overline{y}}_1} & \Gamma ({\mathcal{Y}}_k , {{\mathcal F}}_k) \ar[l]_{\overset{{\overline{y}}^*_1}{\sim}} \ar[r]^{\overset{{\tilde{\gamma}}_k ({\overline{y}}_1)^*}{\sim}} & ({{\mathcal F}}_k)_{{\tilde{\gamma}}_k ({\overline{y}}_1) } \ar@{=}[r] & {{\mathcal E}}_{x_k} \; .
}$$ But this is trivial since we have $ {\overline{y}}_2 = {\tilde{\gamma}}_k ({\overline{y}}_1)$. Namely implies the equations: $$(F^s \otimes k) ({\overline{y}}_2) = {\overline{\gamma}}_k (y_k) = {\overline{\gamma}}_k ((F^s \otimes k) ({\overline{y}}_1)) = (F^s \otimes k) ({\tilde{\gamma}}_k ({\overline{y}}_1))$$ and $F^s \otimes k$ is injective on $k$-valued points because $F$ is universally injective.
\[t6\] *The following example shows that in general the representation $$\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}} : \pi_1 (X,x) \to {\mathrm{GL}\,}({{\mathcal E}}_{x_{{\mathfrak{o}}}})$$ in theorem \[t1\] does not factor over the specialization map $\pi_1 (X,x) \to \pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k , x_k)$. Let ${{\mathfrak X}}$ be an elliptic curve over $\overline{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}_p$ whose reduction ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ is supersingular. Then we have ${{\mathfrak X}}^{{\mathrm{red}}}_k = {{\mathfrak X}}_k$ and $\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}_k , 0) (p) = 0$. The exact functor $E \mapsto \rho_{E,0}$ of [@DW2] or [@DW4] induces a homomorphism $$\rho_* : {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{X_{{{\mathbb{C}}}_p}} ({{\mathcal O}}, {{\mathcal O}}) \longrightarrow {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{\pi_1 (X,0)} ({{\mathbb{C}}}_p , {{\mathbb{C}}}_p) = {\mathrm{Hom}}(\pi_1 (X,0) , {{\mathbb{C}}}_p) \; .$$ Here the second ${\mathrm{Ext}}$-group refers to the category of finite dimensional ${{\mathbb{C}}}_p$-vector spaces with a continuous $\pi_1 (X,0)$-operation. Moreover, ${\mathrm{Hom}}$ refers to continuous homomorphisms. In [@DW1] Corollary 1, by comparing with Hodge–Tate theory it is shown that $\rho_*$ is injective. For an extension of vector bundles $0 \to {{\mathcal O}}\to E \to {{\mathcal O}}\to 0$ on $X_{{{\mathbb{C}}}_p}$ the corresponding representation $\rho_{E,0}$ of $\pi_1 (X,0)$ on ${\mathrm{GL}\,}(E_0)$ is unipotent of rank $2$ and described by the additive character $$\rho_* ([E]) \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(\pi_1 (X,0) , {{\mathbb{C}}}_p) = {\mathrm{Hom}}(\pi_1 (X,0) (p) , {{\mathbb{C}}}_p) \; .$$ In particular $\rho_{E,0}$ factors over $\pi_1 (X,0) (p)$ and $\rho_{E,0}$ is trivial if and only if $[E] = 0$. Thus any extension $[{{\mathcal E}}]$ in $H^1 ({{\mathfrak X}}, {{\mathcal O}})$ whose restriction to $H^1 (X, {{\mathcal O}})$ is non-trivial has a non-trivial associated representation $$\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}, 0} : \pi_1 (X,0) \longrightarrow {\mathrm{GL}\,}({{\mathcal E}}_0) \; .$$ Since $\rho_{{{\mathcal E}},0}$ factors over $\pi_1 (X,0) (p)$ it cannot factor over $\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}_k ,0)$ because then it would factor over $\pi_1 ({{\mathfrak X}}_k ,0) (p) = 0$.*
[999]{} , [Réduction semi-stable des courbes d’après [A]{}rtin, [D]{}eligne, [G]{}rothendieck, [M]{}umford, [S]{}aito, [W]{}inters, [$\ldots$]{}]{}. In: [Courbes semi-stables et groupe fondamental en géométrie algébrique ([L]{}uminy, 1998)]{}, [Progr. Math.]{}, [**187**]{}, [59–110]{}, [Birkhäuser]{}, [Basel]{}, [2000]{} I. Biswas, A.J. Parameswaran, S. Subramanian, Monodromy group for a strongly semistable principal bundle over a curve. Duke Math. J. [**132**]{} (2006), 1–48 P. Deligne, J.S. Milne, Tannakian categories. Springer LNM 900 C. Deninger, A. Werner, Line bundles and $p$-adic characters. In: G. van der Geer, B. Moonen, R. Schoof (eds.), Number Fields and Function Fields – Two Parallel Worlds, Progress in Mathematics [**239**]{}, 101–131, Birkhäuser 2005 C. Deninger, A. Werner, Vector bundles on $p$-adic curves and parallel transport. Ann. Scient. Éc. Norm. Sup. [**38**]{} (2005), 553–597 C. Deninger, A. Werner, On Tannakian duality for vector bundles on $p$-adic curves. In: Algebraic cycles and motives, vol. 2, LMS Lecture notes [**344**]{} (2007), 94–111 C. Deninger, A. Werner, Vector bundles on $p$-adic curves and parallel transport II. Preprint 2009, arXiv: 0902.1437 G. Faltings, A $p$-adic Simpson correspondence. Adv. Math. [**198**]{} (2005), 847–862 D. Giesecker, On a theorem of Bogomolov on Chern classes of stable bundles. Am. J. Math. [**101**]{} (1979), 79–85 S. Lichtenbaum, Curves over discrete valuation rings. Amer. J. Math. [**90**]{} (1968), 380–405 J. Lipman, Desingularization of two-dimensional schemes. Ann. of Math. [**107**]{} (1978), 151–207 V.B. Mehta, S. Subramanian, On the fundamental group scheme. Invent. Math. [**148**]{} (2002), 143–150 M.V. Nori, The fundamental group-scheme. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. [**91**]{} (1982), 73–122 S. Subramanian, Strongly semistable bundles on a curve over a finite field. Arch. Math. [**89**]{} (2007), 68–72 A. Grothendieck et al., Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental. Springer LNM 224, 1971
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
#### Abstract.
We present two results, the first on the distribution of the roots of a polynomial over the ring of integers modulo $n$ and the second on the distribution of the roots of the Sylvester resultant of two multivariate polynomials. The second result has application to polynomial GCD computation and solving polynomial diophantine equations.
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., V5A 1S6, CANADA.'
author:
- Michael Monagan and Baris Tuncer
title: 'Some results on counting roots of polynomials and the Sylvester resultant. '
---
Introduction
============
Let ${{\mathbb F}}_q$ denote the finite field with $q$ elements and let ${{\mathbb Z}}_n$ denote the ring of integers modulo $n$. Let ${\rm E}[X]$ denote the expected value of a random variable $X$ and let ${{\rm Var}}[X]$ denote the variance of $X$.
Let $f$ be a polynomial in ${{\mathbb F}}_q[x]$ of a given degree $d > 0$ and let $X$ be the number of distinct roots of $f$. Schmidt proves in Ch. 4 of [@schmidt] that ${{\rm E}}[X]=1$ and for $d > 1$, ${{\rm Var}}[X] = 1-1/q$. This result has been generalized by Knopfmacher and Knopfmacher in [@knopfmacher2] who count distinct irreducible factors of a given degree of $f$. The two main results presented in this paper are Theorems 1 and 2 below.
Let $\phi(n) = |\{ \, 1 \! \le \! i \! \le \! n : \gcd(i,n)=1 \}|$ denote Euler’s totient function. Let $X$ be a random variable which counts the number of distinct roots of a monic polynomial in ${{\mathbb Z}}_n[x]$ of degree $m>0.$ Then
- ${{{\rm E}}}[X]=1$ and
- if $m=1$ then $\mathrm{Var}[X]=0,$ otherwise $\mathrm{Var}[X]=\sum_{d|n,d\neq n}\frac{d}{n}\phi(\frac{n}{d})=\sum_{d|n}\frac{d-1}{n}\phi(\frac{n}{d})$.\
In particular, if $n=p^{k}$ where $p$ is a prime number and $k\geq1$, $\mathrm{Var}[X]=k(1-1/p).$
Let $f,g$ be polynomials in ${{\mathbb F}}_q[x,y]$ of the form $f = c_n x^n + \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \sum_{j=0}^{n-i} c_{ij} x^i y^j$ and $g = d_m x^m + \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \sum_{j=0}^{m-i} d_{ij} x^i y^j$ with $c_n \ne 0$ and $d_m \ne 0$, thus of total degree $n$ and $m$ respectively. Let $X$ be a random variable that counts the number of $\gamma\in{{\mathbb F}}_{q}$ such that $\mathrm{gcd}(f(x,\gamma),g(x,\gamma))\neq 1$. If $n>0$ and $m>0$ then
- $\mathrm{E}[X]=1$ and
- $\mathrm{Var}[X]=1-1/q.$
Theorems 1 and 2 were found by computation. We give some details on our computations later in the paper. To prove the results we use a generalization of the Inclusion Exclusion principle (Proposition 1) which allows us to determine ${{{\rm E}}}[X]$ and ${{\rm Var}}[X]$ without having explicit formulas for ${{\rm Prob}}[X=k]$. Before proving these results we connect Theorem 2 with the Sylvester resultant and with polynomial GCD computation and with solving polynomial diophantine equations.
Let $F$ be a field and let $A$ and $B$ be polynomials in $F[x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n]$ with positive degree in $x_0$. The Sylvester resultant of $A$ and $B$ in $x_0$, denoted ${{\rm res}}_{x_0}(A,B)$, is the determinant of Sylvester’s matrix. We gather the following facts about it into Lemma 1 below. Proofs may be found in Ch. 3 of [@CLO]. Note, in the Lemma $\deg A$ denotes the total degree of $A$.
Let $R = {{\rm res}}_{x_0}(A,B)$
- \(i) $R$ is a polynomial in $F[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ ($x_0$ is eliminated),\
(ii) $\deg R \le \deg A \deg B$ (Bezout bound).
For $A$ and $B$ monic in $x_0$ and $\alpha \in F^n$
\(iii) $\gcd(A(x_0,\alpha),B(x_0,\alpha)) \ne 1 \iff {{\rm res}}_{x_0}(A(x_0,\alpha),B(x_0,\alpha)) = 0$ and\
(iv) ${{\rm res}}_{x_0}(A(x_0,\alpha),B(x_0,\alpha)) = R(\alpha)$.
Properties (iii) and (iv) connect the roots of the resultant with Theorem 2 and 3.
Polynomial GCD computation and polynomial diophantine equations.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Our motivation comes from the following problems in computer algebra. Let $A, B$ be polynomials in ${{\mathbb Z}}[x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n]$ and $G = \gcd(A,B)$. Thus $A=G\widehat A$ and $B=G\widehat B$ for some polynomials $\widehat A$ and $\widehat B$ called the cofactors of $A$ and $B$. Modular GCD algorithms compute $G$ modulo a sequence of primes $p_1,p_2,p_3,\dots$ and recover the integer coefficients of $G$ using Chinese remaindering. The fastest algorithms for computing $G$ modulo a prime $p$ interpolate $G$ from univariate images. Maple, Magma and Mathematica all currently use Zippel’s algorithm (see [@zippel79; @wittkopf05]). Let us write $$A = \sum_{i=0}^k a_i x_0^i,
~~B = \sum_{i=0}^l b_i x_0^i, ~~{\rm and}
~~G = \sum_{i=0}^m c_i x_0^i$$ where the coefficients $a_i,b_i,c_i \in {{\mathbb F}}_p[x_1,\dots,x_n]$. Zippel’s algorithm picks points $\alpha_i \in {{\mathbb F}}_p^n$, computes monic univariate images of $G$ $$g_i = \gcd(A(x_0,\alpha_i),B(x_0,\alpha_i)),$$ scales them (details omitted), then interpolates the coefficients $c_i(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ of $G$ from the coefficients of these (scaled) images.
What if $\gcd( \widehat A(x_0,\alpha_j),\widehat B(x_0,\alpha_j)) \ne 1$ for some $j$? For example, if $\widehat A = x_0^2 + x_2$ and $\widehat B = x_0^2 + x_2 + (x_1-1)$ then $\gcd(\widehat A,\widehat B)=1$ but $\gcd(\widehat A(x_0,1,\beta),\widehat B(x_0,1,\beta)) \ne 1$ for all $\beta \in {{\mathbb F}}_p$. The evaluation points $(1,\beta)$ are said to be [*unlucky*]{}. We cannot use the images $\gcd(A(x_0,1,\beta),B(x_0,1,\beta))$ to interpolate $G$. The same issue of unlucky evaluation points arises in our current work in [@tuncer] where, given polynomials $a,b,c \in {{\mathbb Z}}[x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n]$ with $\gcd(a,b)=1$ we want to solve the diophantine equation $\sigma a + \tau b = c$ for $\sigma$ and $\tau$ in ${{\mathbb Z}}[x_0,x_1,\dots,x_n]$ by interpolating $\sigma$ and $\tau$ modulo a prime $p$ from univariate images.
What is the maximum number of unlucky evaluation points that can occur? And what is the expected number of unlucky evaluation points? We answer the first question for $A$ and $B$ monic in $x_0$. Lemma 1 implies $\alpha_j$ is unlucky if and only if $R(\alpha_j)=0$ where $R = {{\rm res}}_{x_0}(\widehat A,\widehat B) \in {{\mathbb F}}_p[x_1,\dots,x_n].$ If $\alpha_j$ is chosen at random from ${{\mathbb F}}_p^n$ then applying the Schwarz-Zippel lemma (see [@SZlemma]) we have $${{\rm Prob}}[ \, R(\alpha_j)=0 \, ] \le \frac{\deg R}{p}.$$ Applying Lemma 1(ii) we have $\deg R \le \deg \widehat A \deg \widehat B \le \deg A \deg B$. So if the algorithm needs, say, $t$ images to interpolate $G$ modulo $p$, then we can avoid unlucky evaluation points with high probability if we pick $p \gg t \deg A \deg B$.
But this is an upper bound – a worst case bound for the GCD algorithm. Researchers in computer algebra have observed that unlucky evaluation points are rare in practice and that we “never see them” when testing algorithms on random inputs. Theorems 2 and 3 give first results on the distribution of unlucky evaluation points. In particular, for coprime $\widehat A$ and $\widehat B$ of positive degree, Theorem 3 (page 11) implies ${{\rm Prob}}[ \, \alpha_j {\rm ~is~unlucky} \, ] < 1/p $.
Results and Proofs
==================
Given a set $U$ and the finite collection of sets $\Gamma=\{A_{i},i=0,\ldots,n-1\}$ where each $A_{i}\subseteq U$, let us define $C_0 = U$, $C_{n+1}:=\emptyset$ and, for $1\leq k\leq n$, $$C_{k}:=\bigcup_{i_{1}<\cdots<i_{k}}(A_{i_{1}}\cap A_{i_{2}}\cdots\cap A_{i_{k}}).$$ Then for $1\leq k\leq n$, $C_{k}$ is the union of all possible intersections of the $k-$subsets of the collection $\Gamma$ . In particular $C_1 = A_0 \cup A_1 \cup \cdots \cup A_{n-1}$ and $C_n = A_0 \cap A_1 \cap \cdots \cap A_{n-1}$. Let $B_{k}:=C_{k}-C_{k+1}$ for $0 \le k \le n$. Observe that $C_{k}\supseteq C_{k+1}$, so $|B_{k}|=|C_{k}|-|C_{k+1}|$. Let us also define $$b_{k}:=|B_{k}|\,\,\mathrm{and}\,\,t_{k}:=\sum_{i_{1}<\cdots<i_{k}}|A_{i_{1}}\cap A_{i_{2}}\cdots\cap A_{i_{k}}|.$$ We have $t_1 = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} |A_i|$ and $t_2 = \sum_{0\le i<j<n} |A_i \cap A_j|.$ We also have $b_{n}=t_{n}$ and $b_{n-1}=t_{n-1}-\binom{n}{1}b_{n}$. Now $A_{0}\cap A_{1}\cap\cdots\cap A_{n-1}$ is a subset of $\binom{n}{n-2}=\binom{n}{2}$ sets of the form $A_{i_{1}}\cap A_{i_{2}}\cap\cdots\cap A_{i_{n-2}}$ and each $(n-1)$-section $A_{i_{1}}\cap A_{i_{2}}\cap\cdots\cap A_{i_{n-1}}$ is a subset of $\binom{n-1}{n-2}=\binom{n-1}{1}$ sets of the form $A_{i_{1}}\cap A_{i_{2}}\cap\cdots\cap A_{i_{n-2}}$ with $i_{1}<i_{2}<\cdots<i_{n-2}$. Therefore $b_{n-2}=t_{n-2}-\binom{n-1}{1}b_{n-1}-\binom{n}{2}b_{n}$.
Similarly, since each $(n-k+i)$-section is a subset of $\binom{n-k+i}{i}$ intersections of $(n-k)$ sets for $i=1,\ldots,k$, we have the recursive formula $$b_{n-k}=t_{n-k}-\sum_{i=1}^{k}{\binom{n-k+i}{i}}b_{n-k+i}\,\,\mathrm{for}\,\,k=0,\ldots,n.
\label{eq:recursive}$$
Following the notation introduced above $$b_{n-k}=\sum_{i=0}^{k}(-1)^{i}{\binom{n-k+i}{i}}t_{n-k+i}\,\,\mathrm{for}\,\,k=0,\ldots,n.
\label{eq:basic}$$
We will prove the claim by strong induction on $k$. For $k=0$ we have $b_{n}=t_{n}.$ Now assume that the claim is true for any integer $i \leq k$ in place of $k$.
By the recursive formula (\[eq:recursive\]) we have
$$\textstyle
b_{n-(k+1)}=t_{n-(k+1)}-\binom{n-k}{1}b_{n-k}-\binom{n-k+1}{2}b_{n-k+1}-\cdots-\binom{n}{k+1}b_{n}.$$
On the other hand by induction we have the following equations
$b_{n}\:\:\:\ =t_{n}$
$b_{n-1}=t_{n-1}-\binom{n}{1}t_{n}$
$b_{n-2}=t_{n-2}-\binom{n-1}{1}t_{n-1}+\binom{n}{2}t_{n}$
$\vdots$
$b_{n-k}=t_{n-k}-\binom{n-k+1}{1}t_{n-k+1}+\cdots+(-1)^{k}\binom{n}{k}t_{n}.$\
\
It follows that\
$-\binom{n}{k+1}b_{n}\,\,\,\,\,\,=-\binom{n}{k+1}t_{n}$
$-\binom{n-1}{k}b_{n-1}=-\binom{n-1}{k}t_{n-1}+\binom{n-1}{k}\binom{n}{1}t_{n}$
$-\binom{n-2}{k-1}b_{n-2}=-\binom{n-2}{k-1}t_{n-2}+\binom{n-2}{k-1}\binom{n-1}{1}t_{n-1}-\binom{n-2}{k-1}\binom{n}{2}t_{n}$
$\vdots$
$-\binom{n-k}{1}b_{n-k}=-\binom{n-k}{1}t_{n-k}+\binom{n-k}{1}\binom{n-k+1}{1}t_{n-k+1}-\cdots(-1)^{k+1}\binom{n-k}{1}\binom{n}{k}t_{n}.$\
\
If we sum all these equalities, then on the right hand side the coefficient of $t_{n}$ is\
\
$c(t_{n})=\sum_{i=0}^{k}(-1)^{k-i+1}\binom{n-k+i}{i+1}\binom{n}{k-i}$. For $d\leq k$ one has\
\
$\binom{n-d}{k-d+1}\binom{n}{d}=\frac{(n-d)!}{(n-k-1)!(k-d+1)!}\frac{n!}{(n-d)!d!}=\frac{n!}{(k+1)!(n-k-1)!}\frac{(k+1)!}{d!(k-d+1)!}=\binom{n}{k+1}\binom{k+1}{d}$.\
\
Then $c(t_{n})=\binom{n}{k+1}\sum_{i=0}^{k}(-1)^{k-i+1}\binom{k+1}{k-i}$$=-\binom{n}{k+1}(-1)^{k}=(-1)^{k+1}\binom{n}{k+1},$\
\
where the last equality follows from the fact that\
\
$\binom{k+1}{0}-\binom{k+1}{1}+\binom{k+1}{2}+\cdots+(-1)^{k}\binom{k+1}{k}=-(-1)^{k+1}=(-1)^{k}$ .\
\
Similarly for $s=1,\ldots,k$ we have $c(t_{n-s})=\sum_{i=0}^{k-s}(-1)^{k-s-i+1}\binom{n-s-k+i}{i+1}\binom{n}{k-s-i}$\
\
$=\binom{n-s}{k-s+1}\sum_{i=0}^{k-s}(-1)^{k-s-i+1}\binom{n}{k-s-i}=(-1)^{k-s+1}\binom{n-s}{k-s+1}.$\
\
Now plugging $s=k-i$ in the formula above we get\
\
$b_{n-(k+1)}=\sum_{i=0}^{k}(-1)^{i+1}\binom{n-k+i}{i+1}t_{n-k+i}$.
Let $\phi(n) = |\{ \, 1 \! \le \! i \! \le \! n : \gcd(i,n)=1 \}|$ denote Euler’s totient function. Let $X$ be a random variable which counts the number of distinct roots of a monic polynomial in ${{\mathbb Z}}_n[x]$ of degree $m>0.$ Then
- ${\rm E}[X]=1$ and\
- if $m=1$ then $\mathrm{Var}[X]=0,$ otherwise $\mathrm{Var}[X]=\sum_{d|n,d\neq n}\frac{d}{n}\phi(\frac{n}{d})=\sum_{d|n}\frac{d-1}{n}\phi(\frac{n}{d})$.\
In particular, if $n=p^{k}$ where $p$ is a prime number and $k\geq1$, $\mathrm{Var}[X]=k(1-1/p).$
[**Remark 1.**]{} We found this result by direct computation and using the Online Encylopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS) see [@OEIS]. For polynomials of degree 2,3,4,5 in ${{\mathbb Z}}_n[x]$ we computed ${\rm E}[X]$ and ${\rm Var}[X]$ for $n=2,3,4,\dots,20$ using Maple and found that ${\rm E}[X]=1$ in all cases. Values for the variance are given in the table below.
------------ --------------- --------------- --- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---- ----
$n$ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Var\[$X$\] $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{2}{3}$ 1 $\frac{4}{5}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\frac{6}{7}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\frac{4}{3}$ $\frac{17}{10}$ $\frac{10}{11}$ $\frac{7}{3}$ $\frac{12}{13}$ $\frac{25}{14}$ 2 2
$a(n)$ 1 2 4 4 9 6 12 12 17 10 28 12 25 30 32
------------ --------------- --------------- --- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---- ----
When we first computed ${\rm Var}[X]$ we did not recognize the numbers. Writing ${\rm Var}[X] = a(n)/n$ we computed the sequence for $a(n)$ (see the table) and looked it up in the OEIS. We found it is sequence A006579 and that $a(n) = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \gcd(n,k)$. The OEIS also has the formula $a(n) = \sum_{d|n} (d-1) \phi(\frac{n}{d}).$
Let $A_{i}$ be the set of all monic univariate polynomials of degree $m>0$ which have a root at $\alpha_{i}\in\mathbb{Z}_{n}$. Then since $x-\alpha_i$ is monic, for any $f\in A_{i}$ we have $f=(x-\alpha_{i})q$ for a unique $q\in {{\mathbb Z}}_{n}[x]$ and we have $n^{m-1}$ choices for such an $f$. Hence $|A_{i}|=n^{m-1}.$
Let $x_{i}:=\mathrm{Prob}[X=i]$. This is the probability that $f$ has exactly $i$ distinct roots, i.e. $f\in B_{i}$ in the notation introduced in section 1 considering the finite collection of sets $\Gamma=\{A_{i},i=0,\ldots,n-1\}$. Since we have $n^{m-1}$ choices for a monic polynomial of degree $m$ in ${{\mathbb Z}}_{n}[x]$ we have $x_{i}=\frac{b_{i}}{n^{m-1}}$. Then by Proposition 1 $${\rm E}[X]=\sum_{i=0}^{n}ix_{i}=\sum_{i=0}^{n}i\frac{b_{i}}{n^{m}}=\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{n}ib_{i}}{n^{m}}=\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}|A_{i}|}{n^{m}}=\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}n^{m-1}}{n^{m}}=\frac{nn^{m-1}}{n^{m}}=1$$
To prove (b), if $m=1$ then $f = x-\alpha$ for some $\alpha\in {{\mathbb Z}}_n$ and hence $X=1$ and ${{\rm Var}}[X]=0$. For $m>1$ and $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_{n}^{*}$, our first aim is to find $|A_{0}\cap A_{\alpha}|$. Let $f\in A_{0}\cap A_{\alpha}$. It may not be the case that $f=x(x-\alpha)q$ for a unique $q\in\mathbb{Z}_{n}[x]$, since $\mathbb{Z}_{n}[x]$ is not a unique factorization domain in general. However $f=xq_{1}=(x-\alpha)q_{2}$ for unique $q_{1},q_{2}\in\mathbb{Z}_{n}[x]$. It follows that $\alpha q_{2}(0)=0\,\,\mathrm{mod}\,\,n.$ If $\gcd(\alpha,n)=d$ then $\gcd(\frac{\alpha}{d},\frac{n}{d})=1$ and hence $q_{2}(0)=0\,\,\mathrm{mod}\,\,\frac{n}{d}$. The general form of $q_{2}=x^{m-1}+a_{m-2}x^{m-2}+\cdots+a_{0}$ where $a_{i}\in\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ for $i=0,\ldots,m-2$. Since $q_{2}(0)=a_{0}\:\;\mathrm{mod}\:\;\frac{n}{d},$ there are $d$ choices for $a_{0}$ and hence there are $dn^{m-2}$ choices for $q_{2}.$ Therefore $|A_{0}\cap A_{\alpha}|=dn^{m-2}.$
For a given pair $(\gamma,\beta)$ with $\beta>\gamma,$ to compute $|A_{\gamma}\cap A_{\beta}|$, define $\alpha:=\beta-\gamma$ and consider $A_{0}\cap A_{\alpha}.$ If $f\in A_{\gamma}\cap A_{\beta},$ then we have $f(x)=(x-\gamma)q_{3}(x)=(x-\beta)q_{4}(x)$ for unique $q_{3},q_{4}\in {{\mathbb Z}}_{n}[x]$. By the coordinate translation $x\mapsto x+\gamma$ we have $f(x+\gamma)\in A_{0}\cap A_{\alpha}$, since $f(x+\gamma)=xq_{3}(x+\gamma)=(x-\alpha)q_{4}(x+\gamma)$ where $f(x+\gamma),q_{3}(x+\gamma),q_{4}(x+\gamma)$ are monic and with the same degree before the translation. This correspondence is bijective and it follows that $|A_{\gamma}\cap A_{\beta}|=|A_{0}\cap A_{\alpha}|=dn^{m-2}.$
Let $d=\gcd(\alpha,n).$ There are $k=\phi(\frac{n}{d})$ elements $\beta_{1},\ldots,\beta_{k}$ in $\mathbb{Z}_{\frac{n}{d}}$ such that $\mathrm{gcd}(\beta_{j},\frac{n}{d})=1.$ If we define $\alpha_{j}:=d\beta_{j}\in\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ then $\mathrm{gcd}(\alpha_{j},n)=d.$ For, if $s=\mathrm{gcd}(\alpha_{j},n)$ and $d|s$ then $s|\alpha_{j}\Rightarrow s|d\beta_{j}\Rightarrow\frac{s}{d}|\beta_{j}$ and $\frac{s}{d}|\frac{n}{d}\Rightarrow\frac{s}{d}|\mathrm{gcd}(\beta_{j},\frac{n}{d})\Rightarrow\frac{s}{d}|1\Rightarrow s=d.$ Now, for each $j$ consider the $n-\alpha_{j}$ pairs of the form $(i,i+\alpha_{j})$ where $i=0,\ldots,n-\alpha_{j}-1$. We have $|A_{i}\cap A_{i+\alpha_{j}}|=|A_{0}\cap A_{\alpha_{j}}|$ and $$\sum_{\beta>\gamma,d=\mathrm{gcd}(\beta-\gamma,n)}|A_{\gamma}\cap A_{\beta}|=\sum_{j=1}^{k}(n-\alpha_{j})|A_{0}\cap A_{\alpha_{j}}|=\sum_{j=1}^{k}(n-\alpha_{j})dn^{m-2}=dn^{m-2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}n-\alpha_{j}$$ where $d=\mathrm{gcd}(\alpha_{j},n)$ and $k=\phi(\frac{n}{d}).$ Since $\mathrm{gcd}(n,\alpha_{j})=d \iff \mathrm{gcd}(n,n-\alpha_{j})=d$ we have $\sum_{j=1}^{k}n-\alpha_{j}=\sum_{j=1}^{k}\alpha_{j}$. Then $$2\sum_{j=1}^{k}\alpha_{j}=\sum_{j=1}^{k}\alpha_{j}+\sum_{j=1}^{k}n-\alpha_{j}=\sum_{j=1}^{k}n=kn=\phi(\frac{n}{d})n
~~ \Longrightarrow ~~
\sum_{j=1}^{k}\alpha_{j}=\frac{n}{2}\phi(\frac{n}{d}).$$ It follows that $$\sum_{\beta>\gamma,d=\mathrm{gcd}(\beta-\gamma,n)}|A_{\gamma}\cap A_{\beta}|=dn^{m-2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}n-\alpha_{j}=dn^{m-2}\sum_{j=1}^{k}\alpha_{j}=\frac{n}{2}\phi(\frac{n}{d})dn^{m-2}.$$ Then by Proposition 1 it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Var}[X] & = & \mathrm{E}[X^{2}]-\mathrm{E}[X]^{2}=-1^2+\mathrm{E}[X^{2}]\\
& = & -1+\sum_{i=0}^{n}i^{2}x_{i}=-1+\sum_{i=0}^{n}i^{2}\frac{b_{i}}{n^{m}}=-1+\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{n}i^{2}b_{i}}{n^{m}}\\
& = & -1+\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}|A_{i}|+2\sum_{i<j}|A_{i}\cap A_{j}|}{n^{m}}\\
& = & -1+\frac{nn^{m-1}}{n^{m}}+\frac{2\sum_{d|n\,d\neq n}\frac{n}{2}\phi(\frac{n}{d})dn^{m-2}}{n^{m}}\\
& = & 2\sum_{d|n\,d\neq n}\frac{n}{2}\phi(\frac{n}{d})dn^{-2}
~ = ~ \sum_{d|n\,d\neq n}\frac{d}{n}\phi(\frac{n}{d}).\end{aligned}$$ Also, since by Gauss’ Lemma $\sum_{d|n}\phi(\frac{n}{d}) = n$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d|n}\frac{d-1}{n}\phi(\frac{n}{d}) & = & \sum_{d|n}\frac{d}{n}\phi(\frac{n}{d})-\frac{1}{n}\sum_{d|n}\phi(\frac{n}{d})\\
& = & \phi(1)+\sum_{d|n,d\neq n}\frac{d}{n}\phi(\frac{n}{d})-\frac{1}{n} n
~ = ~ \sum_{d|n,d\neq n}\frac{d}{n}\phi(\frac{n}{d}).\end{aligned}$$ To prove the last claim, let $n=p^{k}$ where $p$ is a prime number and $k\geq1$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{d|n,d\neq n}\frac{d}{n}\phi(\frac{n}{d}) & = & \sum_{s=0}^{k-1}\frac{p^{s}}{p^{k}}\phi(\frac{p^{k}}{p^{s}})=\sum_{s=0}^{k-1}p^{s-k}p^{k-s-1}(p-1)=k(1-1/p).\end{aligned}$$
Let $f,g$ be polynomials in ${{\mathbb F}}_q[x,y]$ of the form $f = c_n x^n + \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \sum_{j=0}^{n-i} c_{ij} x^i y^j$ and $g = d_m x^m + \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \sum_{j=0}^{m-i} d_{ij} x^i y^j$ with $c_n \ne 0$ and $d_m \ne 0$, thus of total degree $n$ and $m$ respectively. Let $X$ be a random variable that counts the number of $\gamma\in{{\mathbb F}}_{q}$ such that $\mathrm{gcd}(f(x,\gamma),g(x,\gamma))\neq 1$. If $n>0$ and $m>0$ then
- $\mathrm{E}[X] = 1$ and
- $\mathrm{Var}[X] = 1-1/q.$
[**Remark 2.**]{} We found this result by computation. For quadratic polynomials $f,g$ of the form $f = x^2 + (a_1 y + a_2) x + a_3 y^2 + a_4 y + a_5$ and $g = x^2 + (b_1 y + b_2) x + b_3 y^2 + b_4 y + b_5$ over finite fields of size $q=2,3,4,5,8,9,11$ we generated all $q^{10}$ pairs and computed $X = \left| \{ \alpha \in {{\mathbb F}}_q : \gcd(f(x,\alpha),g(x,\alpha)) \ne 1 \} \right|.$ Magma code for ${{\mathbb F}}_4$ is given in Appendix A. We repeated this for cubic polynomials and some higher degree bivariate polynomials for $q=2,3$ to verify that ${\rm E}[X]=1$ and ${\rm Var}[X]=1-1/q$ holds more generally. For yet higher degree polynomials we used random samples. That ${\rm E}[X]=1$ independent of the degrees of $f$ and $g$ was a surprise to us. We had expected a logarithmic dependence on the degrees of $f$ and $g$.
[**Proof:**]{} Without loss of generality we may assume $f$ and $g$ are monic in $x$ because $\gcd(f(x,\gamma),g(x,\gamma)) = 1 \iff \gcd( c_n^{-1} f(x,\gamma), d_m^{-1} g(x,\gamma) ) = 1$. For $\gamma\in{{\mathbb F}}_{q},$ let us define $A_{\gamma}$ as the set of polynomial pairs $(f,g)\in\mathbb{F}_{q}[x,y]^{2}$ where $f,g$ are monic in $x$ with total degrees, $\mathrm{deg}(f)=n>0$ and $\mathrm{deg}(g)=m>0$ such that $\mathrm{gcd}(f(x,\gamma),g(x,\gamma))\neq1.$ Our first aim is to compute $|A_{0}|$.
Let $(f,g)\in A_{0}$. Since $f$ and $g$ are monic in $x$, $f(x,0),g(x,0)$ are monic polynomials of degree $n$ and $m$ respectively in $\mathbb{F}_{q}[x].$ We have finitely many choices, say $s,$ for non-relatively prime monic polynomial pairs $(h_{i}(x),l_{i}(x))$ with $\mathrm{deg}(h_{i})=n$ and $\mathrm{deg}(l_{i})=m$ with $i=1,\ldots,s$$ $ in $\mathbb{F}_{q}[x]^{2}.$ Let $(f(x,0),g(x,0))=(h_{i}(x),l_{i}(x))$ for some fixed $i$ where $1\leq i\leq s$. In fact $s=(q^{n}q^{m})/q=q^{n+m-1}$, since there are $q^{n}q^{m}$ possible choices for monic polynomial pairs $(h,l)$ in $\mathbb{F}_{q}[x]$ with $\mathrm{deg}(h)=n$, $\mathrm{deg}(l)=m$ and the probability of a given monic pair is non-relatively prime over $\mathbb{F}_{q}[x]$ is $1/q$ (see [@panario; @berlekamp] and also [@benjamin] for an accessible proof).
Let $f(x,y)=x^{n}+c_{n-1}(y)x^{n-1}+\cdots+c_{1}(y)x+c_{0}(y)$ where $c_{d}(y)\in\mathbb{F}_{q}[y]$ of total degree $\mathrm{deg}(c_{n-d}(y))\leq d$ and let $c_{n-d}(y)=a_{d}^{(n-d)}y^{d}+\cdots+a_{0}^{(n-d)}$ where $a_{i}^{(n-d)}\in\mathbb{F}_{q}$.
Let $h_{i}(x)=x^{n}+\alpha_{n-1}^{(i)}x^{n-1}+\cdots+\alpha_{0}^{(i)}$ with $\alpha_{v}^{(i)}\in\mathbb{F}_{q}$ for $0\leq v\leq n-1$. Then for $1\leq d\leq n$, we have $c_{n-d}(0)=a_{0}^{(n-d)}=\alpha_{n-d}^{(i)}.$ It follows that there are $q^{d}$ choices for such $c_{n-d}(y)$ and hence there are $q^{1}q^{2}\cdots q^{n}=q^{n(n+1)/2}$ choices for such $f(x,y)$. Similarly there are $q^{m(m+1)/2}$ choices for $g(x,y)$. Let us denote these numbers as $D=q^{n(n+1)/2}$ and $R=q^{m(m+1)/2}$. Since we have $s$ choices for $i$, $|A_{0}|=sDR$.
On the other hand for a given $\gamma\in\mathbb{F}_{q}$ if $(f(x,y),g(x,y))\in A_{0}$ then $(f(x,y-\gamma),g(x,y-\gamma))\in A_{\gamma},$ since $f(x,y-\gamma)$ is again a bivariate polynomial which is a monic polynomial in $x$ of total degree $n$ and $g(x,y-\gamma)$ is again a bivariate polynomial which is monic polynomial in $x$ of total degree $m$. This correspondence (coordinate transformation) is bijective. Hence for any $\gamma\in\mathbb{F}_{q},$ one has $|A_{\gamma}|=sDR.$
For a general polynomial $f(x,y)\in\mathbb{F}_{q}[x,y]$ which is monic in $x$ and of total degree $n>0$, one has $q^{2}q^{3}\cdots q^{n+1}=q^{n}D$ choices. Similarly for a general polynomial $g(x,y)\in\mathbb{F}_{q}[x,y]$ which is monic in $x$ and of total degree $m>0$, one has $q^{2}q^{3}\cdots q^{m+1}=q^{m}R$ choices and therefore there are $q^{n+m}DR$ pairs $(f,g)$ which are monic in $x$ with total degrees $\mathrm{deg}(f)=n$ and $\mathrm{deg}(g)=m$.
Let $x_{i}:=\mathrm{Prob}[X=i]$. This is the probability that $\mathrm{gcd}(f(x,\gamma),g(x,\gamma))\neq1$ for exactly $i$ different $\gamma$’s in $\mathbb{F}_{q},$ i.e. the probability that $(f,g)\in B_{i}$ in the notation introduced in section 1 considering the finite collection of sets $\Gamma=\{A_{\gamma},\gamma \in {{\mathbb F}}_q\}$. Hence $x_{i}=\frac{b_{i}}{q^{n+m}DR}$. Then by Proposition 1 $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{E}[X] & = & \sum_{i=0}^{q}ix_{i}=\sum_{i=0}^{q}i\frac{b_{i}}{q^{n+m}DR}=\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{q}ib_{i}}{q^{n+m}DR}\\
& = & \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{q-1}|A_{i}|}{q^{n+m}DR}=\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{q-1}sDR}{q^{n+m}DR}=\frac{qsDR}{q^{n+m}DR}=\frac{qq^{n+m-1}}{q^{n+m}}=1.\end{aligned}$$ To determine the variance of $X$, our proof assumes a set ordering of the elements of ${{\mathbb F}}_q.$ For this purpose let us fix a generator $\alpha$ of ${{\mathbb F}}_q^*$ and use the ordering $0 < 1 < \alpha < \alpha^2 < \dots < \alpha^{q-2}$.
For $(\gamma,\theta) \in {{\mathbb F}}_q^2$ with $\gamma<\theta$, let us define $A_{\gamma,\theta}$ as the set of bivariate polynomial pairs $(f,g)$ with $f,g$ are monic in $x$ with total degrees, $\mathrm{deg}(f)=n>0$ and $\mathrm{deg}(g)=m>0$ such that $\mathrm{gcd}(f(x,\gamma),g(x,\gamma))\neq1$ and $\mathrm{gcd}(f(x,\theta),g(x,\theta))\neq1$. Our first aim is to compute $|A_{0,1}|.$
Let $f,g\in A_{0,1}$. Since $f$ and $g$ are monic in $x$, $f(x,0),f(x,1)$ are monic polynomials of degree $n$ and $g(x,0),g(x,1)$ are monic polynomials of degree $m$ in $\mathbb{F}_{q}[x].$ We have finitely many choices for non-relatively prime monic polynomial pairs $(h_{i}(x),l_{i}(x))$ with $\mathrm{deg}(h_{i})=n$ and $\mathrm{deg}(l_{i})=m$ with $i=1,\ldots,s$$ $ in $\mathbb{F}_{q}[x]^{2}.$
Let $(f(x,0),g(x,0))=(h_{i}(x),l_{i}(x))$ and $(f(x,1),g(x,1))=(h_{j}(x),l_{j}(x))$ for some fixed pair $(i,j)$ where $1\leq i,j\leq s$.
Let $f(x,y)=x^{n}+c_{n-1}(y)x^{n-1}+\cdots+c_{1}(y)x+c_{0}(y)$ where $c_{d}(y)\in\mathbb{F}_{q}[y]$ of total degree $\mathrm{deg}(c_{n-d}(y))\leq d$ and let $c_{n-d}(y)=a_{d}^{(n-d)}y^{d}+\cdots+a_{0}^{(n-d)}$ where $a_{i}^{(n-d)}\in\mathbb{F}_{q}$.
Let $h_{i}(x)=x^{n}+\alpha_{n-1}^{(i)}x^{n-1}+\cdots+\alpha_{0}^{(i)}$ and $h_{j}(x)=x^{n}+\beta_{n-1}^{(j)}x^{n-1}+\cdots+\beta_{0}^{(j)}$ with $\alpha_{v}^{(i)},\beta_{w}^{(j)}\in\mathbb{F}_{q}$ for $0\leq v,w\leq n-1$. Then for $1\leq d\leq n$, we have
$c_{n-d}(0)=a_{0}^{(n-d)}=\alpha_{n-d}^{(i)} ~~{\rm and}~~ c_{n-d}(1)=a_{d}^{(n-d)}+\cdots+a_{1}^{(n-d)}+a_{0}^{(n-d)}=\beta_{n-d}^{(j)}.$
It follows that there are $q^{d-1}$ choices for such $c_{n-d}(y)$ and hence there are $q^{0}q^{1}\cdots q^{n-1}=q^{n(n-1)/2}$ choices for such $f(x,y)$. Similarly there are $q^{m(m-1)/2}$ choices for $g(x,y)$. Let us call these numbers as $D_{1}=q^{n(n-1)/2}$ and $R_{1}=q^{m(m-1)/2}$. Since we have $s^{2}$ choices for $(i,j)$ ($i$ and $j$ are need not be different, $|A_{0,1}|=s^{2}D_{1}R_{1}.$
On the other hand if $(f(x,y),g(x,y))\in A_{0,1}$ then for $\gamma,\theta\in\mathbb{F}_{q}$ with $\gamma<\theta$, $(f(x,\frac{y-\gamma}{\theta-\gamma}),g(x,\frac{y-\gamma}{\theta-\gamma}))\in A_{\gamma,\theta}$, since $f(x,\frac{y-\gamma}{\theta-\gamma})$ is again a monic polynomial in $x$ of total degree $n$ and $g(x,\frac{y-\gamma}{\theta-\gamma})$ is again a monic polynomial in $x$ of total degree $m$. This correspondence (coordinate transformation) is bijective and preserves relative primeness. Hence for a given $\gamma,\theta\in\mathbb{F}_{q}$ with $\gamma<\theta$, one has $|A_{\gamma,\theta}|=s^{2}D_{1}R_{1}.$
For a general bivariate polynomial $f(x,y)\in\mathbb{F}_{q}[x,y]$ which is monic in $x$ and of total degree $n$, one has $q^{2}q^{3}\cdots q^{n+1}=q^{2n}D_{1}$ choices. Similarly for a general bivariate polynomial $g(x,y)\in\mathbb{F}_{q}[x,y]$ which is monic in $x$ and of total degree $m$, one has $q^{2}q^{3}\cdots q^{m+1}=q^{2m}R_{1}$ choices and therefore the number of bivariate polynomial pairs in $(f,g)$ which are monic in $x$ with total degrees, $\mathrm{deg}(f)=n$ and $\mathrm{deg}(g)=m$ is $q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}.$ Then with this notation we have $x_{i}=\frac{b_{i}}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}.$
Since we have $\binom{q}{2}$ choices for $(\gamma,\theta)$ with $\gamma<\theta$, $|A_{\gamma,\theta}|=s^{2}D_{1}R_{1}$ for all $(\gamma,\theta)$ with $\gamma<\theta$ and $\mathrm{E}[X]=1,$ by Proposition 1 we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Var}[X] & = & \mathrm{E}[X^{2}]-\mathrm{E}[X]^{2}
~ = ~ \mathrm{E}[X^{2}]-1^{2}
~ = ~ -1+\sum_{i=0}^{q}i^{2}x_{i}\\
& = & -1+\sum_{i=0}^{q}i^{2}\frac{b_{i}}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}
~ = ~-1+\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{q}i^{2}b_{i}}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}\\
& = & -1+\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{q-1}|A_{i}|+2\sum_{i<j}|A_{i}\cap A_{j}|}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}
~ = ~ -1+\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{q-1}|A_{i}|}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}+\frac{2\sum_{i<j}s^{2}D_{1}R_{1}}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}\\
& = & -1+\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{q}ib_{i}}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}+\frac{2\sum_{i<j}s^{2}D_{1}R_{1}}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}
~ = ~ -1+\sum_{i=0}^{q}i\frac{b_{i}}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}+\frac{2\sum_{i<j}s^{2}D_{1}R_{1}}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}\\
& = & -1+\sum_{i=0}^{q}ix_{i}+\frac{2\sum_{i<j}s^{2}D_{1}R_{1}}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}
~ = ~ -1+\mathrm{E}[X]+\frac{2\sum_{i<j}s^{2}D_{1}R_{1}}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}\\
& = & -1+1+\frac{2\sum_{i<j}s^{2}D_{1}R_{1}}{q^{2n+2m}D_{1}R_{1}}=\frac{2\binom{q}{2}s^{2}D_{1}R_{1}}{q^{2n}q^{2m}D_{1}R_{1}}
~ = ~ \frac{q(q-1)q^{2n+2m-2}}{q^{2n+2m}} \\
& = & \frac{q(q-1)}{q^{2}}
~ = ~1-\frac{1}{q}. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \Box\end{aligned}$$
Let $f,g\in\mathbb{F}_{q}[x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}]$ be of the form $f = c_l x_1^l + \sum_{i=0}^{l-1} c_{l-i}(x_2,\dots,x_n) x^i$ and $g = d_m x_1^m + \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} d_{m-i}(x_2,\dots,x_n) x^i$ where $c_l \ne 0,$ $d_m \ne 0,$ $\deg c_{l-i} \le l-i$, and $\deg d_{m-i} \le m-i$, thus $f$ and $g$ have total degree $l$ and $m$ respectively. Let $X$ be a random variable which counts the number of $\gamma=(\gamma_{2},\ldots,\gamma_{n})\in\mathbb{F}_{q}^{n-1}$ such that $\mathrm{gcd}(f(x_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_n),g(x_1,\gamma_2,\ldots,\gamma_n))\neq1.$\
If $n>1$, $l>0$ and $m>0$ then
- ${{\rm E}}[X]=q^{n-2}$ and
- ${{\rm Var}}[X]=q^{n-2}(1-1/q).$
It follows from (a) that if $\gamma$ is chosen at random from ${{\mathbb F}}_q^{n-1}$ then $${{\rm Prob}}[ \, \gcd( f(x_1,\gamma_2,\dots,\gamma_n), g(x_2,\gamma_2,\dots,\gamma_n) \ne 1 \, ] \, = \, \frac{q^{n-2}}{q^{n-1}} \, =\, \frac{1}{q}.$$
A comparison with the binomial distribution.
--------------------------------------------
Let $Y$ be a random variable from a binomial distribution $B(n,p)$ with $n$ trials and probability $p$. So $0 \le Y \le n$, ${{\rm Prob}}[Y=k] = {n \choose k} p^k (1-p)^{n-k}$, $E[Y]=np$ and ${{\rm Var}}[Y]=np(1-p)$. We noticed that the mean and variance of $X$ in Theorem 2 is the same as the mean and variance of the binomial distribution $B(n,p)$ with $n=q$ trials and probability $p=1/q.$ In Table 1 below we compare the two distributions for
------------------------------------------------------------ --
$ f = x^2 + (a_1 y + a_2 )x + (a_3 y^2 + a_4 y + a_5)$ and
$ g = x^2 + (b_1 y + b_2 )x + (b_3 y^2 + b_4 y + b_5)$
------------------------------------------------------------ --
in ${{\mathbb F}}_q[x,y]$ with $q=7$. Note that there are $7^{10}$ pairs for $f,g$. In Table 1 $F_k$ is the number of pairs for which $\gcd(f(x,\alpha),g(x,\alpha)) \ne 1$ for exactly $k$ values for $\alpha \in {{\mathbb F}}_7$. We computed $F_k$ by computing this $\gcd$ for all distinct pairs using Maple. The values for $B_k$ come from $B(7,1/7)$. They are given by $B_k = 7^{10} {{\rm Prob}}[Y=k]$.
------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- --------- -------- ------- --------
$k $ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
$F_k$ 96606636 110666892 56053746 17287200 1728720 0 0 132055
$B_k$ 96018048 112021056 56010528 15558480 2593080 259308 14406 343
------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- --------- -------- ------- --------
: Data for quadratic $(f,g)$ in ${{\mathbb F}}_7[x,y]$
The two zeros $F_{5}$ and $F_{6}$ can be explained as follows. Let $R(y)$ be the Sylvester resultant of $f$ and $g$. Then applying Lemma 1 we have $ R(\alpha) = 0 \iff \gcd(f(x,\alpha),g(x,\alpha)) \ne 1 ~{\rm for}~ \alpha \in {{\mathbb F}}_q.$ For our quadratic polynomials $f$ and $g$, Lemma 1(ii) implies $\deg R \le \deg f \deg g = 4$. Hence $R(y)$ can have at most 4 distinct roots unless $f$ and $g$ are not coprime in ${{\mathbb F}}_7[x,y]$ in which case $R(y)=0$ and it has 7 roots. Therefore $F_5=0,$ $F_6=0$ and $F_{7} = 132055$ is the number pairs $f,g$ which are not coprime in ${{\mathbb F}}_7[x,y]$.
[10]{}
Arthur Benjamin and Curtis Bennett. The Probability of Relatively Prime Polynomials. [*Mathematics Magazine*]{} [**80**]{} (3), 197–202, 2007.
Erwin Berlekamp. [*Algebraic Coding Theory*]{}, McGraw-Hill, 1968.
David Cox, John Little and Donal O’Shea. [*Ideals, Varieties and Algorithms*]{}. Springer-Verlag, 3rd ed., 2007.
J. de Kleine, M. B. Monagan, A. D. Wittkopf. Algorithms for the Non-monic case of the Sparse Modular GCD Algorithm. [*Proc. ISSAC ’05*]{}, ACM Press, (2005), 124–131.
Arnold Knopfmacher and John Knopfmacher. Counting irreducible factors of polynomials over finite fields. [*Discrete Mathematics*]{} [**112**]{} (1993) 103–118.
Michael Monagan and Baris Tuncer. Using Sparse Interpolation to Solve Multivariate Diophantine Equations. [*Communications in Computer Algebra 49:3*]{}, Issue 193, pp. 94$-$97, September 2015.
Sequence http://oeis.org/A006579 in [*The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences*]{}, published electronically at http://oeis.org, 2010.
Gary Mullen and Daniel Panario. 11.2.3.4 Greatest common divisors of polynomials. [*Handbook of Finite Fields.*]{} CRC Press, 2013.
Wolfgang Schmidt. [*Equations over Finite Fields: An Elementary Approach.*]{} Springer-Verlag LNCS [**536**]{} (1976) Ch 4 pp. 157–159.
Jack Scwartz, Fast probabilistic algorithms for verification of polynomial identities. [*J. ACM*]{} [**27**]{} 701–717, 1980. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwartz%E2%80%93Zippel\_lemma .
Richard. Zippel. Probabilistic Algorithms for Sparse Polynomials, [*Proc. EUROSAM ’79*]{}, Springer-Verlag LNCS, [**2**]{}, 216–226, 1979.
Appendix A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyzed conditions for Hopf and Turing instabilities to occur in two-component fractional reaction-diffusion systems. We showed that the eigenvalue spectrum and fractional derivative order mainly determine the type of instability and the dynamics of the system. The results of the linear stability analysis are confirmed by computer simulation of the model with cubic nonlinearity for activator variable and linear dependance for the inhibitor one. It is shown that pattern formation conditions of instability and transient dynamics are different than for a standard system. As a result, more complicated pattern formation dynamics takes place in fractional reaction-diffusion systems.'
author:
- 'B.Y. Datsko'
- 'V.V. Gafiychuk'
bibliography:
- 'asme2e.bib'
title: 'Analysis of instabilities and pattern formation in time fractional reaction-diffusion systems'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In reaction-diffusion systems a stable equilibrium solution usually changes spontaneously with parameters to limit cycle by Hopf bifurcation or stationary dissipative structures by Turing bifurcation. As a result, we obtain nonlinear dynamics leading to stationary or oscillatory structures. When conditions of both instabilities arise, we can expect more complex dynamics [@pr; @ch; @KO]. In case of a fractional reaction-diffusion (FRD) system dynamics can be much more complex [hw1,lhw,hw2,gd,gd07,gd08,cam,siam,Nec]{}.
Last investigation showed that many complex heterogenous systems are described by differential equations with fractional derivatives to represent their anomalous behavior [@zz; @kl; @mach; @KST; @Uch; @ip]. Therefore, investigation of pattern formation in FRD system has both theoretical and applied interest.
In this article the FRD system with cubic nonlinearity is studied for the case when both instabilities take place. We have focused on the dynamics of FRD model under conditions when sufficiently complex patterns arise in the system dynamics. The results of analytical treatment of the linearized model are validated by computer simulations of nonlinear dynamics.
MATHEMATICAL MODEL {#sec:2}
==================
Let us consider the FRD system $$\tau \;_{c}u_{t}^{^{\alpha }}=lu_{xx}+W(u,\mathcal{A}), \label{1}$$with two variables $u=(u_{1,}u_{2})^{T}$ on the $x\in
{(0,\mathcal{L})}$ subject to Neumann: $u_{x}|_{x=0,\mathcal{L}_{x}}=0$ boundary conditions and with certain initial conditions, $W=(W_{1},W_{2})^{T}$, $\quad
W_{1},W_{2}$ - smooth reaction kinetics functions, $\mathcal{A}$ - real parameter, $\tau $ and $l$ are positive diagonal matrices $\tau =diag[{\tau _{i}}],$ $l=diag[{%
l_{i}^{2}}]>0$ .
Fractional derivatives $_{c}u_{t}^{^{\alpha }}$ on the left hand side of the equations (\[1\]), instead of the standard time derivatives, are the Caputo fractional derivatives in time [@ip; @skm] of the order $0<\alpha <2 $ and are represented as $$_{c}u_{t}^{^{\alpha }}=\frac{\partial _{c}^{\alpha }u(t)}{\partial
t^{\alpha
}}:=\frac{1}{\Gamma (m-\alpha )}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\frac{u^{(m)}(\tau )}{%
(t-\tau )^{\alpha +1-m}}d\tau ,$$where $\;m-1<\alpha <m,m\in \overline{1,2}$.
LINEAR STABILITY ANALYSIS
=========================
Due to the property of Caputo derivative the stability of the steady-state solutions of the system (\[1\]) corresponding to homogeneous equilibrium state $W(u_{0},\mathcal{A}_{0})=0$\[eq\] can be analyzed by linearization of the system nearby this constant solution $u_{0}=(\overline{u%
}_{1},\overline{u}_{2})^{T}$. The linearization of FRD system (\[1\]) leads to fractional ODEs with right hand side matrix $F(k)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(a_{11}-k^{2}l_{1}^{2})/\tau _{1} & a_{12}/\tau _{1} \\
a_{21}/\tau _{2} & (a_{22}-k^{2}l_{2}^{2})/\tau _{2}%
\end{array}%
\right) $, diagonal form of which is given by eigenvalues $\lambda _{1,2}=%
\frac{1}{2}(trF\pm \sqrt{tr^{2}F-4\det F})$ (coefficients $a_{ij}$ represent Jacoby matrix).
For $\alpha :0<\alpha <2$ for every point inside the parabola $%
\det F=tr^{2}F/4$, we can introduce a marginal value $\alpha :\alpha _{0}=$ $%
\frac{2}{\pi }|Arg(\lambda _{i})|$ given by the formula [@gd07; @gd08] $$\alpha _{0}=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{2}{\pi }\arctan \sqrt{4\det F/tr^{2}F-1}, & trF>0, \\
2-\frac{2}{\pi }\arctan \sqrt{4\det F/tr^{2}F-1}, & trF<0.%
\end{array}%
\right. \label{al}$$The value of $\alpha $ is a certain additional bifurcation parameter which switches the stable and unstable states of the system. At lower $\alpha :$ $%
\alpha <\alpha _{0}=$ $\frac{2}{\pi }|Arg(\lambda _{i})|$, the system has oscillatory modes, but they are stable. Increasing the value of $\alpha
>\alpha _{0}=$ $\frac{2}{\pi }|Arg(\lambda _{i})|$ leads to oscillatory instability.
It is widely known for integer time derivatives [@pr; @ch; @KO]that system (\[1\]) becomes unstable according to either Hopf ($k=0$) $$trF>0,\quad \det F(0)>0. \label{ho}$$or Turing ($k_{0}\neq 0$) bifurcations
$$trF<0,\quad \det F(0)>0,\quad \det F(k_{0})<0. \label{tu}$$
and these both types of instabilities are realized for positive feedback ($%
a_{11}>0)$ [@pr; @ch; @KO]$.$
In the case of fractional derivative index, Hopf bifurcation is not connected with the condition $a_{11}>0$ and can hold at a certain value of $%
\alpha $ when the fractional derivative index is sufficiently large [cam]{}. Moreover, in fractional RD systems at $\alpha >1$ when it is easier to satisfy conditions of Hopf bifurcation, we meet a new type of instability [@gd07; @gd08] $$trF<0,\quad 4\det F(0)<tr^{2}F(0),\quad 4\det
F(k_{0})>tr^{2}F(k_{0}). \label{gd}$$It is worth to analyze inequalities (\[gd\]) in detail. Taking into account explicit form of $F(k)$ the last two conditions can be rewritten as: $$(a_{11}\tau _{1}-a_{22}\tau _{2})^{2}>-4a_{12}a_{21}\tau _{1}\tau
_{2}, \label{nho}$$$$-4a_{12}a_{21}\tau _{1}\tau _{2}>\left[
(a_{11}-k^{2}l_{1}^{2})\tau _{2}-(a_{22}-k^{2}l_{2}^{2})\tau
_{1}\right] ^{2}. \label{s2}$$The simplest way to satisfy the last condition is to estimate the optimal value of $k=k_{0}$ $$k_{0}=2\left( \frac{-a_{12}a_{21}}{l_{1}^{2}/\tau _{2}-l_{2}^{2}/\tau _{1}}%
\right) ^{1/2}. \label{k0}$$Having obtained (\[k0\]), we can estimate the marginal value of $\alpha _{0}$ $$\alpha _{0}=2-\frac{2}{\pi }\arctan T, \label{rad}$$where the expression $T$ has the following view $$T=\frac{\left( -4a_{12}a_{21}\tau _{1}\tau _{2}\right)
^{1/2}}{\left\vert \left( a_{11}\tau _{2}-a_{22}\tau _{1}\right)
\frac{l_{1}^{2}\tau _{2}+l_{2}^{2}\tau _{1}}{l_{2}^{2}\tau
_{2}-l_{2}^{2}\tau _{1}}\right\vert -a_{11}\tau _{2}-a_{22}\tau
_{1}}. \label{tt}$$
The analysis of expressions (\[gd\]) shows that at $k=0$ we have two real eigenvalues that are less than zero, and the system is certainly stable for the Hopf bifurcation. If the last inequality takes place for a certain value of $k_{0}\neq 0,$ we can get two complex eigenvalues, and a new type of instability, connected with the interplay between the determinant and the trace of $F(k)$ of the linearized system, emerges. With such type of eigenvalues, it is possible to determine the value of fractional derivative index when the system becomes unstable for Hopf bifurcation with this wave number [@gd07].
FRACTIONAL REACTION DIFFUSION SYSTEM WITH CUBIC NONLINEARITY
=============================================================
To demonstrate the properties of FRD system, let us consider the model with cubic dependance for activator variable $W_{1}=u_{1}-u_{1}^{3}-u_{2}$ and the linear for the inhibitor variable $W_{2}=-u_{2}+\beta u_{1}+\mathcal{A}$. This model was proposed firstly by R. FitzHugh [@fh] for description of the propagation of voltage impulse through a nerve axon and is known as Bonhoeffer-van der Pol model. In RD systems this model was considered in many books and articles (see for example [@pr; @ch; @KO]). The homogeneous solution of variables $\overline{u}_{1}$ and $\overline{u}_{2}$ can be obtained from the system of equations $W_{1}(\overline{u}_{1},\overline{u}_{2})=0,W_{2}(%
\overline{u}_{1},\overline{u}_{2})=0$, which in their turn determine two nullclines $\overline{u}_{2}(\overline{u}_{1})$. The intersection of these nullclines in the point $P=(\overline{u}_{1},\overline{u}_{2})$ is determined by equation: $\overline{u}_{1}-\overline{u}_{1}^{3}-\beta
\overline{u}_{1}-\mathcal{A=}0.$ In this case the values of external parameters $A$,$\beta $ determine the value of $\overline{u}_{1}$ and this makes it possible to investigate the conditions of different types of instability explicitly considering parameter $\overline{u}_{1}$ as the main parameter for system analysis.
For investigation of the Hopf bifurcation let us consider homogeneous perturbation with $k=0$. The linear analysis of the system with $\alpha =1$ shows that, if $\tau _{1}/\tau _{2}>1$, the solution corresponding to any intersections of two isoclines is stable. The smaller is the ratio of $\tau _{1}/\tau _{2}$, the wider is the instability region (solid lines with points on Fig. 1). Formally, at $\tau _{1}/\tau _{2}\rightarrow 0$, the instability region for $\overline{u}_{1}$ coincides with the interval ($-1,1 $) where the null cline $W(u_{1},u_{2})=0$ has its increasing part (Fig. 2b). These results are very widely known in the theory of nonlinear dynamical systems [@pr; @ch; @KO].
In the fractional differential equations the conditions of the instability depend on the value of $\alpha $ and we have to analyze the real and the imaginary parts of the existing complex eigenvalues, especially the equation: $$4\det F-tr^{2}F=\frac{4((\beta -1)+\overline{u}_{1}^{2})}{\tau _{1}\tau _{2}}%
-\left( \frac{(1-\overline{u}_{1}^{2})}{\tau _{1}}-\frac{1}{\tau _{2}}%
\right) ^{2}>0. \label{ri}$$In fact, with complex eigenvalues, it is possible to find the corresponding value of $\alpha $ where the condition $\alpha
>\alpha _{0}$ is true. Omitting simple calculation, we can write an equation for marginal values of $\overline{u}_{1}$ $$\overline{u}_{1}^{4}-2(1+\frac{\tau _{1}}{\tau _{2}})\overline{u}_{1}^{2}+%
\frac{\tau _{1}^{2}}{\tau _{2}^{2}}-2\frac{\tau _{1}}{\tau
_{2}}(2\beta -1)+1=0, \label{ri1}$$and solution of this biquadratic equation gives us the domain where the oscillatory instability can arise $$\overline{u}_{1}^{2}=1+\frac{\tau _{1}}{\tau _{2}}\pm 2\sqrt{\beta \frac{%
\tau _{1}}{\tau _{2}}}. \label{t}$$This expression estimates the maximum and minimum values of $\overline{u}%
_{1} $ where the system can be unstable at marginal value of $\alpha =\alpha _{0}=2$ as a function of $\tau _{1}/\tau _{2}$ and $\beta $.
The typical stability domains for considered FRD system in the coordinates ($%
\overline{u}_{1},\tau _{1}/\tau _{2}$) for different values of fractional derivative index $\alpha $ are presented in Fig.1a-d, where curves corresponding to $\alpha =1$ are denoted by more solid lines. This makes it possible to see how other curves $\alpha \neq 1$ are located with respect to standard system $\alpha =1$. The solid points on both sides denote the interval of maximum instability. For each particular value $\alpha $ in the region between the corresponding curve and horizontal axis, the system is unstable with wave numbers $k=0$, and outside it is stable. Figures (a) and (b) present the plots for the value of $\beta =1.01$. The left-hand side plot corresponds to $\alpha <1$ and the right-hand side plot corresponds to $%
\alpha >1$. It is easy to see from the plot (a) that if the value of $\tau _{1}/\tau _{2}$ increases (we move along vertical axis) the instability domain decreases ($\alpha <1$). At $\tau _{1}/\tau _{2}=1$ and $\alpha =1$ it vanishes completely. The solid point in the middle of each plots corresponds to the case when the system becomes stable for all values of $%
\overline{u}_{1}:$ point $(0,1)$ in coordinates ($\overline{u}_{1},\tau _{1}/\tau _{2}$). The situation changes for $\alpha >1.$ The system is unstable not only for $\tau
_{1}/\tau _{2}<1$ but also for $\tau _{1}/\tau _{2}>1.$ An increase in $\alpha $ makes the instability domain much wider with respect to two coordinates ($\overline{u}_{1},\tau _{1}/\tau
_{2}$) and we obtain butterfly like domains for $\alpha >1.$ This means that with increasing $\tau _{1}/\tau _{2}$ (moving along vertical axis) the system becomes stable in the center and unstable at greater values $\overline{u}_{1} $ In such case the instability domain becomes symmetric along vertical axis with the minimum point at the $\overline{u}_{1}=0$. We observe similar behavior for large values of $\beta .$ Instability domains in Fig. 1c,d are presented for $\beta =10$ and show the same trend with respect to $%
\alpha ,$ but the region for $\alpha >1$ is much greater than for $\beta =1.01$. At the same time, for $\alpha <1$ and $\beta =10$ instability domain shrinks very sharply in comparison to the same domain plot when $\beta =1.01$.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Instability domains in coordinates $(\overline{u}_{1},\protect\tau % ![Instability domains in coordinates $(\overline{u}_{1},\protect\tau %
_{1}/\protect\tau _{2})$ for a fractional order reaction-diffusion system with sources $W_{1}=u_{1}-u_{1}^{3}-u_{2}$, $W_{2}=-u_{2}+\beta u_{1}+\mathcal{A}$ for different values of $\protect\alpha _{0}=0.25,0.5,0.75,1.0,1.25,1.5,1.75$. The results of computer simulation obtained at $l_{1}=l_{2}=0$ for: $% _{1}/\protect\tau _{2})$ for a fractional order reaction-diffusion system with sources $W_{1}=u_{1}-u_{1}^{3}-u_{2}$, $W_{2}=-u_{2}+\beta u_{1}+\mathcal{A}$ for different values of $\protect\alpha _{0}=0.25,0.5,0.75,1.0,1.25,1.5,1.75$. The results of computer simulation obtained at $l_{1}=l_{2}=0$ for: $%
\protect\beta =1.01$ - (a), (b) and $\protect\beta =10.0$ - (c), (d) . []{data-label="rys1"}](Area_b_1_L1_JCND1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"} \protect\beta =1.01$ - (a), (b) and $\protect\beta =10.0$ - (c), (d) . []{data-label="rys1"}](Area_b_1_G1_JCND1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"}
(a) (b)
![Instability domains in coordinates $(\overline{u}_{1},\protect\tau % ![Instability domains in coordinates $(\overline{u}_{1},\protect\tau %
_{1}/\protect\tau _{2})$ for a fractional order reaction-diffusion system with sources $W_{1}=u_{1}-u_{1}^{3}-u_{2}$, $W_{2}=-u_{2}+\beta u_{1}+\mathcal{A}$ for different values of $\protect\alpha _{0}=0.25,0.5,0.75,1.0,1.25,1.5,1.75$. The results of computer simulation obtained at $l_{1}=l_{2}=0$ for: $% _{1}/\protect\tau _{2})$ for a fractional order reaction-diffusion system with sources $W_{1}=u_{1}-u_{1}^{3}-u_{2}$, $W_{2}=-u_{2}+\beta u_{1}+\mathcal{A}$ for different values of $\protect\alpha _{0}=0.25,0.5,0.75,1.0,1.25,1.5,1.75$. The results of computer simulation obtained at $l_{1}=l_{2}=0$ for: $%
\protect\beta =1.01$ - (a), (b) and $\protect\beta =10.0$ - (c), (d) . []{data-label="rys1"}](Area_b_10_L1_JCND1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"} \protect\beta =1.01$ - (a), (b) and $\protect\beta =10.0$ - (c), (d) . []{data-label="rys1"}](Area_b_10_G1_JCND1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"}
(c) (d)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is possible to obtain solid understanding of the mechanism of the instability from the plot of eigenvalues. Typical instability domains for the same parameters as on Fig. 1a,b for $k=0$ are presented on the Fig. 2a. Horizontal lines (i, ii, iii) on the instability domain plot correspond to eigenvalues plots below. Let us analyze each of the possible situations in more detail.
For the case (i) we have sub-domains with real positive, real negative and complex eigenvalues. The easiest way of obtaining instability is realized at $|\overline{u}_{1}|<\overline{u}_{1}^{E}$ when all the roots are real and positive (Fig. 2a(i)). This region is presented by dark grey color and positive eigenvalues mean that the system is unstable practically for any value of $\alpha >0.$ Inside the domain $|\overline{u}_{1}^{E}|<|\overline{u}%
_{1}|<|\overline{u}_{1}^{C}|$ there is a certain domain of $\alpha
:(0<\alpha <2)$ where the Hopf bifurcation takes place. Point $D$ divides the region into two domains where Re$\lambda <0$ and Re$\lambda >0.$ In the domain Re$\lambda <0$ the system could be unstable according to greater values of $\alpha >1.$ In turn, for Re$\lambda >0,$ the system could be stable at $\alpha <1.$ In other words, between points $C$ and $E$ we have eigenvalues with imaginary part, and the value of $\alpha $ can change the stability of the FRD system. In the domain $|\overline{u}_{1}|>|\overline{u%
}_{1}^{C}|$ we have two real and negative roots and, as a result, the system is stable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ Instability domains ($Re\protect\lambda $ - black lines, $Im\protect\lambda $ - grey lines) for $k=0,\protect\beta =1.05$ and different proportions of $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau %
_{2}=0.5-(i),1.0-(ii),2.0-(iii)$.[]{data-label="rys"}](ins_don_eig_v1_JCND1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="29.00000%"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ The null-clines for $%
\protect\beta =2.1,A=0.5$ and eigenvalues for different values of $k$ ($k=0$ - hair-lines, $k=1$ - dash lines, $k=2$ - thick lines) -**(b)**. The eigenvalues are presented for the following parameters: $l_{1}=0.025,\protect%
\beta =2.1,\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.21$ - (iv), $l_{1}=0.1,%
\protect\beta =1.01,\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.6$ - (v), $%
l_{1}=2.1,\protect\beta =1.01,\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau
_{2}=3.5$ - (vi). []{data-label="rys"}](clines__eig_v_k1f_JCND11.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="29.00000%"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For system parameters corresponding to the case (ii) the real part of eigenvalues becomes less than zero for all $\overline{u}_{1}$. At the same time, for $|\overline{u}_{1}|<|\overline{u}_{1}^{K}|$ the roots are complex and and according to condition (\[al\]) instability takes place for $%
\alpha >\alpha _{0}>1.$ For $|\overline{u}_{1}|>|\overline{u}_{1}^{K}|$ the roots become real and negative, and the system is stable.
In the case (iii) at the center of $\overline{u}_{1}$ ( $|\overline{u}_{1}|<|%
\overline{u}_{1}^{G}|)$ we have two real negative eigenvalues, and the system is stable. For $|\overline{u}_{1}^{G}|<|\overline{u}_{1}|<|\overline{u%
}_{1}^{H}|$ we have complex roots and certainly according to condition ([al]{}) instability takes place for $\alpha >\alpha _{0}>1.$ In this case, the instability domain consists of two symmetrical regions separated by a stable region at the center where the system is stable for any $\alpha $. For $|\overline{u}_{1}|>\overline{u}_{1}^{H}$ the system is stable again.
Let us analyze the Turing Bifurcation ($k\neq 0$). Eigenvalues for different values of $k$ are presented in Fig. 2b. The top plot corresponds to nullclines of the systems just to show that nullcline intersection determines eigenvalues in Fig. 2b(iv). We present eigenvalues for $k=1$ and $k=2$ and for comparison $k=0$. It can be seen from the picture (iv) that at intersection of nullclines in the vicinity of zero value of $%
\overline{u}_{1}$ nonhomogeneous modes have much greater values and we can expect a formation of stationary dissipative structures. If the ratio $%
l_{1}/l_{2}$ is sufficiently small, Turing bifurcation is dominant for all region $\overline{u}_{1}<1.$ Analyzing (\[tu\]) we can conclude that these conditions are practically the same for fractional and standard RD systems. However, what is very important is that the transient processes and the dynamics of these systems are different, and for this reason final attractors can often be different even though the linear conditions of instability look the same.
Now let us consider that the system parameters are close to the ones represented by point $P$ in Fig. 2b. As a result, for certain ratio of $%
Im\lambda $ and $Re\lambda $ we expect the formation of oscillatory inhomogeneous structures. However, if the solution $\overline{u}_{1}$ is close to zero, the decrease of $\alpha $ leads to steady state dissipative structures. Such trend is quite general and if in standard system we have steady state solutions, the increase of $\alpha $ in FRD system leads to non stationary structures. In this case, by changing intersection point of nullclines or value of $\alpha $ we can stimulate stationary or temporary pattern formation. If the absolute value of eigenvalues for $k=0$ and $k\neq 0 $ are comparable we can expect more complex spatio-temporal dynamics.
Above we have considered that the linearized system is unstable for either Hopf or Turing bifurcation. Below, we consider the case when we don’t have Turing or Hopf bifurcation. For realization of instability conditions ([gd]{}) for** **$k\neq 0,Im\lambda \neq 0$** **the fractional derivative index must be greater than some critical value $\alpha _{0}$. Eigenvalues for such instability are presented in Fig. 2b(v,vi). We can see that outside a small domain in the center the system is stable for $k=0$. At the same time on this interval we have complex eigenvalues for $k\neq 0$ (Fig. 2b (v)). In the plot (v) for $l_{1}/l_{2}<1$ we have a separate domain for $k=2$ where we can expect inhomogeneous oscillations with this wave number.
In Figure (vi) we present the situation where all roots have $Re\lambda <0$ and in standard system we do not have instability at any values of $%
\overline{u}_{1}.$ In FRD system the roots are complex for select values of $k$ ($k\neq 0$). In other words, for such system at $\alpha >1$ we can obtain conditions of Hopf bifurcation (\[gd\]) which lead to inhomogeneous oscillatory structures [@gd07; @gd08] even for $l_{1}/l_{2}>2$. This situation can be predicted from symmetrical view of expression (\[tt\]) for the system under consideration
$$T=2\sqrt{\beta }/\left[ \left\vert \left(
1-\overline{u}_{1}^{2}\right) \frac{l_{1}^{2}\tau
_{2}+l_{2}^{2}\tau _{1}}{l_{1}^{2}\tau _{2}-l_{2}^{2}\tau
_{1}}\right\vert -\left( 1-\overline{u}_{1}^{2}\right) \tau
_{2}/\tau _{1}+1\right] . \label{tt1}$$
The plot of these surfaces, as a function of $l_{1}/l_{2}$ and $\tau
_{2}/\tau _{1,}$ are presented in plots 3 (a-d) for different values of $%
\overline{u}_{1}.$ We can see that in Fig. (a) and (b) the maximum value of $T$ is reached at the boundary and $l_{1}/l_{2}<<1$ (Fig. 3a) and $\tau _{2}/\tau _{1}<<1$ (Fig. 3b). For figure. 3 c,d the optimal instability conditions are reached at certain combination of the parameters $l_{1}/l_{2}$ and $\tau
_{1}/\tau _{2}$ and we can expect inhomogeneous oscillations at different relationships of $l_{1}/l_{2}$ and $\tau _{1}/\tau
_{2}.$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The view of the surface $T$ in coordinates $\quad (\l _{1}/l_{2},% ![The view of the surface $T$ in coordinates $\quad (\l _{1}/l_{2},%
\protect\tau _{2}/\protect\tau _{1})\quad $ for $\protect\beta =2$ and different values of $u_{1}$ ($u_{1}=0.1$ - (a), $u_{1}=5.0$ - (b), $% \protect\tau _{2}/\protect\tau _{1})\quad $ for $\protect\beta =2$ and different values of $u_{1}$ ($u_{1}=0.1$ - (a), $u_{1}=5.0$ - (b), $%
u_{1}=1.25$ - (c), $u_{1}=1.5$ - (d)) []{data-label="rys10"}](dzeta_n_0_1La.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"} u_{1}=1.25$ - (c), $u_{1}=1.5$ - (d)) []{data-label="rys10"}](dzeta_n_5_0La.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"}
(a) (b)
![The view of the surface $T$ in coordinates $\quad (\l _{1}/l_{2},% ![The view of the surface $T$ in coordinates $\quad (\l _{1}/l_{2},%
\protect\tau _{2}/\protect\tau _{1})\quad $ for $\protect\beta =2$ and different values of $u_{1}$ ($u_{1}=0.1$ - (a), $u_{1}=5.0$ - (b), $% \protect\tau _{2}/\protect\tau _{1})\quad $ for $\protect\beta =2$ and different values of $u_{1}$ ($u_{1}=0.1$ - (a), $u_{1}=5.0$ - (b), $%
u_{1}=1.25$ - (c), $u_{1}=1.5$ - (d)) []{data-label="rys10"}](dzeta_n_1_2a.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"} u_{1}=1.25$ - (c), $u_{1}=1.5$ - (d)) []{data-label="rys10"}](dzeta_n_1_5a.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"}
(c) (d)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We expect the oscillatory structures to emerge if at given values of $%
\overline{u}_{1}$, $l_{1}/l_{2}$ and $\tau _{1}/\tau _{2}$, the fractional derivative index $\alpha $ is greater than the one represented on the surface and less than the one needed for Hopf bifurcations for $k=0$. This means that only the perturbations with these wave numbers are unstable, and they are unstable for oscillatory fluctuations. This situation is qualitatively different from the integer RD system whether either Turing ($%
k\neq 0$) or Hopf bifurcation ($k=0$) takes place, and this depends on which condition is easier to realize. Thus, in the system under consideration, we can choose the parameter when we don’t have Turing and Hopf bifurcations (for $k=0$) at all. Nevertheless, we obtain that conditions for Hopf bifurcation can be realized for a nonhomogeneous wave number. As it is seen from the figure, there are conditions where only instability according to non-homogeneous wave numbers holds. As a result, perturbations with $k=0$ relax to the homogenous state, and only the perturbations with a certain value of $k$ become unstable and the system exhibits inhomogeneous oscillations.
Pattern Formation
=================
The results of the numerical simulation of the fractional RDS (\[1\]) are presented on Fig. 4,5. From the pictures we can see that in such system we obtain a rich scenario of pattern formation: standard homogeneous oscillations, Turing stable structures, interacting inhomogeneous structures and inhomogeneous oscillatory structures. We have obtained that the ratio of characteristic times and the order of fractional derivative qualitative transform pattern formation dynamics: homogeneous oscillations in the first limiting case and stationary dissipative structures in the second one [@cam]. Here we show that the change in any parameter which qualitatively changes the eigenvalues of the linearized system can change the system dynamics. Spatiotemporal dynamics of the FRD system can mainly be determined by the maximum eigenvalues for the corresponding modes. In Fig. 4a,b we can see stationary dissipative structures as a result of formation of the unstable mode presented in Fig. 2b(iv) for $\alpha <1.$ External parameter $A$ determines the intersection point and the slope of the isoclines in this point and the power for each particular mode at this parameter. In particular, for $A=0.25$ nullclines intersect at the point where maximum value has eigenvalue with $k=2,$ which is responsible for Turing bifurcation with stationary structures. For A=0.5 (Fig. 2b(iv)) nullclines intersect at the point where Hopf bifurcation takes place. The characteristic feature for these two limit cases is the instantaneous formation of either dissipative structures or homogeneous oscillations. Increasing influence of Hopf bifurcation when the Turing one is dominant, or increasing Turing bifurcation when Hopf is dominant, leads to more complicated transient dynamics (Fig. 4c,d). When conditions of these two instabilities practically coincide, we can obtain either oscillatory inhomogeneous structures or modulated homogeneous oscillations (Fig. 4e,f). Moreover, at parameters, when the real part of eigenvalues is close to zero, small variation of $\alpha $ changes the type of bifurcation. This trend is typical for any $\alpha
\leq 1.$ For $\alpha >1$ the structure formation can be much more complicated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Dynamics of pattern formation for $u_{1}$ variable. The results of computer simulations of the system at parameters: $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $% ![Dynamics of pattern formation for $u_{1}$ variable. The results of computer simulations of the system at parameters: $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $%
A=-0.25 $, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau % A=-0.25 $, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau %
_{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (a); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.55$, $% _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (a); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.55$, $%
\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect% \protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect%
\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (b); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.4$, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau \tau _{2}=0.1$ – (b); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.4$, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau
_{2}=0.1$ – (c); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.45$, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $% _{2}=0.1$ – (c); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.45$, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $%
l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (d); $\protect\alpha % l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (d); $\protect\alpha %
=1.6$, $A=-0.01$, $\protect\beta =1.05$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect% =1.6$, $A=-0.01$, $\protect\beta =1.05$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect%
\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=1.45$ – (e); $\protect\alpha =0.7$, $A=-0.3$, $% \tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=1.45$ – (e); $\protect\alpha =0.7$, $A=-0.3$, $%
\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect% \protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect%
\tau _{2}=0.2$ – (f); []{data-label="rys11"}](n_Jcnd_071_0010-0300_FIN_U1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"} \tau _{2}=0.2$ – (f); []{data-label="rys11"}](n_Jcnd_074_0010-0300_FIN_U1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"}
(a) (b)
![Dynamics of pattern formation for $u_{1}$ variable. The results of computer simulations of the system at parameters: $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $% ![Dynamics of pattern formation for $u_{1}$ variable. The results of computer simulations of the system at parameters: $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $%
A=-0.25 $, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau % A=-0.25 $, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau %
_{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (a); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.55$, $% _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (a); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.55$, $%
\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect% \protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect%
\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (b); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.4$, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau \tau _{2}=0.1$ – (b); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.4$, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau
_{2}=0.1$ – (c); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.45$, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $% _{2}=0.1$ – (c); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.45$, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $%
l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (d); $\protect\alpha % l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (d); $\protect\alpha %
=1.6$, $A=-0.01$, $\protect\beta =1.05$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect% =1.6$, $A=-0.01$, $\protect\beta =1.05$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect%
\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=1.45$ – (e); $\protect\alpha =0.7$, $A=-0.3$, $% \tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=1.45$ – (e); $\protect\alpha =0.7$, $A=-0.3$, $%
\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect% \protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect%
\tau _{2}=0.2$ – (f); []{data-label="rys11"}](n_Jcnd_081_0010-0300_FIN_U1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"} \tau _{2}=0.2$ – (f); []{data-label="rys11"}](n_Jcnd_080_0010-0450_FIN_U1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="24.00000%"}
(c) (d)
![Dynamics of pattern formation for $u_{1}$ variable. The results of computer simulations of the system at parameters: $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $%
A=-0.25 $, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau %
_{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (a); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.55$, $%
\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect%
\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (b); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.4$, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau
_{2}=0.1$ – (c); $\protect\alpha =0.8$, $A=-0.45$, $\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.025$, $%
l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.1$ – (d); $\protect\alpha %
=1.6$, $A=-0.01$, $\protect\beta =1.05$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect%
\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=1.45$ – (e); $\protect\alpha =0.7$, $A=-0.3$, $%
\protect\beta =2.1$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect%
\tau _{2}=0.2$ – (f); []{data-label="rys11"}](n2_Jcnd_038_0010-0500_FIN_U1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="25.00000%"}
(e) (f)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Dynamics of pattern formation for $u_{1}$ (left column) and $u_{2}$ (right column) variables. The results of computer simulations of the systems at parameters: $A=-0.01$, $\protect\alpha =1.8$, $\protect\beta =1.01$, $l_{1}=0.02$, $% ![Dynamics of pattern formation for $u_{1}$ (left column) and $u_{2}$ (right column) variables. The results of computer simulations of the systems at parameters: $A=-0.01$, $\protect\alpha =1.8$, $\protect\beta =1.01$, $l_{1}=0.02$, $%
l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=3.5$ – (a-b); $A=1.95$, $\protect\alpha =1.82$, $\protect\beta =1.01$, $% l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=3.5$ – (a-b); $A=1.95$, $\protect\alpha =1.82$, $\protect\beta =1.01$, $%
l_{1}=0.1$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.6$ – (c-d); $A=-0.01$, $% l_{1}=0.1$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.6$ – (c-d); $A=-0.01$, $%
\protect\alpha =1.75$, $\protect\beta =10$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $% \protect\alpha =1.75$, $\protect\beta =10$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $%
\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.05$ – (e-f); []{data-label="rys11"}](n1_Jcnd_153_4000-5000_FIN_U1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="25.00000%"} \protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.05$ – (e-f); []{data-label="rys11"}](n_Jcnd_153_4000-5000_FIN_U2.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="25.00000%"}
(a) (b)
![Dynamics of pattern formation for $u_{1}$ (left column) and $u_{2}$ (right column) variables. The results of computer simulations of the systems at parameters: $A=-0.01$, $\protect\alpha =1.8$, $\protect\beta =1.01$, $l_{1}=0.02$, $% ![Dynamics of pattern formation for $u_{1}$ (left column) and $u_{2}$ (right column) variables. The results of computer simulations of the systems at parameters: $A=-0.01$, $\protect\alpha =1.8$, $\protect\beta =1.01$, $l_{1}=0.02$, $%
l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=3.5$ – (a-b); $A=1.95$, $\protect\alpha =1.82$, $\protect\beta =1.01$, $% l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=3.5$ – (a-b); $A=1.95$, $\protect\alpha =1.82$, $\protect\beta =1.01$, $%
l_{1}=0.1$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.6$ – (c-d); $A=-0.01$, $% l_{1}=0.1$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.6$ – (c-d); $A=-0.01$, $%
\protect\alpha =1.75$, $\protect\beta =10$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $% \protect\alpha =1.75$, $\protect\beta =10$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $%
\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.05$ – (e-f); []{data-label="rys11"}](n1_Jcnd_134_1400-2000_FIN_U1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="25.00000%"} \protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.05$ – (e-f); []{data-label="rys11"}](n_Jcnd_134_1400-2000_FIN_U2.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="25.00000%"}
(c) (d)
![Dynamics of pattern formation for $u_{1}$ (left column) and $u_{2}$ (right column) variables. The results of computer simulations of the systems at parameters: $A=-0.01$, $\protect\alpha =1.8$, $\protect\beta =1.01$, $l_{1}=0.02$, $% ![Dynamics of pattern formation for $u_{1}$ (left column) and $u_{2}$ (right column) variables. The results of computer simulations of the systems at parameters: $A=-0.01$, $\protect\alpha =1.8$, $\protect\beta =1.01$, $l_{1}=0.02$, $%
l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=3.5$ – (a-b); $A=1.95$, $\protect\alpha =1.82$, $\protect\beta =1.01$, $% l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=3.5$ – (a-b); $A=1.95$, $\protect\alpha =1.82$, $\protect\beta =1.01$, $%
l_{1}=0.1$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.6$ – (c-d); $A=-0.01$, $% l_{1}=0.1$, $l_{2}=1$, $\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.6$ – (c-d); $A=-0.01$, $%
\protect\alpha =1.75$, $\protect\beta =10$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $% \protect\alpha =1.75$, $\protect\beta =10$, $l_{1}=0.05$, $l_{2}=1$, $%
\protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.05$ – (e-f); []{data-label="rys11"}](n1_Jcnd_015_3600-4000_FIN_U1.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="25.00000%"} \protect\tau _{1}/\protect\tau _{2}=0.05$ – (e-f); []{data-label="rys11"}](n_Jcnd_015_3600-4000_FIN_U2.jpg.eps "fig:"){width="25.00000%"}
(e) (f)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us consider the bifurcation diagram presented in Fig. 1b,d. It was already noted that the region inside the curve is unstable for wave numbers $%
k=0$ and outside - it is stable. From the viewpoint of homogeneous oscillations, the system is stable near $\overline{u}_{1}=0$. However, if we have $l_{1}<<l_{2}$, the system becomes unstable according to Turing instability. As a result, we expect the formation of stationary inhomogeneous structures. In fact, at the beginning, only inhomogeneous fluctuations grow in amplitude and lead to inhomogeneous pattern formation. At the same time, at the dynamics of structure formation, the amplitude of the structures increases, and at maximum and minimum amplitude, the structures fall into the domain where the homogenous structures are unstable. As result, we obtain complex interaction of Turing and Hopf bifurcations (Fig. 5a,b).
Inhomogeneous oscillatory structures are presented on pictures (Fig. 5 c,d)). Due to different evolution pattern for two variables, the activator variable $u_{1}$ is presented in the left column and the inhibitor one $u_{2} $ is presented on the right column. Such structures are obtained at eigenvalues with negative real part when the intersection of the null-cline for activator variable is located on the decreasing part of null cline $%
u_{2}(u_{1})$. The corresponding eigenvalues for this situation are presented in Fig. 2b(v). From the eigenvalue plots (Fig. 2) we can see corresponding separated domains where inhomogeneous oscillatory modes with $%
k=2$ are unstable. Successive increase of the fractional derivative index will increase the amplitude of the presented in Fig. 5a,b inhomogeneous oscillation. As a result, ingomogeneuos oscillatory structures of large amplitude are realized in the system.
Another type of oscillatory structures with a little bit more complicated dynamics are presented in Fig. 5e,f for $\beta =10,$ $\tau _{1}<<\tau _{2}$ and $\alpha \lessapprox 2$. As in the case considered above we have inhomogeneous oscillatory structures the surface of which in the region of slow motion oscillates with fast frequency $1/\tau _{1}.$ Such behaviors are due to oscillatory property of the activator system at $\alpha $ approaching the value of $2$.
CONCLUSION
==========
We have shown a complex spatio-temporal pattern formation in simple FRD system and compared these results with standard one. The fractional derivative index plays a crucial role in this pattern formation because conditions of time bifurcations depend substantially on its value. By eigenvalue analysis we have studied instability conditions for $k=0$, and $%
k\neq 0$ for different values of external parameter $\mathcal{A}$ (the same as $\overline{u}_{1}).$ Nonlinear solutions show that dynamics of the system is determined by most unstable modes. When linear increments are comparable, we have an interplay between Hopf and Turing modes leading to more complex dynamics.
When a fractional derivative index is changed from $0$ to $1$, the large-amplitude structures are stationary if a limit cycle is damped at $%
\tau _{1}\simeq \tau _{2}$. Oscillatory structures at these values of fractional derivative index can be realized only at $\tau
_{1}<<\tau _{2}.$
When a fractional derivative index is changed from $1$ to $2$, the large-amplitude structures have more complex dynamics. Moreover, the spatiotemporal structures are observed even at $\tau
_{1}>>\tau _{2}$. Complex structures are observed in the region, when the bifurcation parameter leads to Turing and Hopf instabilities, as well as in the regions where these instabilities are damped. The system moves to large amplitude limit cycle with further change in the fractional derivative index.
[99]{} Nicolis, G., Prigogine, I., 1997, *Self-organization in Non-equilibrium Systems*, Wiley, New York.
Cross, M. C. and Hohenberg, P. C., 1993, ”Pattern formation outside of equilibrium”, *Rev. Mod. Phys.*, Vol. **65**, pp. 851-1112.
Kerner, B.S., Osipov, V.V., 1994, *Autosolitons*, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Henry, B.I., Langlands, T.A.M. and Wearne, S.L., 2005, ”Turing pattern formation in fractional activator-inhibitor systems”, *Phys. Rev. E*, Vol. **72**, 026101(14 p.)
Langlands, T.A.M., Henry, B.I. and Wearne, S.L., 2007, ”Turing pattern formation with fractional diffusion and fractional reactions”, * J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*, Vol. **19**, 065115 (20 p.)
Hernandez, D., Varea, C. and Barrio, R. A., 2009, ”Dynamics of reaction-diffusion systems in a subdiffusive regime”, * Phys. Rev. E*, Vol. **79**, 026109 (10 p.)
Gafiychuk, V., Datsko, B., 2006, ”Pattern formation in a fractional reaction-diffusion system”, *Physica A*, Vol.**365**, 300-306.
Gafiychuk, V., Datsko, B., 2007, ”Stability analysis and oscillatory structures in time-fractional reaction-diffusion systems”, *Phys. Rev. E* , Vol. **75**, 055201(4 p.)(R)
Gafiychuk, V. and Datsko, B., 2008, ”Inhomogeneous oscillatory structures in fractional reaction-diffusion systems”, *Physics Letters A*, Vol. **372**, pp.619-622.
Gafiychuk, V., Datsko,B., Meleshko,V., 2008, Mathematical modeling of time fractional reaction-diffusion systems, *J. Comp. Appl. Math.*, Vol. **220**, pp. 215-225.
Golovin,A. A., Matkovsky, B. J., Volpert, V. A., 2008, ”Turing pattern formation in the brusselator model with superdiffusion”, *SIAM J. Appl. Math.*, Vol. **60**, pp. 251-272.
Nec, Y., Nepomnyashchy, A. A. and Golovin, A. A., 2008, ”Oscillatory instability in super-diffusive reaction-diffusion systems: Fractional amplitude and phase diffusion equations”, *EPL* , Vol. **82**, 58003 (6 p.).
Zaslavsky, G.M., 2002, ”Chaos, fractional kinetics, and anomalous transport”, *Phys. Rep.*, Vol. **371**, pp. 461-580.
Metzler, R. and Klafter, J., 2000, ”The random walk?s guide to anomalous diffusion: a fractional dynamics approach”, *Phys. Rep.*, Vol. **339**, pp. 1-77.
Agrawal, O. P., Tenreiro Machado, J. A., Sabatier, J., 2007, *Advances in Fractional Calculus : Theoretical Developments and Applications in Physics and Engineering,* Elsevier.
Kilbas, A. A., Srivastava, H. M., Trujillo, J. J., 2006, *Theory and Applications of Fractional Differential Equations,* Elsevier.
Uchaikin, V. V., 2008, *Fractional derivative method,* Artishok (in Russian).
Podlubny, I., 1999, *Fractional Differential Equations*, Academic Press.
Samko, S.G., Kilbas, A. A. and Marichev, O. I., 1993, *Fractional Integrals and Derivatives: Theory and Applications*, Gordon and Breach, Newark, N.J.
R. FitzHugh, Biological Engineering, McGraw-Hill (1969), 1-85.
[^1]: Preprint submitted to ASME
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Valence-band ultraviolet photoemission spectroscopy (UPS) at 173K and 6p core-level X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS) at room temperature were performed on a high quality uranium single crystal. Significant agreement is found with first-principles electronic band-structure calculations, using a generalized gradient approximation (GGA). In addition, using Low Energy Electron Diffraction (LEED) for the (001) surface, we find a well-ordered orthorhombic crystallographic structure representative of the bulk material.'
author:
- 'C.P. Opeil'
- 'R.K. Schulze'
- 'B. Mihaila'
- 'K.B. Blagoev'
- 'R.C. Albers'
- 'M.E. Manley'
- 'J.C. Lashley'
- 'W.L. Hults'
- 'R.J. Hanrahan, Jr.'
- 'J.L. Smith'
- 'P.B. Littlewood'
title: |
Valence-Band UPS, 6$p$ Core-Level XPS Photoemission Spectroscopy,\
and Low-Energy Electron Diffraction of a Uranium (001) Single Crystal
---
Introduction
============
The actinide series of elements and their compounds [@Schneider22] exhibit unusual but similar properties related to the collective states of their strongly correlated electrons. As one moves across this row of the periodic table, electron-electron correlations increase until, at Am, the 5$f$ electrons localize. Uranium is interesting, since it is believed to be in the normal itinerant (band-structure-like) limit, where correlations may be slightly larger than usual, but do not change the fundamental metallic nature of the material. Nonetheless, there are tantalizing hints (anomalies) that correlations are still playing an important role in this material. For example, the specific heat enhancements are significantly large compared with band-structure calculations (see below), and the phonon spectra is strongly and anomalously softened at high temperatures [@manley1]. For this reason it is important to explore the experimental electronic structure of U in detail and to compare with band-structure calculations in order to assess exactly how correlated U is with respect to other actinide metals. From a theoretical point of view, the correlations of U, while somewhat strong, may yet be weak enough to be tractable by modern many-body techniques such as dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) [@DMFT] and may be far easier to understand than more strongly correlated materials like Pu. However, the first step in this process is to establish high-quality photoemission spectra for very good single crystals and compare these results with band-structure calculations in order to provide a reliable baseline for whatever correlations are present. This paper provides preliminary results in this direction.
Uranium, the heaviest natural element, exists in three allotropes and has a complex phonon spectrum [@manley1] and electronic structure. Unusual properties of uranium also include anisotropic thermal expansion [@Barrett; @Lloyd; @Lawson], the occurrence of three charge-density wave (CDW) transitions [@Berlincourt; @Fisher170; @Nelson1] below 43 K, and strongly temperature-dependent elastic moduli [@4; @McSkimin]. Aside from the low-temperature CDW transitions, the ground-state structure for uranium is orthorhombic ($\alpha$-U). Upon heating, $\alpha$-U transforms into a tetragonal structure (*T*$_\beta$ = 935 K) and finally crystallizes to a body-centered cubic phase (*T*$_\gamma$ = 1045 K) prior to melting at 1406 K, all at ambient pressure [@Lawson; @5]. Many of the unusual properties found in uranium, as with the other light actinides (Th-Pu) [@6], are thought to be related to the delocalization of the partially filled U5f electronic states and their hybridization with the U6d-7s electronic states [@7]. The U5f electrons participating in bonding have been shown in uranium intermetallics to exhibit magnetism and superconductivity [@8] and show similar bonding behavior to the $d$ electrons in lanthanide and transition metals [@9].
Several photoemission experiments have been carried out on uranium [@Gouder295; @Gouder341_382Moldtsov; @arko; @Schneider22]. Unfortunately, these experimental studies often suffer from poor spectral resolution caused by either oxygen contamination or the use of samples created by metal deposition upon a substrate. Thin-film deposition studies, although valuable, might not be truly representative of a bulk material. The electronic structure of thin films is influenced by the chemical interaction between the overlayer and the substrate. Using large U single crystals and a thorough sputter-anneal regimen, we have overcome these difficulties.
In this paper we present valence-band photoemission spectra at HeI and HeII energy excitations for a very high-quality single crystal of U at 173K and compare these with the results of first principles calculation of the electronic structure using the generalized gradient approximation approach (GGA) in the full-potential linearized-augmented-plane-wave (FLAPW) method, which includes local 6p orbitals to accommodate the low-lying 6p semicore states [@Blaha]. Using XPS we explore U6p states and note a splitting in the 6p$_{3/2}$ manifold indicative of a core-valence band separation due to hybridization. The normal-incidence U(001) photoemission spectroscopy and LEED results confirm that our U single-crystal surface shows long-range order and is representative of the bulk.
![\[fig:1\] (Color online) Single crystal LEED pattern of a clean first order $1\times 1$ U (001) surface at normal incidence and an electron-beam energy of $\approx$ 50 eV at room temperature. Inset shows higher order LEED pattern at $\approx$ 150 eV. ](Fig_1){width="\columnwidth"}
Experiment
==========
Single crystals of $\alpha$-U were grown at Argonne National Laboratory by electro-refinement in a molten (LiCl-KCl) eutectic electrolyte containing 3 wt. % UCl$_{3}$ at 773 K [@11]. This procedure grows the crystals directly in the $\alpha$-phase and avoids the formation of high-temperature structures. The crystals (as large as 10$\times$10$\times$1 mm$^3$) collect on a stainless steel cathode as dendrites or thin parallelogram-shaped platelets. To remove any residual salt, the U crystals were cleaned with water and electropolished in H$_3$PO$_4$ prior to the experiment. Chemical analysis reports 40 (atomic) ppm C and 167 (atomic) ppm Si as the only detectable impurities.
Unlike previous U samples[@Lander43], these crystals are easily bent, and small cross-section pieces can be deformed by rotating a necked region by hand through several turns without work hardening or weakening. Because these crystals have no grain boundaries and few impurities, we suggest that this unique ductility is the result of a large number of potential twin planes of the orthorhombic structure, and the ability of the twin to move over millimeters [@Cahn49DanielHuddant]. Characterization by X-ray diffraction Laue patterns found no detectable structural imperfections and show that the c–axis is perpendicular to the platelet surface.
In previous resistivity studies [@Lashley; @Schmiedeshoff] single crystals from the same source, the crystals were found to have a residual resistivity ratio of up to 315, eight times higher than previously reported values [@Berlincourt; @Brodsky]. We take the above as evidence that these are the highest quality single $\alpha$-U crystals yet produced, and that they possess extremely low impurity concentration and minimal micro-structural defects.
Ultraviolet photoelectron spectra were recorded with a resolution of 28.5 meV using a Perkin-Elmer/Physical Electronics Model 5600 ESCA system equipped with a monochromated Al *K*$\alpha$ (1486.6 eV), a SPECS UVS 300 ultraviolet lamp (HeI, $h\nu$ = 21.21 eV, HeII, $h\nu$ = 40.81 eV), and a spherical capacitor analyzer. The vacuum chamber, which had a base pressure of $1.3 \times 10^{-8}$ Pa, was equipped with a variable temperature sample stage of the range 150–1273 K. Our crystal surface was aligned perpendicular to the analyzer and set at an acceptance angle of $\pm$2 degrees in order to produce greatest sensitivity. Surface preparation for both spectroscopic and LEED measurements consisted of repeated cycles of Ar ion sputtering and annealing at 873 K. After preparation, the oxygen (O1s) and carbon (C1s) signals in the XPS spectra, major contaminant indicators on metallic actinide surfaces, were below the detection limit ($<$ 1 at. %).
U(001) LEED measurements
========================
In an effort to determine sample surface quality, we performed Low-Energy Electron Diffraction (LEED) measurements on our samples using an Omicron Spectraleed analyzer with the electron beam at normal incidence. We show in Fig. \[fig:1\] the first reported LEED of long-range order in a U(001) single crystal surface structure at room temperature with an electron energy of 50 eV. Higher order reciprocal space LEED patterns, up to third order, were clearly visible at greater energies, see inset Fig. \[fig:1\]. We find no evidence of surface reconstruction, and analysis on the bulk termination (1x1) LEED pattern confirms it is consistent ($<~$2 % difference) with the diffraction pattern calculated for an orthorhombic U(001) crystallographic structure (*a* = 2.8537 , *b* = 5.8695 , *c* = 4.9548 ) at room temperature [@Barrett].
The quality and character of the sample surface is of critical importance for conducting electron-structure measurements. Due to the strong chemical reactivity of uranium, Ar sputtering was utilized to prepare a clean surface, and confirmed by XPS, prior to each measurement [@Cardona]. We found that the Ar ion sputter damage from cleaning the crystal surface was removed by annealing at 873K for a few minutes and then reducing the temperature to 673 K. After this temperature sequence, the surface re-ordered, and a distinct U(001) diffraction pattern appears.
UPS: valence band spectra and DOS calculation
=============================================
In the past, UPS measurements for most light actinides supplied only a familiar triangle shaped peak close to the Fermi edge [@Gouder295; @Gouder341_382Moldtsov; @VealGouder271Laubschat; @McLean]. Given our sample quality, alignment, and enhanced resolution we are able to discern more structure in the valence band. An expanded view of our UPS valence band data for $\alpha$-U at *T* = 173 K is depicted in Fig. \[fig:3m\]. The background from inelastic scattering of secondary electrons in the HeI spectra was removed by subtraction of an exponential function from below $E_F$ to the peak of the background. Comparing the HeI and HeII spectra at 173 K, we note that almost all spectral features (peaks) line up in both experimental spectra. The difference in relative intensities between the two spectra has to do with the different cross sections between $d$ and $f$ states, different escape depths of the excited electrons, and other factors, which we will discuss below.
![\[fig:3m\] (Color online) Intensity/DDOS as a function of binding energy (eV) for UPS (HeI, $h\nu$ = 21.2 eV, and HeII, $h\nu$ = 40.8 eV) valence band data on single crystal U(001) at T = 173 K. ](Fig_2){width="\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:3m\] we also present results from first-principles GGA WIEN2K[@Blaha] electronic band-structure calculations. The theory is based upon the simple notion that only ${\mathbf{k}}_{\|}$ is conserved, and hence for normal photoemission all electronic states along the direction $\Gamma$ to Z are present (${\mathbf{k}}_{\bot}$ is not conserved). Hence, the theoretical curve is a directional density of states (DDOS) as a function of energy $E$, which is calculated from $$\label{eq:PDOS}
\mathrm{DDOS}(E) = \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}=\Gamma}^Z
\sum_\lambda \delta(E-E_{{\mathbf{k}},\lambda}) f(E-E_F)~,$$ where $E_{{\mathbf{k}},\lambda}$ is the energy eigenvalue for ${\mathbf{k}}$, band-index $\lambda$, $f(E-E_F)$ is the Fermi function for electron occupancy, and $E_F$ is the Fermi energy. In this formula we have used a Dirac delta function for the contribution to the DDOS for each band state. Since we have only summed over 21 ${\mathbf{k}}$-points between $\Gamma$ to Z, it was necessary to broaden the delta function into a finite Gaussian in order to draw a smooth curve. We used a full-width at half max of 28.5 meV for the Gaussian (the instrumental resolution of the experiment). The wiggles between -3.5 to -4.5 eV show the coarseness of our ${\mathbf{k}}$-point grid versus Gaussian width. If we wished to smooth out this part of the DDOS, we could either increase the width of the Gaussian or the number of ${\mathbf{k}}$-points.
Besides spectrometer resolution effects, each eigenvalue $\delta$-function should actually have a width representative of the lifetime of the hole state (due to radiative and Auger decay). The lifetime, which is of the order of $\hbar$/width, should be increasingly shorter for higher binding energy; a simple free-electron argument would give a Gaussian width for each state of energy E proportional to $(E-E_F)^2$. Since it is very difficult to calculate hole lifetimes from first principles, we have not included this effect in Fig. \[fig:3m\]. The net effect of including lifetimes would be to progressively smear out all the theoretical features as one moved to higher binding energy (below the Fermi energy). This effect is clearly seen in the experimental spectra. Also note that the peaks in the DDOS correspond to flat regions of the energy bands (small dispersion) along $\Gamma$ to Z (cf. the band states on the right-hand side of Fig. \[fig:3n\]).
![\[fig:3n\] (Color online) GGA band-structure calculations for $\alpha$-U. The shaded region of the left hand part of the figure indicates the range of values where energy bands exist when projected on the $\Gamma$ to $\Delta$ and $\Gamma$ to $\Sigma$ directions. The white areas indicate possible regions where surface states might exist. Note that at normal incidence in the U(001) plane, surface states are possible in the region between $E_F$ and about -0.5 eV, and from about 1.5 to 3 eV below $E_F$. These regions are also free of energy states for the energy bands along the $\Gamma$ to Z direction, which are shown in the right-hand side panel of the figure. ](Fig_3){width="\columnwidth"}
![\[fig:4\] (Color online) Atomic photoionization cross section [@Yeh] vs. photon energy for U 7s$^2$ 6d$^1$ 5f$^3$ 6p$^6$ energy bands. ](Fig_4){width="\columnwidth"}
A comparison between the band-structure results and the experimental spectra in Fig. \[fig:3m\] shows favorable agreement for the peaks near -1.2 eV and -3.2 eV. The region between 0 and 1 eV below $E_F$ has mainly $f$-electron character. We expect that these types of states (especially near $E_F$) should show the largest effects due to electron-electron correlations that go beyond those included in LDA (or GGA) band-structure calculations. Therefore, we argue that the theoretical peak near -0.6 eV likely corresponds to the experimental peak near -0.3 eV, and that the shift is likely a quasi-particle effect due to these additional electronic correlations. (This effect will be the subject of a forthcoming study in the DMFT framework.) The two remaining peaks (at -0.1 and -2.2 eV) appear at gaps in the conventional band structure (see the left-hand side of Fig. \[fig:3n\]), and therefore are likely surface states of mainly $f$ and $d$ character, respectively.
To understand the relative intensities of the various peaks between the HeI and HeII spectra is somewhat complicated. According to band theory, the peaks in the spectra come from high projected densities of states, which arise from flat regions of the bands (the flatter the bands the sharper the peak). In addition, because of cross section effects (see below), any $d$-electron feature will be enhanced in the HeI spectra and any $f$-electron feature will be enhanced in the HeII spectra. In addition, we estimate that the electronic mean-free path is probably close to its minimum value for the HeII spectra, and hence any surface state will be enhanced relative to bulk states for the HeII spectra. Since both spectra are normalized to the maximum intensity in the Fermi-energy region and not absolute values, only relative peak heights within each spectra have meaning, and we cannot compare absolute values between the two spectra. In addition, as discussed above, peaks at higher binding energy are due to electronic energy states that have much shorter lifetimes (due to radiative decay and Auger mechanisms), which broaden these states and lower the intensity of the peaks.
Given the large number of factors in determining the relative height of each peak, only qualitative statements can be made: The peaks below -1.0 eV show up much more prominently in the HeI spectra relative to the HeII spectra, because the $d$ electron photoemission is enhanced. This can be seen from the atomic photoionization cross-sections [@Yeh], which are shown in Fig. \[fig:4\]. Note that the HeI data strongly emphasize the $d$ electrons and the HeII data the $f$ electrons.
The -0.1 eV peak in the HeII spectra is very enhanced. Because this is likely a $f$-character surface state, there are several possible contributing factors to its strength: First, an $f$-electron surface state will have reduced hybridization and a high one-electron density of states. Surface atoms have a smaller number of near neighbors, which causes a higher local DOS for these atoms. Correlation effects are likely to increase this DOS. Also, the $f$-electron cross sections are very strong for the HeII spectra. Secondly, according to estimates for escape depth as a function of excited electron energy based on the universal curve[@UniversalCurveRef], we believe that the inelastic mean free path of the excited electrons for the HeII spectra should be near an absolute minimum and should thus be smaller than for the HeI spectra, which should enhance surface state features in the HeII spectrum.
In contrast, the peak at -2.2 eV is likely a surface state with $d$ character. Due to the interplay of the photoionization cross-sections, the peak is emphasized in the HeI spectrum and suppressed in the HeII, the latter effect being enhanced by the fact that the spectra are normalized at the maximum intensity.
From our band-structure results for the total DOS at the Fermi energy, we can estimate the effective mass enhancement $\lambda$ by comparing to specific-heat measurements. We find $\lambda =
(\gamma_{\mathrm {exp}} /\gamma_{\mathrm {cal}}) - 1$ to be 0.55, consistent with a previous calculation by Skriver et al. [@Skriver32]. Our DOS calculation is similar to those previously computed for $\alpha$-U by Wills and Eriksson [@Wills], and Pénicaud [@Penicaud]. There are two general contributions to the effective-mass enhancement: electron-phonon and electron-electron. A many-body theory that is beyond the scope of this paper would be required to sort out the relative contributions.
X-ray photoemission spectroscopy and U6p electron bands
=======================================================
Figure \[fig:5\] shows a comparison of U6p$_{1/2}$–6p$_{3/2}$ XPS spectra at room temperature, a theoretical $\alpha$-U DOS (*T* = 0 K) calculation, and XPS data for Pu6p$_{1/2}$–6p$_{3/2}$ previously reported by Tobin *et al.* [@Tobin]. We note that the spin-orbit splitting ($\approx$ 9.5 eV) between U 6p$_{1/2}$–6p$_{3/2}$ data corresponds well with the DOS calculation. The broadness of the peak at 27 eV is due to a combination of thermal broadening and the considerable quasi-particle lifetime effects for states so far below E$_F$. Much theoretical work [@Singh; @kunes; @Nordstrom] has been done evaluating the 6p states in the light actinides to model accurately spin-orbit coupling. In comparison with data of other actinide metals, a spin-orbit splitting of similar order has been observed in Th by Fuggle *et al.* [@Fuggle4], as well as in the theoretical calculation by Kuneš *et al.* [@kunes], and in the Pu data [@Tobin].
![\[fig:5\] (Color online) Comparison of XPS-HRES (Al K-$\alpha$, 1486.6 eV) spectra for U6p$_{1/2}$ - 6p$_{3/2}$, U6p DDOS calculation, and XPS-HRES (Al K-$\alpha$, 1486.6 eV) spectra for Pu6p$_{1/2}$ - 6p$_{3/2}$ [@Tobin]. For the DDOS calculation we used the XPS resolution of 50 meV.](Fig_5){width="\columnwidth"}
We note that a shoulder emerges on the left side of the U6p$_{3/2}$ data peak ($\approx$18.6 eV) in Fig. \[fig:5\], which show the hybridization features of this band-like shallow core state. This new observation may be directly attributed to the purity of our $\alpha$-U single crystal with minimum strain and low-impurity concentrations. Previous XPS experiments on uranium thin film [@Fuggle4] and polycrystal [@McLean] samples fail to indicate this shoulder in the U6p$_{3/2}$ peak intensity at 18.6 eV as shown in our single crystal data. Comparison with the DOS calculation indicates a clear splitting of the U6p$_{3/2}$ over a similar energy range as seen in the U data. Normally, one expects the U6p electrons more than 15 eV away from the Fermi edge (E$_{F}$) to exhibit exclusively core-like behaviors. However, the splitting of the U data peak and confirmation via calculation lead us to speculate certain electrons may hybridize. Hybridization between 6p and 6d electrons is allowed via j-j coupling and is supported by applicable symmetry rules.[@Nunes] Studies involving density functional theory (DFT) [@Ermler; @Hay] argue persuasively to include U6p electrons in the valence band, and the clear overlap of radial distribution functions for light actinides may increase the likelihood of such hybridization [@Batista]. Thus our data may constitute the first experimental evidence for such 6p and 6d hybridization in the condensed phase of actinide metals.
Although no experimental evidence of the Th6p$_{3/2}$ electron splitting is currently available, Kuneš *et al.* [@kunes] have calculated this using a similar GGA FLAPW approach. This calculation unambiguously shows Th6p$_{3/2}$ peak splitting over a 2 eV energy interval. Evidence of a similar 6p$_{3/2}$ splitting is visible in the Pu data [@Tobin].
In order to exclude the possibility that the observed splitting of the U6p$_{1/2}$–6p$_{3/2}$ peaks is the result of surface reconstruction, relaxation, or contamination effect, an oxidized U(001) sample surface was cleaned in stages via Ar sputtering and analyzed with HRES–XPS. As the O1s (531 eV) peak was eliminated, the oxide (U$_x$O$_y$) peaks associated with the valence band (-29 and -24.5 eV) simultaneously dissipated. As sputtering continued the 6p$_{1/2}$ and 6p$_{3/2}$ peaks emerge at -26.8 and -17.0 eV. These remain when the sample is annealed up to 873 K in order to reorder the surface atoms, and surface impurity is below detectability. From this result we conclude that the U6p$_{1/2}$ - 6p$_{3/2}$ photoemission measurements are representative of the bulk and preclude any anomalous surface reconstruction effect. Subsequent experiments on other high-quality polycrystal U indicate that the shoulder on the U6p$_{3/2}$ data peak and the U6p$_{1/2}$–6p$_{3/2}$ spin-orbit splitting remain at 9.5 eV up to 1100 K.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we present the first U(001) LEED pattern corresponding to long-range order in a uranium single-crystal surface. We report favorable agreement between first-principles GGA band structure calculations and the valence band UPS data. We also identify peaks which likely correspond to surface states present in the gaps of the conventional band structure, at normal incidence on the U(001) plane. We note that at the higher binding energies $\approx$ 13–30 eV using XPS, the GGA band structure correctly predicts the behavior of the U6p$_{1/2}$–6p$_{3/2}$ core states, showing both the spin-orbit splitting (9.5 eV) and hybridization effects.
To our knowledge, with the exception of the recent EXAFS studies [@Nelson1], single crystals of this quality have not been previously utilized for surface spectroscopy, and because of their purity, the photoemission results show many more features than previous experiments, providing new insight into the electronic-structure of $\alpha$-U. Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) experiments are currently underway to map the band structure of these $\alpha$-U single crystals. ARPES measurements are required to study the bands’ dispersion, and will allow for a detailed comparison with first-principle GGA band structure calculations. To minimize the spectrum contamination due to surface-state effects, the ongoing ARPES experiments are being performed at HeI photon energy. Finally, these ARPES measurements will also help study the character of the features which were tentatively identified as surface states in the present study.
This work was supported in part by the LDRD program at Los Alamos National Laboratory. We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the U(001) samples from: H. F. McFarlane, K. M. Goff, F. S. Felicione, C. C. Dwight, D. B. Barber, C. C. McPheeters, E. C. Gay, E. J. Karell and J. P. Ackerman at Argonne National Laboratory. B.M. acknowledges help from M. D. Jones and I. Schnell in getting acquainted with the WIEN2K package.
[99]{}
W. D. Schneider and C. Laubschat, Phys. Rev. B **23**, 997 (1981).
M. E. Manley, B. Fultz, R. J. McQueeney, C. M. Brown, W. L. Hults, J. L. Smith, D. J. Thoma, R. Osborn, and J. L. Robertson, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 3076 (2001).
A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M.J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. **68**, 13 (1996).
C. S. Barrett, M. H. Mueller, and R. L. Hitterman, Phys. Rev. **129**, 625 (1963).
L. T. Lloyd and C. S. Barrett, J. Nucl. Mater. **18**, 55 (1966).
A. C. Lawson, C. E. Olsen, J. W. Richardson Jr., M. H. Mueller, G. H. Lander, Acta Crystallogr. B **44**, 89 (1988).
T. G. Berlincourt, Phys. Rev. **114**, 969 (1959).
G. M. Schmiedeshoff, D. Dulguerova, J. Quan, S. Touton, C. H. Mielke, Philos. Mag. **84**, 2001 (2004).
H. J. McSkimin and E. S. Fisher, J. Appl. Phys. **31**, 1627 (1960).
E. S. Fisher and D. Dever, Phys. Rev. **170**, 607 (1968); L. Fast, O. Eriksson, B. Johansson, J. M. Wills, G. Straub, H. Roeder and L. Nordström, Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 2978 (1998).
E. S. Fisher and H. J. McSkimin, Phys. Rev. **124**, 67 (1961); E. S. Fisher, J. Nucl. Mater. **18**, 39 (1966); P. Söderlind, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 085113 (2002).
J. Donahue, in *The Structure of the Elements* (Wiley, New York, 1974); R. W. G. Wyckoff, in *Crystal Structures* (Wiley, New York, 1963); J. D. Axe, G. Grübel, and G. H. Lander, J. Alloys Compd. **213-214**, 262 (1994).
P. Söderlind, O. Eriksson, B. Johansson, J. M. Wills, A. M. Boring, Nature (London) **374**, 524 (1995).
E. A. Kmetko and H. H. Hill, in *Plutonium 70*, ed. W. N. Miner, p. 233 (AIME, New York, 1970); B. Johansson and H. L. Skriver, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **29**, 217 (1982).
Z. Fisk, H.R. Ott, T.M. Rice, and J.L. Smith, Nature (London) **320**, 124 (1986); Z. Fisk, D.W. Hess, C. J. Pethick, D. Pines, J.L. Smith, J.D. Thompson and J.O. Willis, Science **239**, 33 (1988); A. de Visser and J.J.M. Franse, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **100**, 204 (1991); S. S. Saxena, P. Agarwal, K. Ahilan, F. M. Grosche, R. K. W. Haselwimmer, M. J. Steiner, R. Pugh, I. R. Walker, S. R. Julian, P. Monthoux, G. G. Lonzarich, A. Huxley, I. Sheikin, D. Braithwaite, and J. Flouquet, Nature (London) **406**, 587 (2000).
B. Johansson, Phys. Rev. B **11**, 2740 (1975).
T. Gouder and C. A. Colmenares, Surf. Sci. **295**, 241 (1993).
T. H. Gouder and C. A. Colmenares, Surf. Sci. **341**, 51 (1995); T. Gouder, Surf. Sci. **382**, 26 (1997); S. L. Molodtsov, S. V. Halilov, M. Richter, A. Zangwill and C. Laubschat, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 017601 (2001).
A. J. Arko, J. J. Joyce, L. Morales, J. Wills, J. Lashley, F. Wastin and J. Rebizant, Phys. Rev. B **62**, 1773 (2000).
H. F. McFarlane, K. M. Goff, F. S. Felicione, C. C. Dwight and D. B. Barber, J. Met. **49**, 14 (1997). C. C. McPheeters, E. C. Gay, E. J. Karell and J. P. Ackerman, J. Met. **49**, 22 (1997).
G. H. Lander, E. S. Fisher, and S. D. Bader, Adv. Phys. **43**, 1 (1994).
R. W. Cahn, Acta Metall. 1, 49 (1953); J. S. Daniel, B. Lesage, and P. Lacombe, Acta Metall. 19, 163 (1971); J. Huddart, J. Harding, and P. A. Bleasdale, J. Nucl. Mater. 89, 316 (1980).
J. C. Lashley, B. E. Lang, J. Boerio-Goates, B. F. Woodfield, G. M. Schmiedeshoff, E. C. Gay, C. C. McPheeters, D. J. Thoma, W. L. Hults, J. C. Cooley, R. J. Hanrahan, Jr. and J. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. B **63**, 224510 (2001).
M. B. Brodsky, N. J. Griffin, and M. D. Odie, J. Appl. Phys. **40**, 895 (1969).
M. Cardona and L. Ley, in *Photoemission in Solids*, Vol. 26, *Topics in Applied Physics*, Eds. M. Cardona and L. Ley (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1978), p. 57-60.
A. C. Nunes, Phys. Rev. B **35**, 7174 (1987).
B. W. Veal and D. J. Lam, Phys. Rev. B **10**, 4902 (1974); T. Gouder, J. Alloys Compd. **271-273**, 841 (1998); C. Laubschat, J. Elect. Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. **96**, 127 (1998).
W. McLean, C. A. Colmenares, R. L. Smith, G. A. Somorjai Phys. Rev. B **25**, 8 (1982).
J. J. Yeh, in *Atomic Calculation of Photoionization Cross-Sections and Asymmetry Parameters*, (Gordon and Breach, Langhorne, PA 1993).
M. P. Seah and W. A. Dench, Surf. Interface Anal., **1**, 2 (1979).
J. M. Wills and O. Eriksson, Phys. Rev. B **45**, 13879 (1992).
M. Pénicaud, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **12**, 5819 (2000).
P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, G. K. M. Madsen, D. Kvasnicak and J. Luitz, *WIEN2k, An Augmented Plane Wave Plus Local Orbitals Program for Calculating Crystal Properties* (Karlheinz Schwarz, Technische Universität Wien, Austria, 2001).
H. L. Skriver and I. Mertig, Phys. Rev. B **32**, 4431 (1985).
J. G. Tobin, B. W. Chung, R. K. Schulze, J. Terry, J. D. Farr, D. K. Shuh, K. Heinzelman, E. Rotenberg, G. D. Waddill and G. van der Laan, Phys. Rev. B **68**, 155109 (2003).
D. J. Singh, *Planewaves, Pseudopotentials and the LAPW Method* (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1994); M. D. Jones, J. C. Boettger, R. C. Albers and D. J. Singh, Phys. Rev. B **61**, 4644 (2000).
L. Nordström, J. M. Wills, P. H. Andersson, P. Söderlind, and O. Eriksson Phys. Rev. B **63**, 035103 (2000).
J. Kuneš, P. Novák, R. Schmid, P. Blaha and K. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. B **64**, 153102 (2001).
J. C. Fuggle, A. F. Burr, L. M. Watson, D. J. Fabian and W. Lang, J. Phys. F, **4**, 335 (1974).
W. C. Ermler, R. B. Ross, and P. A. Christiansen, Int. J. Quantum Chem. **40**, 829 (1991).
P. J. Hay and R. L. Martin, J. Chem. Phys. **109**, 3875 (1998).
E. R. Batista, R. L. Martin, P. J. Hay, J. E. Peralta and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys. **121**, 2144 (2004).
E. J. Nelson, P. G. Allen, K. J. Blobaum, M. A. Wall, and C. H. Booth Phys. Rev. B **71**, 184113 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a design and an implementation of a security policy specification language based on metric linear-time temporal logic (MTL). MTL features temporal operators that are indexed by time intervals, allowing one to specify timing-dependent security policies. The design of the language is driven by the problem of runtime monitoring of applications in mobile devices. A main case the study is the privilege escalation attack in the Android operating system, where an app gains access to certain resource or functionalities that are not explicitly granted to it by the user, through indirect control flow. To capture these attacks, we extend MTL with recursive definitions, that are used to express call chains betwen apps. We then show how the metric operators of MTL, in combination with recursive definitions, can be used to specify policies to detect privilege escalation, under various fine grained constraints. We present a new algorithm, extending that of linear time temporal logic, for monitoring safety policies written in our specification language. The monitor does not need to store the entire history of events generated by the apps, something that is crucial for practical implementations. We modified the Android OS kernel to allow us to insert our generated monitors modularly. We have tested the modified OS on an actual device, and show that it is effective in detecting policy violations.'
author:
- Hendra Gunadi
- Alwen Tiu
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Efficient Runtime Monitoring with Metric Temporal Logic: A Case Study in the Android Operating System'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The dynamics of two penetrating superfluids exhibit an intriguing variety of nonlinear effects. Using two distinguishable components of a Bose-Einstein condensate, we investigate the counterflow of two superfluids in a narrow channel. We present the first experimental observation of trains of dark-bright solitons generated by the counterflow. Our observations are theoretically interpreted by three-dimensional numerical simulations for the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equations and the analysis of a jump in the two relatively flowing components’ densities. Counterflow induced modulational instability for this miscible system is identified as the central process in the dynamics.'
author:
- 'C.'
- 'J.J.'
- 'P.'
- 'M. A.'
title: 'Generation of dark-bright soliton trains in superfluid-superfluid counterflow'
---
Nonlinear structures in dilute-gas Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) have been the focus of intense research efforts, deepening our understanding of quantum dynamics and providing intriguing parallels between atomic physics, condensed matter and optical systems. For superfluids that are confined in a narrow channel, one of the most prominent phenomena of nonlinear behavior is the existence of solitons in which a tendency to disperse is counterbalanced by the nonlinearities of the system. In single-component BECs, dark and bright solitons, forming local density suppressions and local bumps in the density, resp., have attracted great interest [@Kevrekidis2009]. In two-component BECs, the dynamics are even richer as a new degree of freedom, the relative flow between the two components, is possible.
In this Letter, we investigate novel dynamics of superfluid-superfluid counterflow, which is in contrast to the extensively studied counterflow of a superfluid and normal fluid in liquid helium [@Donnelly1991]. Previous theoretical analysis has demonstrated that spatially uniform, counterflowing superfluids exhibit modulational instability (MI) when the relative speed exceeds a critical value [@Law2001]. Modulational instability is characterized by a rapid growth of long wavelength, small amplitude perturbations to a carrier wave into large amplitude modulations. The growth is due to the nonlinearity in the system [@Zakharov2009]. Our experiments and analysis reveal that by carefully tuning the relative speed slightly above the critical value, we can enhance large amplitude density modulations at the overlap interface between two nonlinearly coupled BEC components while mitigating the effects of MI in the slowly varying background regions. A dark-bright soliton train then results.
In two previous experiments, individual dark-bright solitons were engineered in two stationary components using a wavefunction engineering technique [@Anderson2001; @Becker2008]. In our experiment we find that trains of dark-bright solitons can occur quite naturally in superfluid counterflow. This novel method of generating dark-bright solitons turns out to be robust and repeatable. In single-component, attractive BECs the formation of a bright soliton train from an initial density jump has been predicted [@Kamchatnov2003]. However, both condensate collapse and the effects of MI in the density background must be avoided, placing restrictions on the confinement geometry and diluteness of the single-component condensate. In contrast, the properties of counterflow in miscible, two-component BECs, as we show, enable the observation of trains consisting of ten or more dark-bright solitons in BECs with a large number of atoms. We also note that modulated soliton trains have been studied extensively in single-component, modulationally stable repulsive BECs where supersonic flow supports the generation of dispersive shock waves [@Dutton2001]. The dark-bright soliton train we study in this work occurs when one of the system’s sound speeds becomes complex so that the standard definition of supersonic flow does not apply.
Our experiments are conducted with BECs confined in a single-beam optical dipole trap [@EPAPS]. We start with an initially perfectly overlapped mixture of atoms in the $|F,m_{F}\rangle$ = $|1,1\rangle$ and $|2,2\rangle$ hyperfine states of $^{87}$Rb, with a total of about 450000 atoms. The scattering lengths for the two states used in our experiment are estimated to be $a_{11}=100.40$ a.u. and $a_{22} \approx a_{12} =
98.98$ a.u. [@verhaar_predicting_2009]. Here $a_{11}$ and $a_{22}$ denote the single species scattering length for the $|1,1\rangle$ and $|2,2\rangle$ state, respectively, and $a_{12}$ is the interspecies scattering length. Mean field theory predicts that a mixture is miscible if $a_{12}<\sqrt{a_{11}\cdot a_{22}}$ [@Timmermans1998; @Ao1998; @Pu1998]. Therefore our system is predicted to be weakly miscible. In contrast, previous studies of two-component binary $^{87}$Rb BECs concentrated mostly on the states which are immiscible [@Hall1998; @Mertes2007], with the notable exception of Weld et al. [@Weld2009].
When the overlapped mixture is allowed to evolve in the trap, we observe no phase separation over the experimental timescale of several seconds. This is in agreement with the predicted miscibility of the two components and is demonstrated in Fig. \[miscibility\](a-c). The upper cloud of each image throughout this work shows the atoms in the $|2,2\rangle$ state at a time 7 ms after a sudden turn-off of the optical trap (and, where applicable, of any applied magnetic gradients), while the lower cloud, taken during the same experimental run, shows the atoms in the $|1,1\rangle$ state after 8 ms of expansion [@EPAPS]. During their in-trap evolution, these clouds are overlapped in the vertical direction. The dominant effect of the time evolution in Fig. \[miscibility\](a-c) is a slow decay of the atom number over time. For single component BECs, we have measured an exponential BEC lifetime of over 50 sec for the $|1,1\rangle$ state and 14 sec for the $|2,2\rangle$ state in our dipole trap. Motion induced by changes of mean field pressure during the decay may be responsible for a small scale roughness of both components which becomes visible after several seconds (Fig. \[miscibility\]c).
=3.375in
The situation changes when a small magnetic gradient is applied along the long axis of the trap. Due to Zeeman shifts, the gradient leads to a force in opposite directions for each component, or equivalently to a differential shift between the harmonic potentials along the long axis of the trap. This causes the two components to accelerate in opposite directions and induces counterflow. In all images where a magnetic gradient is applied, the gradient is chosen such that the $|2,2\rangle$ state is pulled to the right and the $|1,1\rangle$ to the left. An example is shown in Fig. \[miscibility\]d where a gradient leading to a calculated differential trap shift of 60 $\mu$m was applied for 9 sec, leading to nearly complete demixing of the two components.
=6.75in
In the following we investigate the dynamics induced by small gradients and show how they can be exploited to create dark-bright soliton trains. In Fig. \[shocks\] an initially overlapped mixture of 30% of the atoms in the $|2,2\rangle$ state and 70% in the $|1,1\rangle$ state is used. A small magnetic gradient in the axial direction is linearly ramped on over a timescale of 1 sec, leading to a calculated trap separation for the two species of only about three microns. After the end of this ramp, the gradient is held constant. In the subsequent evolution, individual stripes break off from the left edge of the $|2,2\rangle$ component, and perfectly aligned dark notches appear in the $|1,1\rangle$ component (Fig. \[shocks\](a)). The predominantly uniform widths of the observed stripes and notches, their long lifetime of several seconds in the absence of a magnetic gradient, as well as their dynamics resembling individual stable entities (see Fig. \[solitondrift\] and below) are strong experimental indications that the observed features are indeed dark-bright solitons. By reducing the initial number of atoms in the component forming the bright soliton, we have also been able to reliably produce one individual dark-bright soliton and observe its oscillation in trap [@Middelkamp2010], similar to the dynamics observed in [@Becker2008].
The observed soliton formation is reproduced by three-dimensional (3D) numerical simulations of the two-component Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equations (Fig. \[shocks\](b-e)) [@EPAPS]. Parameters used for the GP equations are the experimental values. These values lead to dynamics that closely match the experiment, as shown in Fig. \[shocks\](a-c) with a moderate time delay. Our numerical calculations suggest that the time delay may be due to uncertainties in the estimated magnetic field gradient induced trap shifts. The experimentally invoked free expansion directly before imaging the condensate was not performed in the numerical simulations.
Numerical results for the quantum mechanical phases of the two wavefunctions describing the components are shown in Fig. \[shocks\](e). The nearly linear phase behavior on the right (at $x \gtrsim ~ 50 \mu m$) indicates a smooth counterflow of the two components. In the soliton region, the phase jumps across the dark solitons as well as the phase gradients in the bright component vary slightly, so that the dark-bright solitons are moving relative to one another which eventually leads to dark-bright soliton interactions, see [@EPAPS].
The soliton train formation can be qualitatively understood by appealing to the hydrodynamic formulation of the mean-field, coupled GP equations in (1+1) dimensions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1}
(\rho_j)_t + (\rho_j u_j)_z &= 0 \\
\nonumber (u_j)_t + \left (\frac{1}{2} u_j^2 + \rho_j + \sigma_j
\rho_{3-j} \right )_z &= \frac{1}{4} \left
[\frac{(\rho_j)_{zz}}{\rho_j} - \frac{(\rho_j)_z^2}{2 \rho_j^2}
\right ]_z ,\end{aligned}$$ here given in non-dimensional form with $\sigma_j = a_{12}/a_{jj}$, $\rho_j$ and $u_j$, $j=1,2$ the density and phase gradient (superfluid velocity) of the $j^\textrm{th}$ component, respectively. Equation models the dynamics of a highly elongated cigar shaped trap ($\omega_x \sim \omega_y \gg \omega_z$ where $\omega_x$ ($\omega_y$) is the transverse trap frequency in the horizontal (vertical) plane and $\omega_z$ is the axial trap frequency) with axial confinement neglected [@Kevrekidis2009]. Distance is in units of the transverse harmonic oscillator length $\sqrt{\hbar/(m
\omega_x)}$ ($m$ is the particle mass). Time is in units of $1/\omega_x$ and the 3D densities are approximated by the harmonic oscillator ground state via $\rho_j(z,t)
\exp(-x^2-\frac{\omega_y}{\omega_x} y^2)/(2\pi a_{jj} a_0^2)$.
By considering small perturbations proportional to $e^{i(\kappa z -
\omega t)}$ for uniform counterflow with densities $\rho_j$ and velocities $u_1 = -v/2$, $u_2 = v/2$, Ref. [@Law2001] demonstrated modulational instability ($\textrm{Im}\, \omega(\kappa) > 0$) for $v$ larger than a critical velocity ${v_\textrm{cr}}$ with a maximum growth rate $\textrm{Im} \, \omega_\textrm{max}$ and associated wavenumber $\kappa_\textrm{max}$. We have repeated the calculation and find the additional result $$\label{eq:2}
\sqrt{\rho_1(1 - \sigma_1 \sigma_2)} \le {v_\textrm{cr}}\le 2 \sqrt{\rho_1 (1
- \sqrt{\sigma_1 \sigma_2})} , ~ \rho_1 \ge \rho_2,$$ the lower bound being valid for small $\rho_2/\rho_1$ and the upper bound applicable for $\rho_2 \sim \rho_1$. The scattering lengths of the binary system considered here give $0.119 \sqrt{\rho_1} \le {v_\textrm{cr}}\le 0.168 \sqrt{\rho_1}$. Typical densities for the experiments in Fig. \[shocks\] give $\rho_1 + \rho_2 = 4.3$, $\rho_2/\rho_1 = 0.3$ leading to ${v_\textrm{cr}}= 0.25$ ($\approx 0.22$ mm/s).
Figure \[shocks\] shows that the dark-bright soliton train forms at the overlap interface of the two components while approximately maintaining constant total density. We model this by numerically solving eq. for an initial jump in density that maintains $\rho_1 + \rho_2 = 4.3$ (dotted curves in \[theory\](a,b)) with a uniform counterflow: $u_1 = -v/2$ and $u_2 = v/2$. For subcritical cases $0 \le v < {v_\textrm{cr}}$, the evolution consists of an expanding rarefaction wave with weak oscillations on the right edge (Fig. \[theory\](a); solid line for $v = 0$, dashed line for $v =
0.17$) and corresponding scaled relative speeds $|u_1 -
u_2|/\sqrt{\rho_1}$ (Fig. \[theory\](c) solid, dashed) below critical (in Fig. \[theory\](c,d), the bounds (\[eq:2\]) on the critical velocities are indicated by the dotted lines). When the initial relative speed is supercritical, a dark-bright soliton train forms at the initial jump (Fig. \[theory\](b), $v = 0.32$). The relative speed within some regions of the soliton train significantly exceeds ${v_\textrm{cr}}$ as shown in Fig. \[theory\](d) suggesting that counterflow induced MI has the effect of enhancing soliton formation. Because the initial relative speed $v$ was taken just slightly above ${v_\textrm{cr}}$, the maximum growth rate $\textrm{Im} \, \omega_\textrm{max} =
0.0077$ and associated wavenumber $\kappa_\textrm{max} = 0.13$ for unstable perturbations to the uniform state in the far field are small (Figs. \[theory\](e,f)). Therefore, MI in the background counterflow far from the jump does not develop appreciable magnitude over the timescale of soliton train formation, in contrast to the dynamics with $v \gg {v_\textrm{cr}}$ that we investigate in [@Hoefer2010].
=3.375in
This MI assisted soliton formation technique allows us to create dark-bright solitons in a well-controlled and repeatable manner, as is evidenced by the fact that all images of Fig. \[shocks\]a form a very consistent sequence even though they were taken during different runs of the experiment. In addition to repeatability, future studies may also require a long lifetime of the solitons. In single component BECs, achieving long lifetimes of dark solitons has proven difficult as they are subject to a transverse instability [@Dutton2001; @Anderson2001]. Only recently have dark soliton lifetimes of up to 2.8 sec been achieved [@Becker2008]. It has been conjectured [@Busch2001] and numerically confirmed [@Musslimani2001] that dark-bright solitons are more stable to transverse perturbations than dark solitons. Experimentally, we indeed observe long lifetimes of several seconds for the dark-bright solitons after the magnetic gradient is turned off. The solitons act as individual entities and can move through the BEC, maintaining their shape for a relatively long time. We demonstrate this by starting from a situation as in Fig. \[shocks\](a) at 1.5 sec, where a train of solitons has been created after the application of an axial magnetic gradient. When the gradient is subsequently turned off, the dark-bright solitons move through the BEC while approximately maintaining their narrow widths (Fig. \[solitondrift\]). The bright and dark part of each individual soliton remain aligned relative to each other, but any regularity in the spacing between solitons is lost. The number of visible solitons decreases over time, but even after 2.5 sec several solitons are still visible, as in Fig. \[solitondrift\](d). Simulations [@EPAPS] suggest that soliton interactions may be the cause of this decay. In Fig. \[solitondrift\](c), little diffuse cloudlets of atoms in the $|2,2\rangle$ state are visible in addition to some solitons, and corresponding small suppressions of the density in the $|1,1\rangle$ components can be detected. We interpret these features as the decay products of dark-bright solitons, marking the end of their life cycle.
=3.375in
In conclusion, we have observed dark-bright soliton trains in the counterflow of two miscible superfluids. The soliton train is formed due to relative motion above the critical value for modulational instability. By inducing relative speeds slightly above critical, we can avoid the onset of MI throughout the superfluids over the time scales of soliton train formation. Together with the long lifetime of the observed dark-bright solitons, this opens the door to future experiments with these interesting coherent nonlinear structures. While the dynamics considered in this Letter are effectively one-dimensional, a very recent theoretical analysis has shown that superfluid counterflow in higher dimensions can lead to binary quantum turbulence, providing another example of the exceptional dynamical richness of the two-component system [@Takeuchi2010].
Acknowledgments
---------------
P.E. acknowledges financial support from NSF and ARO. M.A.H. acknowledges financial support from NSF under DMS-0803074, DMS-1008973 and a Faculty Research and Professional Development grant from NCSU. The authors thank the anonymous referees for beneficial suggestions.
P. G. Kevrekidis, D. Frantzeskakis, and R. Carretero-Gonzalez, *Emergent Nonlinear Phenomena in Bose-Einstein Condensates: Theory and Experiment* (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2009).
See, e.g., R. J. Donnelly, *Quantized vortices in helium II* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991).
C. K. Law *et al.*, Phys. Rev. A [**63**]{}, 063612 (2001).
V. Zakharov and L. Ostrovsky, Physica D [**238**]{}, 540 (2009).
B. Anderson *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2926 (2001).
C. Becker *et al.*, Nature Physics [**4**]{}, 496 (2008).
A. M. Kamchatnov *et al.*, Phys. Lett. A [**319**]{}, 406 (2003).
Z. Dutton, *et al.*, Science [**293**]{} 663 (2001). A. M. Kamchatnov, A. Gammal, and R. A. Kraenkel, Phys. Rev. A, [**69**]{}, 063605 (2004). M. A. Hoefer *et al.*, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 023623 (2006). R. Meppelink *et al.*, Phys. Rev. A, [**80**]{}, 043606 (2009).
See EPAPS for experimental and numerical details, as well as a movie of the numerical simulations. For more information on EPAPS, see http://www.aip.org/pubservs/epaps.html.
B. J. Verhaar, E. G. M. van Kempen, and S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 032711 (2009). S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, personal communication, (2010).
E. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5718 (1998).
P. Ao and S. T. Chui, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, 4836 (1998).
H. Pu and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1130 (1998).
D. S. Hall *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1539 (1998).
K. M. Mertes *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett [**99**]{}, 190402 (2007).
D. M. Weld *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 245301 (2009).
S. Middelkamp et al., Physics Letters A (2010), doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2010.11.025.
M. A. Hoefer *et al.*, arXiv:1007.4947 \[cond-mat.quant-gas\].
T. Busch and J. R. Anglin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 010401 (2001).
Z. H. Musslimani and J. Yang, Optics Letters [**26**]{}, 1981 (2001).
H. Takeuchi, S. Ishino, and M. Tsubota, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 205301 (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by various benefits of multi-energy integration, this paper establishes a bi-level framework based on transactive control to realize energy optimization among multiple interconnected energy hubs (EHs). A storage-energy-equivalent method as well as its mathematical proof are provided in the lower level to realize nonlinear constraints relaxation of EH model, while the upper level solves the collaborative problem iteratively in both day-ahead and real-time stages. The proposed method can preserve information privacy and operation authority of each EH while satisfying real-time control requirement, and its effectiveness has also been verified by a simulation case.'
author:
- '[^1]'
-
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
Autonomous-Collaborative Energy Optimization\
for Interconnected Energy Hubs\
Based on Transactive Control
---
Energy Hub, Transactive Control, Two-stage Optimization.
Introduction
============
Continuous environment deterioration and energy depletion have necessitated the comprehensive utilization of various forms of energy in modern life. It is believed that the development of relevant technologies would spur the advent of integrated energy service companies that manage several types of energy concurrently. Despite that multi-energy integration might improve overall energy efficiency at lower costs, complexities are also introduced to the system with regards to operation and management. To solve such problems, researchers from ETH Zurich, Switzerland has proposed concept of energy hub (EH) to investigate the energy system as a whole, whose path has been followed by a number of researches[@7842813]. Recent years have also witnessed a research re-orientation from energy optimization of a standalone EH to a collaborative optimization among multiple interconnected EHs (IEH)[@EN2448].
Transactive control (TC) developed in recent years is a set of economic and control mechanisms that allows the dynamic balance of supply and demand across the entire electrical infrastructure using value as a key operational parameter[@HU2017]. Although many studies have used TC in energy management, according to the authors’ knowledge, to date few researches have applied the TC framework to IEH energy optimization.
This paper assumes an [IEH ]{}that is connected to main grid and natural gas network and can provide energy services for its inferior sectors EHs. At the same time, the [IEH ]{}agent serves as an interface between lower-level EHs and the main grid while responding to dispatching signals from upstream grid. This paper then proposes an autonomous-collaborative optimization framework based on TC to coordinate energy management for IEH where incentive and responsive signals are exchanged back and forth between [IEH ]{}agent and EH. The main contributions of this paper include:
- it establishes a bi-level framework to coordinate energy management among interconnected EHs based on TC;
- it proposes a storage-energy-equivalent method with its proof to model the lower-level problem in a convex way;
- it simplifies dual variables of the upper-level problem and further solves the problem by bisection method iteratively to meet real-time control requirements.
Lower-level: Autonomous optimization based on storage-energy-equivalent method
==============================================================================
EH model
--------
Fig. \[fig\_EH\_model\] shows the structure of an EH consists of combined heat and power(CHP) plant, natural gas furnace(GF), electric energy storage(EES) and thermal energy storage(TES). Its model is: $$\begin{split}
\label{eqn_IESmodel}
\left(
\begin{matrix}
\eta \rm_{ee} & \eta \rm _{ge}^{CHP} & 0 \\
0 & \eta {\rm _{gth}^{CHP}} & \eta \rm{_{gth}^{GF}}
\end{matrix}
\right)
\left(
\begin{matrix}
P_{\mathrm{e},t} \\ G_{\mathrm{g},t}^{\rm CHP} \\ G_{\mathrm{g},t}^{\rm GF}
\end{matrix}
\right)
+
\left(
\begin{matrix}
P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES} - P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES} \\
H_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm TES} - H_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm TES}
\end{matrix}
\right)\\
+
\left(
\begin{matrix}
P_t^{\rm RES} \\ 0
\end{matrix}
\right)
-
\left(
\begin{matrix}
P_t^{\rm curt} \\ H_t^{\rm curt}
\end{matrix}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{matrix}
L_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm sl} \\ L_{\mathrm{th},t}^{\rm sl}
\end{matrix}
\right)
+
\left(
\begin{matrix}
L_{\mathrm{e},t} \\ L_{\mathrm{th},t}
\end{matrix}
\right),\forall t
\end{split}$$ where $P_{\mathrm{e},t}$ denotes the electricity power EH imports from the main gird at time ${t}$, and $P_{\mathrm{e},t}<0$ implies that the EH sells surplus electricity to the gird. $G_{\mathrm{g},t}^{\rm CHP}$ and $G_{\mathrm{g},t}^{\rm GF}$ denote natural gas consumed by CHP and GF, respectively. $\eta _{ee}$ denotes transmission efficiency. $\eta \rm _{ge}^{CHP}$ and $\eta \rm _{gth}^{CHP}$ are the gas-electric and gas-thermal efficiencies of CHP, and $\eta \rm_{gth}^{GF}$ is the efficiency of GF. $P_t^{\rm RES}$ demonstrates the power generated by renewable energies under the maximum power point tracking mode. $P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES}$ and $P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES}$ represents the charging and discharging power of EES, respectively, while $H_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm TES}$ and $H_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm TES}$ are the charging and discharging amount of TES. $ L_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm sl}$ and $ L_{\mathrm{th},t}^{\rm sl}$ denote the shiftable electric load and thermal load, while $L_{\mathrm{e},t}$ and $L_{\mathrm{th},t}$ denote corresponding non-shiftable loads. $P_t^{\rm curt}$ and $ H_t^{\rm curt}$ demonstrate the curtailed renewable energies and heat.
![Schematic of a typical integrated energy system[]{data-label="fig_EH_model"}](eh1){width="48.00000%"}
Problem formulation
-------------------
The operating cost during period $t$ can be split into two parts: electricity purchasing cost and gas purchasing cost. $$F_t = \mu _{\mathrm{e},t} P_{\mathrm{e},t} +
\mu _{\mathrm{g},t}
\left(G_{\mathrm{g},t}^{\rm CHP}
+ G_{\mathrm{g},t}^{\rm GF}\right)$$ where $\mu _{\mathrm{e},t}$ and $\mu _{\mathrm{g},t}$ denote the utility electricity price and natural gas price at time $t$, respectively.
During every scheduling period, after updating forecasted local renewable energies output and load demand, each EH seeks to minimize the expected costs across the remaining periods in an autonomous manner.
In addition to power balance constraints and constraints (4-16) in [@8245724], constraints also include limits of charging and discharging power: $$\label{eqn_EES}
P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES}P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES}=0,\;\;
H_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm TES}H_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm TES}=0, \forall t$$ constraints associated with shiftable loads: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_shiftable_load}
\begin{split}
L_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm sl} \geq 0,\;& L_{\mathrm{th},t}^{\rm sl} \geq 0 ,\forall t \\
\sum_{t={t_{\rm c}}}^{{t_{\rm e}}}{L_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm sl}}=L_{\rm e}^{\rm sl},\;&
\sum_{t={t_{\rm c}}}^{{t_{\rm e}}}{L_{\mathrm{th},t}^{\rm sl}}=L_{\rm th}^{\rm sl}
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ and upper and lower limits of energy curtailment: $$\label{eqn_curtailment}
0\leq P_t^{\rm curt} \leq P_t^{\rm RES},\;\; H_t^{\rm curt}>0,\forall t$$
The autonomous optimization problem can thus be formulated as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_auto_optimization}
\begin{split}
&\min \sum_{t={t_{\rm c}}}^{{t_{\rm e}}}F_t\\
\mathrm{s.t.}
\eqref{eqn_IESmodel}
\eqref{eqn_EES}
\eqref{eqn_shiftable_load}
\eqref{eqn_curtailment},
&\text{constraints in \cite{8245724}}
\end{split}
\tag{P1}
\end{aligned}$$ where ${t_{\rm c}}$ and ${t_{\rm e}}$ denote current and end time index.
Storage-energy-equivalent method
--------------------------------
Some researchers have introduced binary variables[@MAJIDI2017157] to remove bi-linear terms in constraint, while this section proposes a method to relax this constraint and turn the autonomous optimization into a convex one. In this case, then can be represented as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_auto_optimization_relaxed}
\begin{split}
&\min \sum_{t={t_{\rm c}}}^{{t_{\rm e}}}F_t\\
\mathrm{s.t.} \;\;
\eqref{eqn_IESmodel}
&\eqref{eqn_shiftable_load}
\eqref{eqn_curtailment},
\text{constraints in \cite{8245724}}
\end{split}
\tag{P2}
\end{aligned}$$
The relationship between optimal solutions of problem and is discussed below. Without loss of generality, this paper only discusses the mutual exclusiveness of charging/discharging mode of EES, and the same method is also applicable to TES.
Let the feasible regions of and be $K_1$, $K_2$, optimal solutions be $ x_1^*$, $x_2^*$, and optimal values be $f(x_1^*)$,$f(x_2^*)$, respectively. Let $P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES*}$ and $P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*}$ denote the optimal charging/discharging power of EES in $x_2^*$ at time $t$. Then net energy change of EES during this period is: $$\label{eqn_EES_delta_energy}
\Delta S_t^{\rm EES*}=P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES*}\eta_{\rm ch}^{\rm EES}-
\frac{P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*}}{\eta_{\rm dch}^{\rm EES}}$$ where $\eta_{\rm ch}^{\rm EES}$ and $\eta_{\rm dch}^{\rm EES}$ denote charging and discharging efficiencies of EES, respectively.
The transformation method first calculates a pair of charging/discharging power value that leads to equivalent energy change during the control time for EES: $$\label{eqn_transform}
\left(
\widetilde P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES*}, \widetilde P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*}
\right)
=\begin{cases}
(\Delta S_t^{\rm EES*}/\eta_{\rm ch}^{\rm EES}, 0),\text{if} \Delta S_t^{\rm EES*}\geq 0 \\
(0,\; -\Delta S_t^{\rm EES*}\eta_{\rm dch}^{\rm EES}), \text{if} \Delta S_t^{\rm EES*}<0
\end{cases}$$
Then, for $\forall t$, modify the optimal EES power from $P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES*}$ and $P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*}$ to $\widetilde P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES*}$ and $\widetilde P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*}$, respectively. Besides, modify curtailment variable $P_t^{\rm curt*}$ as well to maintain power balance after the transformation: $$\label{eqn_delta_curtailment}
\widetilde P_t^{\rm curt*} = P_t^{\rm curt*} + \Delta P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES}$$ where $\Delta P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES}$ can be calculated as: $$\label{eqn_EES_delta_power}
\Delta P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES} =
\left(
\widetilde P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*} - \widetilde P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES*}
\right) -
\left(
P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*} - P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES*}
\right)$$
Let $\widetilde x_2^*$ denotes the new vector after the modification.
The following theorem provides a sufficient condition for equivalency of these two optimal solutions:
\[thm\_normal\_mode\] If no renewable energies need to be curtailed, then $P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES*}P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*} = 0, \forall t$ holds.
To prove it by contradiction, suppose that $\exists t\in \left[{t_{\rm c}},{t_{\rm e}}\right]$, such that $P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES*} > 0,\;P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*} > 0$. Without loss of generality, assume that $\Delta S_t^{\rm EES*} \geq 0$, and similar proof can be derived when $\Delta S_t^{\rm EES*} < 0$. According to , the net discharge power change can be simplified as: $$\label{eqn_EES_delta_power_geq0}
\Delta P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES} =\left(
\frac{1}{\eta_{\rm dch}^{\rm EES}\eta_{\rm ch}^{\rm EES}}-1
\right)
P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*} > 0$$ which means that compared with $x_2^*$, EES in $\widetilde x_2^*$ consumes less power. Since there is no renewable energies curtailment, according to , the [IEH ]{}agent could purchase less electricity from the main grid to supply loads, thus reducing the overall costs, which contradicts with the fact that $x_2^*$ is defined as an optimal solution of .
According to Theorem \[thm\_normal\_mode\], without energy curtailment the model has no incentive to charge and discharge simultaneously[@BECK2016331]. Actually, references[@BECK2016331; @8486723] have conducted similar relaxation steps under the precondition that this sufficient condition is always established. However, when renewable energies are abundant compared with the local load level, surplus power should be curtailed and this precondition is not established. In this case, an augmented sufficient condition is given in the following theorem:
\[thm\_extreme\_mode\] If optimal solution of $x_2^*$ satisfies: $$\label{eqn_condition_constraint}
\frac{P_t^{\rm RES} - P_t^{\rm curt*}}{1-\eta \rm _{ch}^{EES}\eta \rm _{dch}^{EES}} \geq \min (P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES*},\frac{P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*}}{\eta \rm _{ch}^{EES}\eta \rm _{dch}^{EES}})$$ then the new vector $\widetilde x_2^*$ is an optimal solution of .
Condition 1: When $x_2^* \in K_1$. First, since is satisfied and the right-hand-side of equals zero, condition is always met. Second, on the one hand, because $x_2^*$ and $x_1^*$ denote the feasible and optimal solution of respectively, it can be derived that $f(x_1^*) \leq f(x_2^*)$. On the other hand, since $K_1 \subset K_2$, then $f(x_1^*) \geq f(x_2^*)$. Therefore, $f(x_1^*)=f(x_2^*)$ and $x_2^*$ is also an optimal solution of . At last, it is obvious that $x_2^* = \widetilde x_2^*$. To sum up, $\widetilde x_2^*$ is an optimal solution of .
Condition 2: When $x_2^* \notin K_1$, which means that $\exists t\in [{t_{\rm c}},{t_{\rm e}}]$, such that $P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES*}P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*} > 0$. Let’s first verify that $\widetilde x_2^*$ still satisfy constraints associated with modified variables,i.e. $P_{\mathrm{ch},t}^{\rm EES*}, P_{\mathrm{dch},t}^{\rm EES*}$ and $P_t^{\rm curt*}$. It is obvious that $\widetilde x_2^*$ satisfies already. Since state-of-charge (SOC) change of EES stays unchanged, all SOC-related constraints still hold. Besides, upper and lower limits of EES charging/discharging power are satisfied according to . At last, substitute , into , and it can be proved that constraints are satisfied. Therefore, all constraints of are met for $\widetilde x_2^*$, and $\widetilde x_2^*$ is a feasible solution of . Since $f(x_2^*) = f(\widetilde x_2^*)$, hereafter we apply conclusion of condition 1, and it can be finally derived that $f(x_1^*) = f(\widetilde x_2^*)$. Thus, $\widetilde x_2^*$ is an optimal solution of .
It should be pointed out that extreme circumstance when is unsatisfied never occurs due to the optimal planning procedure of EH in practical operations. This fact is also verified in the simulation case. As a consequence, by solving , an optimal solution of problem can be obtained. Therefore, in the subsequent model, each EH autonomously optimizes according to .
Upper-level: Collaborative optimization based on transactive control
====================================================================
{width="90.00000%"}
Problem formulation and decomposition
-------------------------------------
The structure of IEH is shown in Fig. \[fig\_framework\](a). During each period, upper-level [IEH ]{}agent aims at minimizing its overall costs across the remaining periods while balancing the supply and demand, and limiting the transformer capacity. The optimization problem can be modeled as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_col_optimization}
\begin{split}
&\;\min \sum_{n=1}^{N}\sum_{t={t_{\rm c}}}^{{t_{\rm e}}}F_{t,n}\\
\mathrm{s.t.}&{\sum_{n=1}^{N}P_{\mathrm{e},t,n}}=P_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm Tr},\forall t\\
&-P_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm Tr,out,max}\leq P_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm Tr} \leq P_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm Tr, in,max},\forall t\\
&\text{
\eqref{eqn_IESmodel}$_n$
\eqref{eqn_shiftable_load}$_n$
\eqref{eqn_curtailment}$_n$,
constraints in \cite{8245724}}, \forall n
\end{split}
\tag{P3}
\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ is the EH index. $P_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm Tr}$ is the electricity that transformer imports from the main grid. $P_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm Tr, in,max},P_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm Tr,out,max}> 0$ are the maximum power exchanged with the main grid. The upper level problem should have been solved in an absolute centralized manner after gathering all EHs’ detailed information. However, to preserve information privacy, this paper advocates to solve it in a distributed way by employing Lagrange dual decomposition method and transactive control. The Lagrangian relaxed dual problem is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn_dual_problem}
\begin{split}
&\;\;\;\;\max_{\forall t,\lambda _t} \varphi (\lambda_t)= \max \mathrm{inf} L\\
&\mathrm{s.t.} -P_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm Tr,out,max}\leq P_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm Tr} \leq P_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm Tr, in,max},\forall t\\
&\text{
\eqref{eqn_IESmodel}$_n$
\eqref{eqn_shiftable_load}$_n$
\eqref{eqn_curtailment}$_n$,
constraints in \cite{8245724}}, \forall n
\end{split}
\tag{P4}
\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is the Lagrangian relaxation function after introducing the Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_{{t_{\rm c}}},\lambda_{t_{\rm c}+1},...,\lambda_{{t_{\rm e}}}$ associated with power balancing constraints: $$\label{eqn_Lagrange_function}
L={\sum_{n=1}^{N}\sum_{t={t_{\rm c}}}^{{t_{\rm e}}}F_{t,n}}
+\sum_{t={t_{\rm c}}}^{{t_{\rm e}}}\lambda _t{(\sum_{n=1}^{N}P_{\mathrm{e},t,n}}-P{_{\mathrm{e},t}^{\rm Tr}})$$
Since the primal problem is linear, strong duality theorem holds and the optimal value of is equivalent to .
For $\forall t$, define local electricity price $\lambda _{\mathrm{e},t}=\mu _{\mathrm{e},t} + \lambda _t$, then problem is decomposed into one master problem where the [IEH ]{}agent adjusts local price vector $\Lambda_{{t_{\rm c}}}=\left\{\lambda_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}},\lambda_{\mathrm{e},t_{\rm c}+1},...,\lambda_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm e}}}\right\}$ to strike a general supply and demand balance, in addition to $N+1$ subproblems where each EH minimizes its cost under the local electricity price $\Lambda_{{t_{\rm c}}}$ and the transformer itself maximizes its profits through exchanging electricity power with the main gird.
Two-stage procedure
-------------------
A market is established in the upper level where each EH participates as independent energy demander and the transformer participates as the supplier. This paper then proposes a two-stage procedure to obtain optimal result as well as to meet the real-time requirement.
### Day-ahead (DA) optimization
The process is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_framework\](b). Gradient method is adopted during day-ahead stage to solve the master problem iteratively.
Assume that the forecasted local price vector of $k$-th iteration is: $$\label{eqn_forecast_price}
\hat{{\boldsymbol{\Lambda}}} ^k = \left\{
\hat\lambda _{\rm e,1}^k,
\hat\lambda _{\rm e,2}^k,
\dots,
\hat\lambda _{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^k,
\dots,
\hat\lambda _{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm e}}}^k
\right\}$$ where $\hat\lambda _{\mathrm{e},t}^k$ denotes the forecasted local price at time $t$ after $k$-th iteration. At each iteration, each EH solves subproblem according to the broadcasted price $\hat{{\boldsymbol{\Lambda}}} ^k$ and bids the optimal power vector ${\boldsymbol{P}}_{\mathrm{e},n}^{*}$ to the market. After receiving all bidding data, the [IEH ]{}agent obtains optimal transformer power vector ${\boldsymbol{P}}_{\mathrm{e}}^{\rm Tr*}$ and computes the balance vector $\Delta {\boldsymbol{P}} = -{\boldsymbol{P}}_{\mathrm{e}}^{\rm Tr*} + \sum_{1}^{N}{{\boldsymbol{P}}_{\mathrm{e},n}^{*}}$. The [IEH ]{}agent then updates and broadcasts the price vector $\hat{{\boldsymbol{\Lambda}}} ^{k+1} = \hat{{\boldsymbol{\Lambda}}} ^k+\eta^k\Delta {\boldsymbol{P}}$ where $\eta^k$ denotes a feasible step length. These steps are iteratively repeated until supply and demand balance is achieved.
### Real-time (RT) optimization
The process is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_framework\](c). During every control period, the [IEH ]{}agent endeavors to eliminate the impacts of multiple uncertainties through rolling horizon optimization. Besides, at time ${t_{\rm c}}$, local electricity prices at time [$t_{\rm c}+1,t_{\rm c}+2,\dots,{t_{\rm e}}$]{} are assumed to be equal to the DA forecasted prices. Let $\lambda\rm _e^{max}$ and $\lambda\rm _e^{min}$ denote the upper and lower bound of local electricity price, and the processes of real-time optimization are described as follows:\
S0: The [IEH ]{}agent broadcasts the DA forecast price vector: $\hat{{\boldsymbol{\Lambda}}} = \left\{
\hat\lambda _{\rm e,1},
\hat\lambda _{\rm e,2},
\dots,
\hat\lambda _{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}},
\dots,
\hat\lambda _{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm e}}}
\right\}$;\
S1: The [IEH ]{}agent broadcasts price $\lambda_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^p$ of ${t_{\rm c}}$, where $p$ is real-time iteration index. ($\lambda_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^0 = \lambda\rm _e^{max}$ and $\lambda_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^1 = \lambda\rm _e^{min}$).\
S2: Each EH generates the $p$-th price vector: $$\label{eqn_RT_price}
{\boldsymbol{\Lambda}}_{{t_{\rm c}}}^p = \left\{
\lambda_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^p,
\overbrace{\hat\lambda _{\mathrm{e},t_{\rm c}+1},
\dots,
\hat\lambda _{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm e}}}}^\text{
day-ahead forecast price
}
\right\}$$
The EH then solves the autonomous subproblems and bids $P_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}},n}^{p*}$, optimal power of current period, to the market.\
S3: The [IEH ]{}agent obtains $P_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^{\mathrm{Tr},p*}$, the optimal transformer power of current period, and calculates the overall power balance: $$\label{eqn_balance}
\Delta {\boldsymbol{P}}_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^p =
-P_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^{\mathrm{Tr},p*}
+\sum_{n=1}^{N}{P_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}},n}^{p*}}$$\
S4: If power balance $\Delta {\boldsymbol{P}}_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^p$ equals zero, then set clearing price $\lambda_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^*$ to be $\lambda_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^p$ and step into S5. Else, the [IEH ]{}agent uses bisection method to update price according to $\Delta {\boldsymbol{P}}_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^p$, and step back to S1.\
S5: Each EH implements optimal result and moves into period $t_{\rm c}+1$.
It should be noted that both DA and RT stage require multiple iterations to solve the optimization master problem. Since relatively accurate price vector has been forecasted in DA stage, the RT schedule transforms high-dimensional local prices to single-dimensional ones, thus making it feasible to update $\lambda_{\mathrm{e},{t_{\rm c}}}^{p+1}$ by the bisection method, which outperforms gradient method with respect to convergence speed.
Case Study
==========
Simulation Setup
----------------
An IEH consisting of 15 EHs is illustrated in the simulation case. Parameters of EHs, together with load and renewable energies data are listed in [@8245724]. The interval period is 1h, maximum and minimum electricity price in the market is 1.5 and 0 yuan/kWh, respectively. The main grid follows real-time utility electricity prices. The price of natural gas is 3.3 yuan/m$^3$. Its density is 0.79kg/m$^3$, and the calorific value is 45MJ/kg. The day-ahead, intra-day, and real-time forecast errors of renewable energies are $\pm 30\%$, $\pm 10\%$, and $\pm 5\%$, respectively; the day-ahead, intra-day, and real-time forecast errors of load are $\pm 20\%$, $\pm8\%$, and $\pm 3\%$, respectively[@20171225002].
Results and Discussions
-----------------------
To verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, the upper-level problem is solved by the centralized rolling optimization method and the proposed scheme, separately. The total cost of IEH using method proposed in this paper is 247,185 yuan, while the centralized result is 247,173 yuan. Energy costs of each EH are listed in Table \[table\_costs\]. Result of the propsoed method is verified to be very close to that of the centralized optimization method. Therefore, the method proposed in this paper is efficient in obtaining a rather optimal solution of the collaborative optimization in a distributed manner.
No. C D No. C D No. C D
----- ------- ------- ----- ------- ------- ----- ------- -------
1 18504 18492 6 17982 18038 11 24717 24743
2 17064 17067 7 4860 4888 12 15425 15446
3 22886 22862 8 17499 17518 13 22858 22817
4 21209 21189 9 12660 12611 14 26982 26986
5 7928 7928 10 11766 11766 15 4833 4833
: Costs of 15 EHs under centralized(C) method and distributed(D) method proposed in this paper (yuan)[]{data-label="table_costs"}
Fig. \[fig\_transformer\] compares the main transformer power when using the two different schemes, the main grid real-time electricity price, the DA forecast price and the RT clearing electricity price curve. It can be seen that during 7:00-23:00, the real-time utility price is relatively high. The main transformer is not congested, and its power is basically the same in the two cases. On the contrary, the price is relatively low during 24:00-6:00. Congestion occurs, but both schemes ensure that the main transformer power is limited within the maximum capacity. Furthermore, it can also be seen from Fig. \[fig\_transformer\] that the clearing electricity price is higher than the forecast electricity price at 24:00. It is because that remaining unsatisfied shiftable loads are forced to be satisfied during the last scheduling period, thus lowering the EH’s control flexibility. Besides, due to the existence of renewable energies and loads uncertainties, transformer power differences between these two schemes have been observed during some time periods such as 7:00 and 19:00.
![Transformer power of two methods and price curves []{data-label="fig_transformer"}](transformer){width="48.00000%"}
Simulation results of electric power of one EH is given in Fig. \[fig\_EES\]. As expected, conditions where is unsatisfied have not been witnessed in the simulation case.
![Simulation results of one EH’s electric power[]{data-label="fig_EES"}](EES){width="48.00000%"}
This paper further simulates the efficiency of the proposed method in coordinating IEH of different scales. Results are shown in Table \[table\_iteration\]. The results show that by applying proposed method, the number of iterations during RT stage are greatly reduced compared with DA iteration. In addition, the number of iterations before and during the day will not increase significantly with the growth of EH numbers. These ensure that the computation complexity and iteration speed can meet the efficiency requirement for real-time control within the day, and system’s scalability is also maintained.
EH number 10 20 50 100
--------------------- ----- ----- ---- -----
Day-ahead iteration 140 117 78 92
Real-time iteration 9 9 9 9
: Iterations of day-ahead and real-time optimization[]{data-label="table_iteration"}
Conclusion
==========
Considering issues associated with information privacy and operation authority among different management sectors, this paper introduces TC method in managing IEH. Specially, a bi-level two-stage optimization framework is established, where each EH performs autonomous optimization in the lower level, and TC method is applied to realize collaborative energy management for IEH in the upper level.
In the autonomous optimization, this paper proposes an equivalent method of energy storage and provides its mathematical proof, in order to relax the nonlinear equality constraint and model the problem in a convex way. In the collaborative optimization, a two-stage procedure is designed to simplify the dual variables in the real-time stage, thus enabling the later utilization of a bisection method to solve the clearing price. Since bisection method excels in convergence performance, the optimization method can meet the real-time control requirements. The simulation case reaffirms that precise prices forecasted in the day-ahead stage can help the upper level to obtain a rather close result to the centralized method.
[^1]: This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFB0905000)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Popov classified crystallographic complex reflection groups by determining lattices they stabilize. These analogs of affine Weyl groups have infinite order and are generated by reflections about affine hyperplanes; most arise as the semi-direct product of a finite complex reflection group and a full rank lattice. Steinberg’s fixed point theorem asserts that the regular orbits under the action of a reflection group are exactly the orbits lying off of reflecting hyperplanes. This theorem holds for finite reflection groups (real or complex) and also affine Weyl groups but fails for some crystallographic complex reflection groups. We determine when Steinberg’s theorem holds for the infinite family of crystallographic complex reflection groups. We include crystallographic groups built on finite Coxeter groups.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Dartmouth College\
Hanover, NH 03755, USA
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of North Texas\
Denton, TX 76203, USA
author:
- Philip Puente
- 'Anne V. Shepler'
date: 'February 23, 2018.'
title: |
Steinberg’s theorem\
for crystallographic complex reflection groups
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
We investigate Steinberg’s fixed point theorem for affine complex reflection groups, analogs of affine Weyl groups called [*crystallographic complex reflection groups*]{}. These discrete groups were classified by Popov [@Popov] in 1982 and are generated by reflections about affine hyperplanes, i.e., mirrors that do not necessarily include the origin. They combine the isometries of a finite complex reflection group $G\leq\text{GL}(V)$ with translation along a $G$-invariant lattice $\Lambda$ in $V={{\mathbb C}}^n$, but they can not always be described as a semi-direct product $G\ltimes \Lambda$. The adjective [*crystallographic*]{} indicates that the orbit space $V/W$ for the action of $W$ on $V$ is compact.
A point under the action of a group is called [*regular*]{} if its stabilizer in the group is trivial. Steinberg [@Steinberg; @Steinberg68] showed that the regular points under the action of a finite reflection group (real or complex) or an affine Weyl group are precisely those lying off of the reflecting hyperplanes. A famous (or infamous) series of exercises in Bourbaki [@Bourbaki Ch. V, §5, Ex. 8] also outlines a proof of this fact using Auslander [@Auslander]. More recently, Lehrer [@Lehrer] gave a proof based on elementary invariant theory. Steinberg [@Steinberg68] remarked that this result is sometimes known as “Chevalley’s Theorem” in the case of Coxeter groups although it was known to Cartan and Weyl. We show that Steinberg’s theorem holds for most crystallographic complex reflection groups but not all. In fact, it fails for some groups whose underlying linear parts are finite Coxeter groups.
Every affine complex reflection group is the direct sum of irreducible ones (or trivial groups), and the conclusion of Steinberg’s theorem is preserved under direct sum. Thus one asks: For which irreducible groups does Steinberg’s theorem hold? Popov’s classification [@Popov] of irreducible crystallographic reflection groups comprises one infinite family of groups $[G(r,p,n)]_k=G(r,p,n)\ltimes
\Lambda$ depending on $4$ parameters and some exceptional groups. The $4$-parameter family combines the $3$-parameter family of finite complex reflection groups $G(r,p,n)$ (which includes the infinite families of Coxeter groups) with various invariant lattices $\Lambda$ in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$. We classify those groups in this family for which non-regular orbits all lie on reflecting hyperplanes, thus determining when Steinberg’s theorem holds. We treat the case of crystallographic groups built on Coxeter groups separately.
Let $\Lambda$ be a $G(r,p,n)$-invariant lattice of full rank $2n$ in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$ for $r,p,n\geq 1$. Assume $G(r,p,n)$ is not a Coxeter group. The set of nonregular points for $W=G(r,p,n)\ltimes \Lambda$ acting on ${{\mathbb C}}^n$ is the union of reflecting affine hyperplanes for $W$ if and only if $r \neq p$ and $W\neq[G(3,1,n)]_2$ and $W\neq[G(6,3,2)]_2$.
We also determine those crystallographic reflection groups $G\ltimes \Lambda$ for which Steinberg’s theorem fails when $G$ lies in an infinite family of Weyl groups, see Theorem \[nongenuine\]: The theorem fails except when $G$ is $W(A_{n-1})$ or $W(B_n)$, and even then it does not always hold. Our arguments rely on analysis of orbits under various reflection groups of infinite order acting on subsets of ${{\mathbb C}}$. The next two examples are those mentioned in the theorem. We use the standard basis $e_1,\ldots, e_n$ of $V={{\mathbb C}}^n$.
The group $[G(6,3,2)]_2$ acting on ${{\mathbb C}}^2$ is $G(6,3,2)\ltimes \Lambda$ for ${{\mathbb {Z}}}$-lattice in ${{\mathbb C}}^2$ of rank $4$ $$\Lambda={{\mathbb {Z}}}[2\xi](\xi e_1-e_2)+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}[2\xi](1-\xi)(e_1-e_2),$$ where $\xi=e^{2 \pi i/6}$ and where $G(6,3,2)$ is the linear group generated by $
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0& 1\rule[-.5ex]{0ex}{1.5ex}\\
1 & 0
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\xi^3 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\text{ and }
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0 & \xi \\
\xi^{-1} & 0
\end{smallmatrix}\right).
$
The group $[G(3,1,n)]_2$ acting on ${{\mathbb C}}^n$ is $W=G(3,1,n)\ltimes \Lambda$ for ${{\mathbb {Z}}}$-lattice of rank $2n$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda\ &=\
{{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]e_1\oplus\Sigma_{k=2}^{n}\ \ {{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]\, \left(\tfrac{1}{1-{\omega}}\right)(e_{k-1}-e_k)\\
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\omega}=e^{2 \pi i/3}$. Here, $G(3,1,n)$ is the finite complex reflection group generated by the $n\times n$ permutation matrices together with the diagonal matrix ${{\operatorname{diag}({\omega}, 1, \ldots, 1)}}$.
Outline {#outline .unnumbered}
-------
We give basic notions and recall Steinberg’s fixed point theorem for reflection groups in Section \[setup\]. We review Popov’s classification in Section \[classification\]. The case of crystallographic groups built upon the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$ appears in Section \[symmetricgroupsection\]. We determine the genuine groups $G(r,p,n)\ltimes \Lambda$ satisfying Steinberg’s theorem in Section \[groupspassing\] and those for which the theorem fails in Section \[groupsfailing\]. In Section \[Coxetersection\], we consider crystallographic groups built upon Coxeter groups.
Crystallographic reflection groups {#setup}
==================================
We fix a positive definite inner product on $V={{\mathbb C}}^n$ and standard basis $e_1,\ldots, e_n$ of $V$ with dual basis $x_1,\ldots, x_n$ of $V^*$. All lattices are ${{\mathbb {Z}}}$-lattices and a lattice in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$ has [*full rank*]{} if it has rank $2n$.
Affine transformations {#affine-transformations .unnumbered}
----------------------
We identify the set of affine transformations on $V$ with $\text{M}_n({{\mathbb C}})\ltimes V$ so that an [*affine transformation*]{} $g$ of $V$ is the composition of a linear transformation and a translation: $$g(v)=\operatorname*{Lin}(g)(v)+\operatorname*{Tran}(g)
\quad\text{ for } v \text{ in }V\, ,$$ for some fixed matrix $\operatorname*{Lin}(v)\in M_n({{\mathbb C}})$, the [*linear part*]{} of $g$, and a fixed vector $\operatorname*{Tran}(g)=g(0)\in V$, the [*translational part*]{} of $g$. Note that $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is the map $v\mapsto g(v)-g(0)$. The set of invertible affine transformations $A(V)$ is identified with $GL(V)\ltimes V$ via $g\mapsto (\operatorname*{Lin}(g), g(0))$ and we have a map $\operatorname*{Lin}:A(V)\rightarrow {{\operatorname{GL}}}(V)$.
Affine reflections {#affine-reflections .unnumbered}
------------------
An [*affine reflection*]{} (or just [*reflection*]{}) on $V$ is a non-identity affine isometry $s$ fixing an affine hyperplane $H_s$ in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$ pointwise, called the [*reflecting hyperplane*]{} of $s$. A reflection $s$ is [*central*]{} if $s(0)=0$ or, equivalently, if $H_s=\ker(s-1_V)$ is a linear subspace of $V$ and $s$ is a linear transformation. When $s$ is a central reflection of finite order, there is a vector $\alpha_s \perp H_s$ with $s(\alpha_s)=\xi\alpha_s$ for some primitive $m$-th root-of-unity $\xi$ in ${{\mathbb C}}$, the non-identity eigenvalue of $s$, where $m$ is the order of $s$.
The lemma below shows that every affine reflection is obtained by composing a central reflection with translation by a vector perpendicular to the central reflecting hyperplane (compare with Popov [@Popov Subsection 1.2]). We give a proof of this fact and related observations we need later for completeness.
\[geometrylemma\] Suppose $g$ is an affine transformation on $V$ and $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ has finite order. Then
- The transformation $g$ has finite order if and only if $g$ fixes some point of $V$.
- The transformation $g$ is a reflection if and only if $$g(v)=s(v)+b\quad\text{ for all}\ v\in V$$ for some central reflection $s\in{{\operatorname{GL}}}(V)$ of finite order and $b\in H_{s}^{\perp}$. Here, $H_g=H_{s} + h$ for any $h\in H_g$.
- The transformation $g$ is a reflection if and only if $g$ fixes a point of $V$ and $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is a reflection.
For (1), if $g$ has finite order, then it fixes the average of the elements in the orbit of the zero vector in $V$ under the cyclic group $\langle g
\rangle$. Conversely, suppose $g$ fixes a point $u$ in $V$ and $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ has finite order. Then $u=g(u)=\operatorname*{Lin}(g)u+\operatorname*{Tran}(g)$ and $g(v)=\operatorname*{Lin}(g)v+\operatorname*{Tran}(g)=\operatorname*{Lin}(g)(v-u)+u$ for all $v\in V$. Then $g$ has finite order as $\left< g\right>$ is conjugate to the finite group $\langle \operatorname*{Lin}(g) \rangle$.
For (2), let $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)=s$ and $\operatorname*{Tran}(g)=b$. Suppose $g$ is a reflection. Then $H_g=H_0+c$ for some central hyperplane $H_0$ in $V$ and some $c$ in $V$, and for any $h_0\in H_0$, $$h_0+c=g(h_0+c)=s(h_0)+s(c)+b=s(h_0)+g(c)=s(h_0)+c.$$ Hence, $s\neq 1$ is a reflection in ${{\operatorname{GL}}}(V)$ with $H_s=H_0$. Furthermore, $b\in\text{Im}(1-s)=H_0^{\perp}$. Conversely, assume $s\in\text{GL}(V)$ is a reflection of finite order and $b\in H_s^{\perp}$. Then $s(b)=\xi b$ for some primitive $m$-th root-of-unity where $m$ is the order of $s$. Then $$g^m(v)=s^m(v)+\Sigma_{k=0}^{m-1}\ s^k(b)=v+\Sigma_{k=0}^{m-1}\ \xi^k b=v
\quad\text{ for all } v \in V$$ and $g$ also has finite order. By part (1), $g$ must fix a point $u$ in $V$. Then $g(h+u)=s(h+u)+b=s(h)+s(u)+b=h+u$ for any $h$ in $H_s$ and $g$ is a reflection about the hyperplane $H_s+u$. Part (3) follows from part (2).
Reflection groups {#reflection-groups .unnumbered}
-----------------
An [*affine reflection group*]{} (or just [*reflection group*]{}) is a subgroup of $A(V)$ generated by affine reflections acting discretely on $V={{\mathbb C}}^n$. The [*reflecting hyperplanes*]{} for a group $W$ are the hyperplanes fixed by reflections in $W$. For any reflection group $W$, we set (following Popov [@Popov]) $$\operatorname*{Lin}(W)=\{\operatorname*{Lin}(g): g\in W\}\quad\text{ and }\quad
\operatorname*{Tran}(W)=\{g\in W: g = \operatorname*{Tran}(g)\}\, .$$ Every affine reflection group $W$ is the product of irreducible affine reflection groups (or trivial groups) and $W$ is irreducible exactly when $\operatorname*{Lin}(W)$ is irreducible, see [@Popov]. If $G\leq {{\operatorname{GL}}}_n({{\mathbb C}})$ is an irreducible finite reflection group and $\Lambda$ is a $G$-invariant lattice in $V$, then $W=G\ltimes \Lambda$ is an affine reflection group with $\operatorname*{Lin}(W)=G$ and $\operatorname*{Tran}(W)=\Lambda$.
Crystallographic groups {#crystallographic-groups .unnumbered}
-----------------------
An affine reflection group $W$ acting on $V={{\mathbb C}}^n$ is [*crystallographic*]{} if its space of orbits $V/W$ is compact; otherwise it is [*noncrystallographic*]{}. Popov [@Popov] showed that if $W$ is an irreducible affine reflection group of infinite order, then $\operatorname*{Tran}(W)$ is a lattice of rank $n=\dim V$ or $2n$, and the crystallographic groups are those whose lattices have full rank $2n$.
Genuine groups {#genuine-groups .unnumbered}
--------------
A [*Coxeter group*]{} is a group of general linear transformations generated by reflections on ${{\mathbb {R}}}^n$. We assume all Coxeter groups act discretely. Every Coxeter group defines a reflection group on ${{\mathbb C}}^{n}$ by extension of scalars. The infinite Coxeter groups acting on ${{\mathbb {R}}}^n$ are the [*affine Weyl groups*]{}; they define affine reflection groups acting on ${{\mathbb C}}^n$ which are not crystallographic since the underlying lattices have rank $n$ instead of $2n$. But the Weyl groups acting on ${{\mathbb {R}}}^n$ define groups acting on ${{\mathbb C}}^n$ which stabilize various lattices of full rank $2n$. Following Malle [@Malle], we call the resulting affine complex reflection groups $W$ [*non-genuine*]{}: they are crystallographic but have linear part $\operatorname*{Lin}(W)$ a Coxeter group. We say a crystallographic reflection group $W$ is [*genuine*]{} when $\operatorname*{Lin}(W)$ is not merely obtained as the complexification of a finite Coxeter group. See Section \[Coxetersection\].
Steinberg’s fixed point theorem {#steinbergs-fixed-point-theorem .unnumbered}
-------------------------------
We recall Steinberg’s fixed point theorem:
\[Steinberg [@Steinberg], [@Steinberg68]\] \[thm:steinberg\] Let $W$ be a Coxeter group (of finite or infinite order) or a finite complex reflection group acting on $V$. Then a vector $v$ in $V$ is fixed by some nonidentity group element of $W$ if and only if $v$ lies on a reflecting hyperplane for $W$.
We say an affine reflection group $W$ has the [*Steinberg property*]{} if the set of nonregular points is the union of reflecting hyperplanes for $W$, i.e., if the conclusion of Theorem \[thm:steinberg\] holds.
Recall that affine transformations which are conjugate under some $a$ in ${{\operatorname{GL}}}(V)$ have fixed point spaces in the same $a$-orbit. Thus to show that the fixed point space $V^g$ of some element $g$ in a reflection group $W$ lies on a reflecting hyperplane for $W$, we may replace $g$ by any conjugate of $g$ in $W$. We may also replace $g$ by any power of $g$, as $V^g\subset V^{g^j}$ for all $j$.
Classification
==============
Rank 1 crystallographic groups {#rank-one}
------------------------------
Every rank $n=1$ reflection group $W$ trivially satisfies the Steinberg property since affine hyperplanes are just points in $V={{\mathbb C}}^1$ and the reflections of $W$ are exactly those group elements in $W$ fixing a point of $V$. Our arguments later use orbits of various rank $1$ reflection groups acting on certain sets, so we give a few more details on this case here. Every rank $n=1$ crystallographic reflection group is $$W=G(r,1,1)\ltimes \Lambda$$ for some cyclic group $G(r,1,1)=\langle \xi \rangle
\subset \text{GL}(V)$ acting on $V={{\mathbb C}}$ for $\xi=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{r}}$ with $r\geq 2$ and some lattice $\Lambda={{\mathbb {Z}}}\oplus {{\mathbb {Z}}}\zeta$ stable under multiplication by $\xi$ with $\zeta\in{{\mathbb C}}$. When $W$ is nongenuine, $r=2$ and $\Lambda$ is equivalent to ${{\mathbb {Z}}}+{{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha$ for some $\alpha\in {{\mathbb C}}$ in the modular strip (see Section \[Coxetersection\]). When $W$ is genuine, only 2 possible lattices $\Lambda$ arise, with $\zeta$ a third or fourth root-of-unity in ${{\mathbb C}}$, and $r=3$, $4$ or $6$. In this case, ${{\mathbb {Z}}}+{{\mathbb {Z}}}\zeta={{\mathbb {Z}}}[\zeta]$ and $W\cong {{\mathbb {Z}}}/r{{\mathbb {Z}}}\ltimes {{\mathbb {Z}}}[\zeta]$. In fact, every genuine crystallographic reflection group acting on ${{\mathbb C}}$ is equivalent to a subgroup of one of the 3 examples below (see Popov [@Popov]).
The reflection group $W=G(4,1,1)\ltimes {{\mathbb Z}}[i]$ acting on $V={{\mathbb C}}$ is crystallographic with $\frac{1}{2}{{\mathbb Z}}[i]$ the set of reflecting hyperplanes. Larger dots indicate points in the lattice ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[i]$.
The reflection group $W=G(6,1,1)\ltimes\mathbb{Z}[{\omega}]$ for ${\omega}=e^{2\pi i/3}$ acting on $V=\mathbb{C}$ is crystallographic with $\tfrac{1}{1-{\omega}}({{\mathbb {Z}}}+{{\mathbb {Z}}}{\omega})\cup\tfrac{1}{2}({{\mathbb {Z}}}+{{\mathbb {Z}}}{\omega})
$ the set of reflecting hyperplanes. Again, larger dots indicate points in the lattice ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$.
The group $W=G(3,1,1)
\ltimes\mathbb{Z}[e^{2\pi i/3}]$ is a crystallographic reflecting group acting on $V={{\mathbb C}}$.
The 3-parameter family of finite complex reflection groups {#the-3-parameter-family-of-finite-complex-reflection-groups .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------
Shephard and Todd [@ST] classified the irreducible finite complex reflection groups. They give a 3-parameter family $G(r,p,n)$ and 34 exceptional groups denoted by $G_i$ for $4\leq i\leq 37$. The group $G(r,1,n)$ consists of $n \times n$ monomial matrices (i.e., matrices with a single nonzero entry in each row and column) whose nonzero entries are complex $r$-th roots-of-unity, for $r$ a positive integer. Note that as an abstract group, $$G(r,1,n)\cong \mathfrak{S}_n\ltimes(\mathbb{Z}/r\mathbb{Z})^n,$$ where $\mathfrak{S}_n$ is the symmetric group. Each group $G(r,1,n)$ is generated by reflections on $V={{\mathbb C}}^n$ of order $2$ and order $r$ (see [@OrlikTerao]). In fact, $G(r,1,n)$ is the symmetry group of the [*cross-polytope*]{} in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$, a regular complex polytope studied by Shephard [@Shephard] and Coxeter [@Coxeter]. Note that $G(r,1,n)$ acts by isometries with respect to the standard inner product.
For any integer $p \geq 1$ dividing $r$, the group $G(r,p,n)$ is the subgroup of $G(r,1,n)$ consisting of those matrices whose product of nonzero entries is $1$ when raised to the power $r/p$. The groups $G(r,p,n)$ are also generated by reflections and include the infinite families of Coxeter groups acting on ${{\mathbb {R}}}^n$:
- $G(2,1,n)$ is the Weyl group $\text{W}(B_n)$,
- $G(2,2,n)$ is the Weyl group $\text{W}(D_n)$,
- $G(r,r,2)$ is the dihedral group $\text{W}(I_r)$ of order $2r$ after change-of-basis,
- $G(1,1,n)$ is the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$ acting by permutation matrices with irreducible reflection representation $W(A_{n-1})$.
Note that $G(3,3,2)$ is equivalent to the complexification of the Weyl group $W(A_2)$. Also, $G(4,4,2)$ and $G(2,1,2)$ are equivalent and $G(2,2,2)=G(2,1,1)\times G(2,1,1)$.
The group $G=G(4,1,2)$ is generated by matrices $
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
i&0\\0 &1
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&1\\1 &0
\end{smallmatrix}\right)
$. The reflections in $G$ are the diagonal matrices with only one diagonal entry not equal to 1 and the antidiagonal matrices whose nonzero entries are inverse. The reflecting hyperplanes for $G$ are $H_j=\ker(x_j)$ for $j=1,2$ and $H_{1,2}(\zeta)=\ker(x_1-\zeta x_2)$ for $\zeta$ a $4$-th root-of-unity.
Popov’s Classification of crystallographic groups {#popovs-classification-of-crystallographic-groups .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------
Popov [@Popov] classified the crystallographic reflection groups $W$ using Shephard and Todd’s [@ST] notation for their linear parts, showing that if $W$ is irreducible, then $\operatorname*{Lin}(W)$ fixes $\operatorname*{Tran}(W)$ set-wise and $\operatorname*{Lin}(W)$ is one of $$W(A_{n-1}),\ G(2,p,n),\ G(3,p,n),\ G(4,p,n),\
\text{or } G(6,p,n),$$ or one of the $16$ exceptional groups $$G_4,\ G_5,\ G_8,\ G_{12},\ G_{24},\ G_{25},\ G_{26},\ G_{28},\ G_{29},\ G_{31},\ G_{32},\ G_{33},\ G_{34},\ G_{35},\ G_{36},\ G_{37}.$$ Each nongenuine crystallographic complex reflection group stabilizes a moduli space of full rank lattices in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$, see Section \[Coxetersection\]. If $W$ is an irreducible crystallographic complex reflection group and $W\not\cong \operatorname*{Lin}(W)\ltimes \operatorname*{Tran}(W)$, then $\operatorname*{Lin}(W)$ is $G(4,2,n)$, $G(6,2,2)$, $G_{12}$, or $G_{31}$. (Goryunov [@Goryunov] gives the group $[G(6,2,2)]^*$ left out of the classification.) We do not consider these exceptional cases here.
Popov [@Popov] determined that each irreducible genuine finite complex reflection group $W$ stabilizes at most three full rank lattices, up to equivalence. His notation $$W=[G_i]_k$$ indicates that $W$ has linear part $\operatorname*{Lin}(W)=G_i$ in the notation of Shephard and Todd with the index $k=1$, $2$, or $3$ indicating one of possibly three different lattices $\operatorname*{Tran}(W)=\Lambda$ stabilized by $G_i$. When there is only one such lattice, we write $[G_i]_1$, although Popov merely writes $[G_i]$.
4-parameter family of crystallographic groups {#parameter-family-of-crystallographic-groups .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------
The $3$-parameter family of finite groups $G(r,p,n)$ gives rise to a $4$-parameter family of crystallographic reflection groups $[G(r,p,n)]_k=
G(r,p,n)\ltimes \Lambda$ where $\Lambda$ is a $G(r,p,n)$-invariant lattice of rank $2n$ in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$. The affine reflections in $G(r,p,n)\ltimes \Lambda$ have the form $
s(v)=\sigma(v) + b$ for $v\in V$ where $\sigma$ is a reflection in $G(r,p,n)$ fixing some central hyperplane $H_\sigma$ of the form $\ker(x_j-\xi^p x_k)$ or $\ker(x_j)$ for $1\leq j<k\leq n$ and where $b\in \Lambda
\cap (H_\sigma)^\perp$ (see Lemma \[geometrylemma\]).
Table \[StateTable\] gives the genuine crystallographic groups in the infinite family $[G(r,p,n)]_k=G(r,p,n)\ltimes \Lambda$ and specifies those for which Steinberg’s theorem holds. Here, $k=1,2,3$ indicates choice of lattice $\Lambda$. We omit non-genuine groups $W$, as they appear in Section \[Coxetersection\], and thus we assume $r>2$ and omit the groups $[G(r,r,2)]$. Again, $\xi$ is a primitive $r$-th root-of-unity in ${{\mathbb C}}$; note that ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]={{\mathbb {Z}}}+{{\mathbb {Z}}}\xi$ for $r=3,4,6$.
[p[.15]{}p[.08]{}p[.42]{}p[.15]{} ]{} & [**dim**]{} & [**$G(r,p,n)$-invariant lattice $\Lambda$**]{} & [**Steinberg’s thm**]{}\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(r,1,1)]_1$ & $n=1$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]e_1$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(3,1,n)]_1$ & $n\geq 2$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]e_1+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(3,1,n)]_2$ & $n\geq 2$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]e_1+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]
\left(\tfrac{1}{1-\xi}\right)(e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(3,3,n)]_1$ & $n\geq 3$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](\xi e_1-e_2)+\Sigma_{k=j}^{n}{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(4,1,n)]_1$ & $n\geq 2$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]e_1+\Sigma_{k=j}^{n}{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(4,1,n)]_2$ & $n\geq 2$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]e_1+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]\left(\tfrac{1}{1-\xi}\right)(e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(4,2,n)]_1$ & $n\geq 2$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](\xi e_1-e_2)+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(4,2,n)]_2$ & $n\geq 2$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](\xi e_1-e_2)+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](e_{j-1}-e_j)+{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]e_n$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(4,2,2)]_3$ & $n= 2$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](\xi e_1-e_2)+{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](1+\xi)(e_1-e_2)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(4,4,n)]_1$ & $n\geq 3$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](\xi e_1-e_2)+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(6,1,n)]_1$ & $n\geq 2$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]e_1+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(6,2,n)]_1$ & $n\geq 2$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](\xi e_1-e_2)+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(6,3,n)]_1$ & $n\geq 2$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](\xi e_1-e_2)+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(6,2,2)]_2$ & $n= 2$ &${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](\xi e_1-e_2)+{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](1+\xi)(e_1-e_2)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(6,3,2)]_2$ & $n= 2$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[2\xi](\xi e_1-e_2)+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}[2\xi](1-\xi)(e_1-e_2)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(6,6,n)]_1$ & $n\geq 3$ & ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](\xi e_1-e_2)+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi](e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
The symmetric group {#symmetricgroupsection}
===================
The group $G(1,1,n)$ is the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$ acting on $V={{\mathbb C}}^n$ in its natural reflection representation by permutation of basis vectors $e_1,\ldots, e_n$. It is reducible and not the linear part of any crystallographic affine reflection group. We identify the irreducible Weyl group $W(A_{n-1})\cong \mathfrak{S}_n$ with the restriction of $G(1,1,n)$ to the subspace $V'={{\mathbb C}}\text{-span}\{e_2-e_1, \ldots,
e_n-e_{n-1}\}\cong {{\mathbb C}}^{n-1}$ of $V$. Every irreducible crystallographic complex reflection group with linear part $W(A_{n-1})$ lies in the $1$-parameter family $$[W(A_{n-1})]^{\alpha}_1
=W(A_{n-1})\ltimes \Lambda_\alpha
\cong \mathfrak{S}_n
\ltimes \Lambda_\alpha
\quad\text{ for }\
$$ \_ = \_[j=2]{}\^[n]{}(+)(e\_[j-1]{}-e\_j), [[C]{}]{}. $$ In fact, every $W[(A_{n-1})]_1^\alpha$ is equivalent to a group with $\alpha$ in the modular strip (see Section \[Coxetersection\]).
We use the next proposition to streamline arguments later for genuine and nongenuine groups.
\[cyclecase\] Let $W=G(r,p,n)\ltimes \Lambda$ for some $G(r,p,n)$-invariant lattice $\Lambda$ of full rank in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$, for $r,p\geq 1$, $n\geq 2$. Suppose that $g$ in $W$ has linear part a nontrivial cycle in the symmetric group $G(1,1,n)$. Then any vector fixed by $g$ lies on a reflecting hyperplane for $W$.
The claim follows for $n=1$, see Subsection \[rank-one\], so we assume $n>1$. After conjugation, we may assume $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)=(m\ \ m+1\
\ m+2\ \cdots\ \ell)\neq 1$ in $\mathfrak{S}_n$ for some $1\leq m\leq n$, using $\mathfrak{S}_n$-notation for elements of $G(1,1,n)$. Let $s$ be the affine reflection about the hyperplane $H_s=\ker(x_m-x_{m+1}+\beta)$ in $V$ defined by $$s(v) = (m\ \ \ m+1)v + \beta (e_{m+1}- e_{m})
\quad\text{for}\ \ v \in V\, ,$$ with $\beta=x_{m+1}(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))\in {{\mathbb C}}$. Then $\operatorname*{Tran}(g)\in\Lambda$ implies $\beta (e_{m+1}- e_{m})\in \Lambda$ as well, upon inspection of the possible lattices, see Tables \[StateTable\] and \[CoxeterTable\], and $s$ lies in $W$. If $g$ fixes $u\in V$, then $x_{m+1}(u)=x_m(u) + \beta$ and $u$ lies on the reflecting hyperplane $H_s$ of $W$.
In the next proposition, we see that Steinberg’s theorem holds for all reflection groups of the form $W=W(A_{n-1})
\ltimes \Lambda$ for any $W(A_{n-1})$-invariant lattice $\Lambda$ of full rank in ${{\mathbb C}}^{n-1}$.
\[symmetric\] Let $W$ be a crystallographic complex reflection group whose linear part is the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$ in its irreducible reflection representation as the Weyl group $W(A_{n-1})$. Then $W$ satisfies the Steinberg property.
Consider $W'=W(A_{n-1})\ltimes \Lambda_\alpha$ acting on $V'$ for some $\alpha\in {{\mathbb C}}$ and let $W=G(1,1,n)\ltimes \Lambda$ for $\Lambda$ the rank $2(n-1)$ lattice $\Lambda_\alpha$ regarded as a lattice in $V ={{\mathbb C}}^n$. We follow the proof of the last lemma to see that any vector in $V$ fixed by a group element of $W$ lies on a reflecting hyperplane for $W$. Since $W$ is the direct sum of $W'$ and the trivial rank $1$ representation of $\mathfrak{S}_n$, the claim follows for $W'$ as well.
Which groups have the Steinberg property? {#groupspassing}
=========================================
In this section, we determine those genuine crystallographic complex reflection groups $G(r,1,n) \ltimes \Lambda$ which satisfy Steinberg’s theorem. We begin with a small lemma that does not require that $W$ be genuine. The lemma allows us to later reduce to arguments on orbits under the action of $1$-dimensional reflection groups. In part (3) below, we consider orbits under the action of $G(r,1,1)\ltimes \Lambda'$ on ${{\mathbb C}}$, with $G(r,1,1)=\langle \xi \rangle$ acting by multiplication and $\Lambda'\subset {{\mathbb C}}$ acting by translation (identifying ${{\mathbb C}}e_1$ with ${{\mathbb C}}$).
\[TechnicalLemma\] Let $W=G(r,p,n)\ltimes \Lambda$ for some $G(r,p,n)$-invariant lattice $\Lambda$ in ${{\mathbb C}}^n$. Consider any $g$ in $W$ and write $\lambda_1,\ldots,
\lambda_n$ for the diagonal entries of $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$. Suppose one of the following holds:
- $\lambda_j
\not\in\{0, 1\}$ for some index $j$ and $g^p\neq 1$ with $r\neq p$ and $ x_j(\operatorname*{Tran}(g^p)) e_1\in \Lambda$;
- $\lambda_j
\not\in\{0, 1\}$ for some index $j$ and $g^p=1$ with $r\neq p$ and $x_j(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))\, e_1\in \Lambda\ (1-\lambda_j)
\rule[-2ex]{0ex}{4ex}$;
- $\lambda_j,
\lambda_\ell\not\in\{0, 1\}$ for some $j\neq \ell$, the lattice $\Lambda$ is invariant under $G(r,1,n)$, and $$\tfrac{x_j(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))}{1-\lambda_j}\
\quad\text{ and }\quad \tfrac{x_\ell(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))}
{1-\lambda_\ell}$$ lie in the same orbit under the action of $G(r,1,1)\ltimes \Lambda'
$ on ${{\mathbb C}}$ for $\Lambda'= x_1
\big({{\mathbb C}}(e_1-e_2)\cap\Lambda\big)$.
Then any vector fixed by $g$ lies on a reflecting hyperplane of $W$.
We use Lemma \[geometrylemma\] throughout. Suppose (1) holds and set $\beta=x_j(\operatorname*{Tran}(g^p))$. Any vector $u$ in $V$ fixed by $g$ is fixed by $g^p$ and thus satisfies $x_j(u)=\lambda^p_j x_j(u)+\beta$, since $\operatorname*{Lin}(g^p)=(\operatorname*{Lin}(g))^p$. Hence $u$ is fixed by the affine transformation $s$ defined by $$s(v)=\text{diag}(1,\ldots,1,
\lambda^p_j, 1,\ldots, 1)v+
\beta
e_j
\quad\text{ for } v \in {{\mathbb C}}^n,$$ with $\lambda^p_j$ as $j$-th entry. Then $\operatorname*{Lin}(s)\neq 1$ lies in $G(r,p,n)$ and $\operatorname*{Tran}(s)=\beta e_j$ lies in $\Lambda$ since $\beta e_1$ lies in $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda$ is invariant under $\operatorname*{Lin}(W)$. As the central reflecting hyperplane for $\operatorname*{Lin}(s)$ is perpendicular to $\operatorname*{Tran}(s)$, the transformation $s$ is in fact an affine reflection in $W$.
Now suppose (2) holds. Any vector fixed by $g$ is fixed by the affine reflection $s$ defined by $$s(v)=\text{diag}(1,\ldots,1,
\xi^p, 1,\ldots, 1)v+\beta e_j
\quad\text{ for } v \in {{\mathbb C}}^n,$$ with $\xi^p$ as $j$-th entry and $\beta=
\frac{1-\xi^p}
{1-\lambda_j}x_j(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))
$. Then $\operatorname*{Lin}(s)$ lies in $ G(r,p,n)$. We set $\beta'=(1-\xi^p)^{-1}\beta$. Then as $\beta'
e_1$ lies in $\Lambda$, both $\beta'e_j$ and $\xi^p \beta'e_j$ lie in $\Lambda$ as well since the lattice $\Lambda$ is $\operatorname*{Lin}(W)$-invariant. Hence their difference, $\operatorname*{Tran}(s)=\beta e_j=
(1-\xi^p)\beta' e_j$, also lies in $\Lambda$ and $s$ is an affine reflection in $W$. Lastly, say (3) holds. Since the two given quotients are in the same orbit, their weighted difference $$\alpha\ =\
\tfrac{x_j(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))}{1-\lambda_j}
\ -\
\xi^{m}\ \tfrac{x_\ell(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))}{1-\lambda_\ell}$$ lies in $\Lambda'$ for some $m\geq 0$, i.e., $\alpha (e_1-e_2)\in\Lambda$. Since $\Lambda$ is $G(r,1,n)$-invariant, $\alpha(
e_j-\xi^{-m}e_\ell)$ lies in $\Lambda$ as well. Let $s$ be the affine transformation defined by $$s(v) = \sigma(v)
+ \alpha(
e_j-\xi^{-m}e_\ell)
\quad\text{ for }
v\in V,$$ where $\sigma\in G(r,p,n)$ is the weighted transposition $e_j\mapsto \xi^{-m} e_\ell$ and $e_\ell \mapsto \xi^{m}e_j$. Then $s$ is an affine reflection in $W$ since $\operatorname*{Tran}(s)$ is perpendicular to the central reflecting hyperplane $H_\sigma$ of $\sigma$. We argue that any vector fixed by $g$ is fixed by $s$. Indeed, if $u\in V$ is fixed by $g$, then $$x_j(u)=\tfrac{x_j(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))}
{1-\lambda_j}
\quad\text{and}\quad
x_\ell(u)=\tfrac{x_\ell(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))}
{1-\lambda_\ell}\ .$$ Since $\alpha=x_j(u)-\xi^m x_\ell(u)$, the vector $u$ is fixed by $s$. In all three cases, we see that any vector fixed by $g$ lies on an affine reflecting hyperplane for $W$.
The next example shows how we use use orbits in ${{\mathbb C}}$ to determine fixed point spaces. We also use this example in the next proof.
\[\[G(4,1,n)\]\_2\] Consider $W=[G(4,1,n)]_2$ with $n>1$ and some $g$ in $W$ with nontrivial fixed point space $V^g$ in $V={{\mathbb C}}^n$. Suppose $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ has two diagonal entries $\lambda_j$ and $\lambda_\ell$ that are $-1$. We claim that $V^g$ lies on a reflection hyperplane for $W$. Since $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is monomial, $$g(e_j)=- e_j+\beta_j
\quad\text{ and }\quad
g(e_\ell)=- e_\ell +\beta_\ell$$ where $\beta_j=x_j(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))$ and $\beta_\ell=x_\ell(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))$. Here, $\beta_j, \beta_\ell$ lie in the set ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[i]/(1-i)=
\{(a+bi)/2: a,b
\text{ both even or
both odd}\}$. If $\beta_j$ or $\beta_\ell$ lie in ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[i]$, then Lemma \[TechnicalLemma\](1) implies the claim. Hence we assume $\beta_j$ and $\beta_\ell$ are both not in ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[i]$. Then each can be written in the form $(a+bi)/2$ with $a,b$ both odd and thus identified with the vertex $(a,b)$ of a square in a tessellation of the plane ${{\mathbb {R}}}^2$ by squares of side length one, with one square centered at zero. Any vertex in this tessellation can be obtained from any other by an even number of horizontal and vertical translations (by one unit) together with some rotations of $90^{\circ}$. Thus $\beta_j/2$ and $\beta_\ell/2$ lie in the same orbit under the action of $G(4,1,1)\ltimes
\Lambda'$ for $\Lambda'
=
{{\mathbb {Z}}}[i]/(1-i)$. Lemma \[TechnicalLemma\](3) then implies the claim.
The next proposition begins the analysis of genuine crystallographic groups.
\[\[G(r,1,n)\]\_1\] The groups $[G(r,1,n)]_1$ and $[G(4,1,n)]_2$ for $r\geq 3$, $n\geq 1$ have the Steinberg property.
Let $W$ be one of the given groups. The claim follows for $n=1$, see Subsection \[rank-one\], so we assume $n>1$. Fix $g\neq 1$ in $W$ with nontrivial fixed point space $V^g$. We assume $g$ itself is not a reflection, nor any power of $g$, so $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ and its powers are also non-reflections by Lemma \[geometrylemma\]. Note that $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)\neq 1$.
[**Diagonal action.**]{} First suppose that $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is diagonal. Then at least two diagonal entries are non-trivial. In case $W=[G(r,1,n)]_1$, $\operatorname*{Tran}(g)$ lies in $({{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi])^n$ (by inspection of $\Lambda
=\operatorname*{Tran}(W)$) and Lemma \[TechnicalLemma\](1) implies that $u$ lies on a reflecting hyperplane for $W$. In case $W=[G(4,1,n)]_2$, we may replace $g$ by $g^2$ if warranted (as $V^g\subset V^{g^2})$ and assume at least two diagonal entries of $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ are $-1$. Then by Example \[\[G(4,1,n)\]\_2\], any vector fixed by $g$ lies on a reflecting hyperplane for $W$.
[**Cycle decomposition.**]{} Now assume $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is not diagonal. Every element of $G(r,1,n)$ is conjugate by an element of the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$ to a disjoint product of nontrivial $\xi$-weighted cycles (see [@RamShepler]) $$c=t_m^{a_m} t_\ell^{a_\ell} \
(m\ \ \ m+1\ \ m+2\ \ \cdots\ \ \ell)\, ,
\quad$$ where each $t_m=\text{diag}(1, \ldots, 1, \xi, 1\, \ldots, 1)$, a diagonal matrix with $\xi$ as the $m$-th entry, and $a_m, a_\ell\in {{\mathbb {Z}}}_{\geq 0}$. Here, we identify the cycle $(m\ \ m+1\ \cdots\ \ell)$ in $\mathfrak{S}_n$ with the corresponding permutation matrix in $G(1,1,n)$. We write $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ as a product of such weighted cycles and fix attention on one such weighted cycle $c$ with $(m \ \ m+1\ \cdots\ \ell)$ nontrivial.
[**Symmetric group action.**]{} Suppose that $\det(t_{m}^{a_m}\ t_\ell^{a_\ell})=1$. Then $c$ is conjugate by $t_m^{-a_\ell}$ to the cycle $(m\ \ m+1\ \cdots \ \ell)$ as $1=\xi^{a_m+a_\ell}$ and we may assume $c$ is this cycle. Then since $V^g \subset V^c$, Lemma \[cyclecase\] implies $V^g$ lies on a reflecting hyperplane for $W$.
[**Diagonal power.**]{} Now suppose $\det(t_{m}^{a_m}\ t_{\ell}^{a_\ell})=\lambda\neq 1$. Then $c^{m-\ell+1}$ in $G(r,1,n)$ is diagonal, as $m-\ell+1$ is the length of the cycle, and $\operatorname*{Lin}(g^{m-\ell+1})
=(\operatorname*{Lin}(g))^{m-\ell+1}$ is block diagonal with one block itself a scalar matrix $\lambda I$ of size at least $2\times 2$. The arguments for the case when $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is diagonal above then show that any vector fixed by $g^{m-\ell+1}$, and thus any fixed by $g$, lies on a reflecting hyperplane for $W$.
[ The idea for showing that $[G(4,1,n)]_2$ has the Steinberg property in the above proof of Theorem \[\[G(r,1,n)\]\_1\] does not apply to $[G(3,1,n)]_2$ as the corresponding tessellation of the plane ${{\mathbb {R}}}^2$ from Example \[\[G(4,1,n)\]\_2\] has two orbits of vertices under the $1$ dimensional group in Lemma \[TechnicalLemma\](3). In fact, the group $[G(3,1,n)]_2$ does [*not*]{} have the Steinberg property, and Proposition \[thosewithout\] below corrects a claim in [@Puente].]{}
We find that even crystallographic groups of rank $2$ may require some special analysis. In the proof of the next proposition, we examine $1$-dimensional sublattice structure.
\[\[G(6,2,2)\]\_2\] The group $[G(6,2,2)]_2$ has the Steinberg property.
Suppose $u$ in $V$ is fixed by some nonreflection $g\neq 1$ in $W=[G(6,2,2)]_2$. Let ${\omega}=\xi^2=e^{2\pi i/3}$. One may check that for any $\gamma$ in ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]={{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]$, $W$ includes reflections about affine hyperplanes $$\label{somehyperplanes}
x_1=\gamma,\quad
x_2=\gamma,\quad
x_1-\xi^j x_j = \gamma\ \
\text{ for $j$ odd},\quad
x_1-\xi^j x_j= (1-{\omega})\gamma\ \ \text{ for $j$ even}.$$ We argue that $u$ lies on one of these hyperplanes by applying the eight linear forms $x_1, x_2, x_1-\xi^j x_2$ to $u$ and showing one of the resulting values lies in ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ or in $(1-{\omega}){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ (for $j$ even).
By Lemma \[geometrylemma\](c), $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is not a reflection and we may assume that $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is ${{\operatorname{diag}(\omega,\omega^2)}}$, ${{\operatorname{diag}(-1,-1)}}$, or ${{\operatorname{diag}(\omega^2,
\omega^2)}}$ by replacing $g$ by a power of $g$ if necessary. Fix $\alpha,\beta\in{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\omega]$ with $$\operatorname*{Tran}(g)=\alpha\begin{pmatrix} -\omega^2\\ -1 \end{pmatrix}+\beta(1-\omega^2)\begin{pmatrix} 1\\ -1 \end{pmatrix}.$$ First, suppose $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)={{\operatorname{diag}(\omega,\omega^2)}}$. Then $x_1(u)+\omega x_2(u)=\beta\in {{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ and $u$ lies on a reflecting hyperplane of (\[somehyperplanes\]).
Second, suppose $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)={{\operatorname{diag}(-1,-1)}}$. If $x_2(u)\in{{\mathbb {Z}}}[\omega]$, then $u$ lies on a reflecting hyperplane of (\[somehyperplanes\]), so we assume $x_2(u)\notin{{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$. As $u$ is fixed by $g$, we claim applying the five linear forms $x_1, x_2, x_1+x_2, x_1+{\omega}x_2, x_1+{\omega}^2 x_2$ to $u$ gives numbers in $(1/2){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ which lie in distinct cosets of the subgroup ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ of the additive group $(1/2){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$. Indeed, overlapping cosets would imply that $x_2(u)=(1/3)(1-{\omega}^2)(1-{\omega})x_2(u)$ lay in $(1/3){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}] \cap (1/2){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]={{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$. As the subgroup ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ has index $4$ in the larger group, one of these cosets is trivial. Thus $x_1(u)$, $x_2(u)$, $x_1+x_2(u)$, $x_1+\omega x_2(u)$, or $x_1+ \omega^2x_2(u)$ lies in ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ and $u$ lies on some reflecting hyperplane of (\[somehyperplanes\]).
Third, suppose $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)={{\operatorname{diag}(\omega^2,\omega^2)}}$. We apply the three linear forms $x_1-x_2, x_1-{\omega}x_2, x_1-{\omega}^2 x_2$ to $u$ and obtain complex numbers $\alpha+2\beta$, $-{\omega}^2(\alpha+\beta)$, $-{\omega}\beta$. We argue that one of these numbers lies in $(1-{\omega}){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ and thus $u$ lies on a reflecting hyperplane of (\[somehyperplanes\]). If $\beta$ itself lies in $(1-{\omega}){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$, then so does $-{\omega}\beta$, so we assume $\beta\notin {{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$. Then $2\beta\notin{{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ as well, since $(1-{\omega}){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]=(1-{\omega}^2){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]=\{a+b\omega:\,a+b\equiv 0 \mod 3\}$. This implies that the complex numbers $\alpha$, $\alpha+\beta$, and $\alpha+2\beta$ lie in different cosets of the subgroup $(1-{\omega}){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ of the additive group ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$. As this subgroup has index $3$ in the larger group, one of these cosets is trivial, and thus $\alpha$, $\alpha+\beta$, or $\alpha+2\beta$ lies in $(1-{\omega}){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$. But $(1-{\omega}){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ is closed under multiplication by ${\omega}$, hence $\alpha+2\beta$, $-{\omega}^2(\alpha+\beta)$, or $-{\omega}\beta$ must lie in $(1-{\omega}){{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ as well.
Suppose $W=G\ltimes \Lambda$ is a crystallographic reflection group acting on ${{\mathbb C}}^n$ for $n\geq 1$ with $G$ equal to $G(4,2,n)$, $G(6,2,n)$, or $G(6,3,n)$ but $W\neq[G(6,3,2)]_2$. Then $W$ has the Steinberg property.
The claim follows for $n=1$, see Subsection \[rank-one\], so we assume $n>1$. Note that the affine reflecting hyperplanes for groups $[G(4,2,n)]_2$ and $[G(4,1,n)]_1$ coincide and $[G(4,2,n)]_2\subset [G(4,1,n)]_1$ (see [@Malle]). Similarly, the affine reflecting hyperplanes for $[G(4,2,n)]_1$ and $[G(4,1,n)]_2$ also coincide and $[G(4,2,n)]_1\subset [G(4,1,n)]_2$. The groups $[G(4,2,n)]_1$ and $[G(4,2,n)]_2$ thus inherit the Steinberg property from $[G(4,1,n)]_1$ and $G[(4,1,n)]_2$, which have the property by Proposition \[\[G(r,1,n)\]\_1\]. (Note that $[G(4,1,n)]_1$ and $[G(4,1,n)]_2$ do not have the same set of hyperplanes.) The group $W=[G(6,2,2)]_2$ has the Steinberg property by Proposition \[\[G(6,2,2)\]\_2\].
Fix some non-reflection $g\neq 1_W$ in $W$ with nontrivial fixed point space $V^g$ and note $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is also not a reflection by Lemma \[geometrylemma\](3).
First suppose $W=[G(4,2,2)]_3$. Then $\operatorname*{Lin}(g^m)={{\operatorname{diag}(-1,-1)}}$ for $m=1$ or $2$ and $$\operatorname*{Tran}(g^m)=\alpha\begin{pmatrix} i\\ -1 \end{pmatrix}+\beta(1+i)\begin{pmatrix} 1\\ -1 \end{pmatrix}$$ for some $\alpha,\beta\in {{\mathbb {Z}}}[i]$. If $g$ fixes $u$ in $V$, then $x_1(u)+ix_2(u)=\beta$ and $u$ is fixed by the affine reflection $s$ with $\operatorname*{Lin}(s)$ sending $e_1$ to $-ie_2$ and $e_2$ to $ie_1$ and $\operatorname*{Tran}(s)=\beta e_1-i\beta e_2$. The reflection $s$ lies in $W$ since $\operatorname*{Tran}(s)=(-\beta)(i, -1)
+ \beta(1+i)(1, -1)$ lies in $\Lambda$. Thus $[G(4,2,2)]_3$ has the Steinberg property.
Now suppose $W=[G(6,p,n)]_1=G(6,p,n)\ltimes\Lambda$ for some lattice $\Lambda$ in Table \[StateTable\]. First assume $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is diagonal. If $g^p\neq 1$, then Lemma \[TechnicalLemma\](1) applies, so we assume $g^p= 1$. Then $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ has two nontrivial diagonal entries $\lambda_j$ and $\lambda_\ell$ which are $p$-th roots-of-unity as $(\operatorname*{Lin}(g))^p=\operatorname*{Lin}(g^p)=1$. Consider $$\alpha_j=\tfrac{x_j(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))}
{1-\lambda_j}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\alpha_\ell=\tfrac{x_\ell(\operatorname*{Tran}(g))}
{1-\lambda_\ell}\
\quad\text{ in }{{\mathbb C}}.$$ One may check directly (using that $r=6$ and $p=2$ or $p=3$) that $\alpha_j,\alpha_{\ell}$ must both lie in the set $X={{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]
/(1-\xi^{6/p})$. There are two orbits in $X$ under the action of $G(6,1,1)\ltimes{{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ on ${{\mathbb C}}$ with ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$ one of the orbits. If $\alpha_j$ or $\alpha_{\ell}$ lie in different orbits, then either $\alpha_j$ or $\alpha_{\ell}$ lies in ${{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]=x_1({{\mathbb C}}e_1\cap\Lambda)$ and Lemma \[TechnicalLemma\](2) applies. Otherwise, both $\alpha_j$ or $\alpha_{\ell}$ lie in the same orbit and Lemma \[TechnicalLemma\](3) applies with $\Lambda'=x_1({{\mathbb C}}(e_1-e_2)\cap\Lambda)={{\mathbb {Z}}}[{\omega}]$. We conclude that any vector fixed by $g$ lies on a reflecting hyperplane for $W$ when $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is diagonal. When $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is not diagonal, we use arguments as in the proof of Proposition \[\[G(r,1,n)\]\_1\]. (Note that we may work up to conjugation by any element in $G(6,1,n)$ since $G(6,p,n)$ is normal in $G(6,1,n)$ and $\operatorname*{Tran}(W)$ is $G(6,1,n)$-invariant; applying $G(6,1,n)$ to any reflecting hyperplane for $W$ will produce another reflecting hyperplane for $W$ although not necessarily in the same $W$-orbit.)
Genuine groups failing Steinberg’s theorem {#groupsfailing}
==========================================
We now determine genuine crystallographic affine reflection groups in the 4-parameter infinite family failing Steinberg’s theorem. There are also genuine crystallographic groups $W$ with $\text{Lin}(W)\neq G(r,p,n)$ which fail to satisfy the Steinberg property, $[G_4]_1$ for example, see Cote [@Cote]. We set $\omega=e^{2\pi i/3}$ in Table \[counterexamples\].
[p[.2]{} p[.3]{} p[.17]{}]{} $W$ &\
$[G(3,1,2)]_2$ & $g(v)= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\omega& \hphantom{xx}
\\
\hphantom{xx}
&\omega \end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\ 1/(1-\omega)\\
-1/ (1-\omega) \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^2$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$[G(3,3,3)]_1$ & $g(v)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \omega& & \\ &\omega& \\&&\omega\end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \ \ 1\\-1 \\ \ \ 0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^3$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$[G(4,4,3)]_1$ & $g(v)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} i& & \\ &-1& \\&& i\end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\ \ 1\\-1 \\ \ \ 0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^3$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$[G(6,3,2)]_2$ & $g(v)= \left(\begin{smallmatrix} -1& \\ &-1\end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1\\
\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}\omega-1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^2$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$[G(6,6,3)]_1$ & $g(v)= \left(\begin{smallmatrix} \omega& & \\ &-1& \\&&-\omega^2\end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\ \ 1\\-1 \\ \ \ 0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^3$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
The next proposition also holds for low values of $r$ and $n$ if we exclude the group $W=[G(2,2,3)]_1^\alpha$. Such groups have linear parts which are finite Coxeter groups and appear in Section \[Coxetersection\].
\[thosewithout\] The groups $[G(r,r,n)]_1$ for $r\geq 3$ and $n\geq 3$, $[G(3,1,n)]_2$ for $n\geq 2$, and $[G(6,3,2)]_2$ do not have the Steinberg property.
Table \[counterexamples\] records elements in each group $W$ which fix a point in $V$ not on a reflecting hyperplane for $W$. For $W=[G(3,1,2)]_2$ or $[G(6,3,2)]_2$, one may check directly that the fixed point space $V^g$ of the element $g$ given in the table does not lie on an reflecting hyperplanes for $W$. For $W=[G(r,r,3)]_1$, one may check that $V^g=\{u\}$ for a vector $u$ in $V={{\mathbb C}}^3$ with $x_1(u)$, $x_2(u),$ and $x_3(u)$ lying in different orbits under the action of $G(r,1,1)\ltimes {{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]$. But each reflecting hyperplane for $[G(r,r,3)]_1$ is the zero set of a polynomial $x_j=\xi^m x_k+\beta$ for $m\in{{\mathbb Z}}$ and $\beta\in{{\mathbb Z}}[\xi]$, and thus any point on a reflecting hyperplane has two coordinates lying in the same orbit of $G(r,1,1)\ltimes {{\mathbb {Z}}}[\xi]$ acting on ${{\mathbb C}}$. Thus the claim follows for $n=3$, and for larger $n$ by extending the given $g$ by an identity transformation to act on ${{\mathbb C}}^n$.
The results in this section and last together give our main result, restated from the introduction:
Suppose $W=G(r,p,n)\ltimes\Lambda$ is a genuine crystallographic complex reflection group acting on $\mathbb{C}^n$ for some lattice $\Lambda$ with $r,p,n\geq 1$. Then $W$ has the Steinberg property if and only if $W$ is $[G(r,1,1)]_1$, $[G(3,1,n)]_{1}$, $[G(4,1,n)]_{1,2}$, $[G(6,1,n)]_1$, $[G(4,2,n)]_{1,2}$, $[G(4,2,2)]_3$, $[G(6,2,n)]_1$, $[G(6,2,2)]_2$, or $[G(6,3,n)]_{1}$.
Complexification of finite Coxeter groups {#Coxetersection}
=========================================
Now for the nongenuine case. We consider crystallographic reflection groups $G(r,p,n)\ltimes \Lambda$ acting on $V={{\mathbb C}}^n$ where $G(r,p,n)$ is the complexification of a finite Coxeter group acting on ${{\mathbb {R}}}^n$. We exclude complexifications of affine Weyl groups, as they are not crystallographic, although the groups $G(r,p,n)$ that give rise to nongenuine crystallographic groups are all Weyl groups. The explicit lattices $\Lambda$ appear in Table \[CoxeterTable\] with, again, $\xi$ a primitive $r$-th root-of-unity in ${{\mathbb C}}$. We include groups whose linear part is the Weyl group $W(A_{n-1})$, the irreducible reflection representation of $G(1,1,n)\cong \mathfrak{S}_n$. We also include groups with linear part $G(r,r,2)$ for $r>2$ since $G(r,r,2)$ is the complexification of the dihedral groups $D_{2r}$ of order $2r$ after change-of-basis. We use Popov’s notation with each $\alpha$ a complex parameter in the [*modular strip*]{} $$\Omega=
\{z \in {{\mathbb C}}:
-(1/2)\leq \Re(z) < 1/2,
1\leq |z| \text{ for }
\Re(z) \leq 0,
1< |z| \text{ for }
\Re(z) > 0\}.$$
Note that up to equivalence, there are only 3 parameters of crystallographic groups with linear part the Weyl group $W(B_2)=G(2,1,2)$ and Popov choose to label these $[G(2,1,2)]^\alpha_k$ for $k=1,2,3$ and $\alpha$ in $\Omega$. As this notation conflicts with his notation for higher dimensional groups, we use indices $k=1,2,4$ instead so that the lattices for $[G(2,1,2)]^\alpha_k$ and $[G(2,1,n)]^\alpha_k$ for $n>2$ are always analogous. Note that the group $[G(2,1,2)]^\alpha_3$ is equivalent to $[G(2,1,2)]^\alpha_4$ and $[G(2,1,2)]^\alpha_5$ is equivalent to $G[(2,1,2)]^\alpha_1$, thus we restrict to $n\geq 3$ for $[G(2,1,n)]^\alpha_5$ in Table \[CoxeterTable\].
[p[.15]{}p[.1]{}p[.44]{}p[.15]{} ]{} & [**dim**]{} & [**$G(r,p,n)$-invariant lattice $\Lambda$**]{} & [**Steinberg’s thm**]{}\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[W(A_{n-1})]^{\alpha}_1$ & $n-1\geq 2$ & $\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)(e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(2,1,1)]^\alpha_1$ & $n=1$ & $({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)e_1$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(2,1,n)]^\alpha_1$ & $n\geq 2$ & $({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)e_1+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)(e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(2,1,n)]^{\alpha}_2$ & $n\geq 2$ & $({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)e_1+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}
\left({{\mathbb {Z}}}+{{\mathbb {Z}}}\frac{1+\alpha}{2}\right)(e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(2,1,n)]^{\alpha}_3$ & $n\geq 2$ & $({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)e_1+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}\, \left(\frac{1}{2}{{\mathbb {Z}}}+{{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha\right)(e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(2,1,n)]^{\alpha}_4$ & $n\geq 2$ & $({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)e_1+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}\left({{\mathbb {Z}}}+{{\mathbb {Z}}}\frac{\alpha}{2}\right){{\mathbb {Z}}}(e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(2,1,n)]^{\alpha}_5$ & $n\geq 3$ & $({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)e_1+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}
(1/2)({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)(e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(2,2,3)]^{\alpha}_1$ & $n=3$ & $({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)(-e_1-e_2)+\Sigma_{j=2}^{3}({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)(e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(2,2,n)]^{\alpha}_1$ & $n\geq 4$ & $({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)(-e_1-e_2)+\Sigma_{j=2}^{n}({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)(e_{j-1}-e_j)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(6,6,2)]^{\alpha}_1$ & $n= 2$ & $({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)(\xi e_1-e_2)+({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)(1-\xi^2)(e_1-e_2)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(6,6,2)]^{\alpha}_2$ & $n= 2$ & $({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)(\xi e_1-e_2)+\left({{\mathbb {Z}}}+{{\mathbb {Z}}}\frac{\alpha}{3}\right)(1-\xi^2)(e_1-e_2)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(6,6,2)]^{\alpha}_3$ & $n= 2$ &$({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)(\xi e_1-e_2)+\left({{\mathbb {Z}}}+{{\mathbb {Z}}}\frac{1+\alpha}{3}\right)
(1-\xi^2)(e_1-e_2)$ &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(6,6,2)]^{\alpha}_4$ & $n= 2$ & $({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)(\xi e_1-e_2)+\left({{\mathbb {Z}}}+{{\mathbb {Z}}}\frac{2+\alpha}{3}\right)(1-\xi^2)(e_1-e_2)$ &\
\[nongenuine\] Let $W=G(r,p,n)\ltimes \Lambda$ be a crystallographic reflection group whose linear part $\operatorname*{Lin}(W)$ is the complexification of a finite Coxeter group. Then $W$ has the Steinberg property if and only if $W$ is $[W(A_{n-1})]^{\alpha}_1$, $[G(2,1,n)]^{\alpha}_1$, or $[G(2,2,3)]_1$.
We assume $n>1$, as the claim holds for $n=1$ (see Subsection \[rank-one\]). The groups $[W(A_{n-1})]_1^\alpha$ have the Steinberg property by Proposition \[symmetric\]. If $W=[G(2,1,n)]_1^\alpha$, arguments as in the proof of Proposition \[\[G(r,1,n)\]\_1\] show that $W$ has the Steinberg property.
Now suppose $W=[G(2,2,3)]^{\alpha}_1$ and consider a nonidentity element $g\in W$ fixing a point in $V$. We assume $g$ itself is not a reflection and thus $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ is also not a reflection by Lemma \[geometrylemma\](3). Then some power of $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)$ must be conjugate by an element of $G(2,2,3)$ to ${{\operatorname{diag}(-1,-1,1)}}$ or to a $3$-cycle in $\mathfrak{S}_3$. If conjugate to a $3$-cycle, we appeal to Lemma \[cyclecase\]. Thus we assume $\operatorname*{Lin}(g)={{\operatorname{diag}(-1,-1,1)}}$. Notice $$\operatorname*{Tran}(g)= \beta\begin{pmatrix}-1\\-1\\0\end{pmatrix}+\gamma\begin{pmatrix}1\\-1\\0\end{pmatrix}+\delta\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\\-1\end{pmatrix}
\quad\text{ for some }\ \ \beta,\gamma,\delta\in({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha).$$ By Lemma \[geometrylemma\](1), $g$ has finite order, so $\delta=0$. If $g(u)=u$, then $x_1(u)=\frac{\gamma-\beta}{2}$ and $x_2(u)=\frac{-\gamma-\beta}{2}$ and $u$ lies on the reflecting hyperplane $\ker(x_1+x_2+\beta)$ of $W$. (This hyperplane is fixed by the reflection in $W$ with linear part sending $e_1$ to $-e_2$, $e_2$ to $-e_1$, and $e_3$ to $e_3$ and translational part $(\beta,\beta,0)\in\Lambda$.)
The remaining nongenuine crystallographic complex reflection groups do not have the Steinberg property. For the groups $W=[G(2,1,n)]^\alpha_k$ with $k\neq 1$ and $\alpha \in \Omega$, observe that each reflecting hyperplane has the form $H=\ker(x_j-\beta)$ for some $\beta\in (1/2)({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)$ or the form $H=\ker(x_j\pm x_{\ell}-\beta)$ for some $\beta$ in $x_1(\Lambda\cap {{\mathbb C}}(e_1-e_2))$. The reflecting hyperplanes for $[G(2,2,n)]^{\alpha}_1$ all have the form $H=\ker(x_j\pm x_{\ell}-\beta)$ for some $\beta\in ({{\mathbb {Z}}}+ {{\mathbb {Z}}}\alpha)$. It is straightforward to check that the group elements $g$ in Table \[counterexamplesCoxeter\] each fix a point that is not on one of these hyperplanes, after extending $g$ by the identity to define a transformation on ${{\mathbb C}}^n$. For the groups $W=[G(6,6,2)]_k^\alpha$, one can similarly check directly that the fixed point set of the element $g$ in $W$ in Table \[counterexamplesCoxeter\] does not lie on any reflecting hyperplane.
[p[.2]{} p[.35]{} p[.17]{}]{} $W$ &\
$[G(2,1,2)]^{\alpha}_2$ & $g(v)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -1& & \\ &-1& {\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \ \
(3+\alpha)/ 2\\-(1+\alpha)/ 2
{\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^2$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$[G(2,1,3)]^{\alpha}_3$ & $g(v)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -1& & \\ &-1& {\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \, (2\alpha+1)/ 2
\\
-1/ 2{\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^3$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$[G(2,1,2)]^{\alpha}_4 $ & $g(v)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -1& & \\ &-1& {\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \, (2+\alpha)/ 2
\\-\alpha/ 2
{\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^2$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$[G(2,1,3)]^{\alpha}_5$ & $g(v)=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} -1& & \\ &-1& {\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\\&& -1\end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix} \, (3+\alpha)/ 2\\-\alpha/ 2{\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\\ \ \, -1/ 2\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^3$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$[G(2,2,4)]^{\alpha}_1$ & $g(v)= \left(\begin{smallmatrix} -1&&& \\ &-1&&
\\
&&-1&\\
&&&-1\end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1\\1+\alpha
\\
-\alpha
\\
0
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^4$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$[G(6,6,2)]^{\alpha}_1$ & $g(v)= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
-1&
\rule[-.5ex]{0ex}{.5ex}\\
&-1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\ \, \xi+\alpha(1+\xi)
\rule[-.5ex]{0ex}{.5ex}\\
-1-\alpha(1+\xi) \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^2$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$[G(6,6,2)]^{\alpha}_2$ & $g(v)= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
-1&
{\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\\
&-1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\ \, \xi+\alpha(1+\xi)/ 3
{\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\\
-1-\alpha(1+\xi)/ 3 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^2$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$[G(6,6,2)]^{\alpha}_3$ & $g(v)= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
-1&
{\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\\
&-1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\ \, \xi+(1+\alpha)(1+\xi)/ 3
{\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\\
-1-(1+\alpha)(1+\xi)/ 3 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^2$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$[G(6,6,2)]^{\alpha}_4$ & $g(v)= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
-1&
{\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\\
&-1 \end{smallmatrix}\right)v
+\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\ \, \xi+(2+\alpha)(1+\xi)/ 3
{\rule[0ex]{0ex}{0ex}}\\
-1-(2+\alpha)(1+\xi)/ 3 \end{smallmatrix}\right)$ & $v\in {{\mathbb C}}^2$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The second author thanks Cathy Kriloff for lively and helpful discussions.
M. Auslander, “On the purity of the branch locus”, Amer. J. of Math., v. LXXXIV (1962), p. 116–125.
Nicolas Bourbaki, *Lie groups and [L]{}ie algebras. [C]{}hapters 4–6*, Elements of Mathematics (Berlin), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002, Translated from the 1968 French original by Andrew Pressley.
Benjamin Cot[é]{}, *A complex [E]{}uclidean reflection group and its braid group*, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara, 2016.
H.S.M. Coxeter, [*Regular complex polytopes*]{}, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.
Victor Goryunov and Show Han Man, “The complex crystallographic groups and symmetries of [$J_{10}$]{}”, [*Singularity theory and its applications*]{}, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., vol. 43, Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2006, pp. 55–72.
Gustav I. Lehrer, “A New Proof of Steinberg’s Fixed-Point Theorem”, Int. Math. Res. Notices 2004, No. 28, 1407–1411.
Gunter Malle, “Presentations for crystallographic complex reflection groups”, Transform. Groups [1]{} (1996), no. 3, 259–277.
P. Orlik and H. Terao, [*Arrangements of hyperplanes.*]{} Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, [**300**]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
V. Popov, [*Discrete complex reflection groups*]{}, Communications of the Mathematical Institute, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, 15. Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, Mathematical Institute, Utrecht, 1982. 89 pp.
P. Puente, Braid groups of infinite complex reflection groups, University of North Texas, Ph.D. thesis, 2017.
G.C. Shephard, “Regular complex polytopes”, [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**2**]{} (1952), 82–97.
A. Ram, A.V. Shepler, “Classification of graded Hecke algebras for complex reflection groups.” Comment. Math. Helv., 78 (2003), no. 2, 308–334.
G.C. Shephard and J. A. Todd, “Finite unitary reflection groups”, [Canad. J. Math.]{} [**6**]{} (1954), 274–304.
R. Steinberg, [*Endomorphisms of linear algebraic groups*]{}, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. No. 80, Providence, RI, 1968. 108 pages.
R. Steinberg, “Invariants of finite reflection groups”, Canad. J. Math., [**12**]{} (1960), 616–618.
[^1]: Research supported in part by NSF Grant DMS-1101177 and Simons Foundation Grant \#429539.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have grown single crystal samples of Co substituted [CaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}using an FeAs flux and systematically studied the effects of annealing/quenching temperature on the physical properties of these samples. Whereas the as-grown samples (quenched from 960$^\circ$C) all enter the collapsed tetragonal phase upon cooling, annealing/quenching temperatures between 350$^\circ$C and 800$^\circ$C can be used to tune the system to low temperature antiferromagnetic/orthorhomic or superconducting states as well. The progression of the transition temperature versus annealing/quenching temperature ([*T*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$) phase diagrams with increasing Co concentration shows that, by substituting Co, the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic and the collapsed tetragonal phase lines are separated and bulk superconductivity is revealed. We established a 3D phase diagram with Co concentration and annealing/quenching temperature as two independent control parameters. At ambient pressure, for modest [*x*]{} and [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ values, the [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}system offers ready access to the salient low temperature states associated with Fe-based superconductors: antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic, superconducting, and non-magnetic/collapsed tetragonal.'
author:
- 'S. Ran'
- 'S. L. Bud’ko'
- 'W. E. Straszheim'
- 'J. Soh'
- 'M. G. Kim'
- 'A. Kreyssig'
- 'A. I. Goldman'
- 'P. C. Canfield'
title: 'Control of magnetic, non-magnetic and superconducting states in annealed Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$'
---
Introduction
============
Since the discovery of Fe-based superconductors, FeAs-based compounds have been extensively studied.[@Hosono08; @Rotter08; @JPSJFeAs; @Hosono09; @Chu09; @Prozorov10; @Canfield10; @Johnston10; @Stewart11; @Ni11review] Part of the reason for the extensive studies is the close proximity of the superconductivity to the antiferromagnetic and structural transitions observed in members of this family which is thought to be a key ingredient for high-[*T*]{}$_{c}$ superconductivity. Among the Fe-based superconductors, the AFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ compounds (A = Ba[@Rotter08; @Rotter08Ba; @Ni08BaK], Sr[@Yan08Sr], Ca[@Ni08Ca], members of the family called 122 because of their chemical formula) are the most extensively studied and have become model systems for understanding high-[*T*]{}$_{c}$ superconductivity in Fe-based superconductors because (in part) large, high-quality, homogeneous single crystals can be readily grown. The parent compounds of the 122 family do not manifest superconductivity at ambient pressure but rather undergo a phase transition (or tightly spaced cascade of transitions) from a high temperature tetragonal, paramagnetic state to a low temperature orthorhombic, antiferromagnetic state. Using external control parameters, such as chemical substitution[@Rotter08; @Sefat08; @Ni08BaCo; @Kasahara10; @Ni10TM; @Thaler10; @Hu11Sr] or pressure[@Colombier09; @Matsubayashi09; @Torikachvili08Ba; @Kotegawa09], the antiferromagnetic and orthorhombic phases can be systematically suppressed (and often separated); when they are suppressed sufficiently, superconductivity can develop.
The physical properties of CaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$, although similar to those of SrFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ and BaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ in many aspects, are exceptional in several ways.[@Canfield09Ca] First, the magnetic and structural phase transitions are strongly coupled and first order, with hysteresis of several degrees as seen in thermodynamic, transport, and microscopic measurements.[@Ni08Ca; @Goldman08] Second, [CaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}is the most pressure sensitive of the AFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ and 1111 compounds with its magnetic/structural phase transition temperature ([*T*]{}$_{N}$/[*T*]{}$_{S}$) being initially suppressed by over 100 K per GPa but remaining sharply first order (in hydrostatic medium) as it is suppressed.[@Torikachvili08Ca; @Kreyssig08; @Goldman09; @Yu09; @Lee08; @Prokes10; @Park08] As pressure increases, a nonmagnetic, collapsed tetragonal phase that is stabilized by $\sim$0.3 GPa, intersects and terminates the lower-pressure antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase line near 100 K and 0.4 GPa, and rises to 300 K by $\sim$1.5 GPa.[@Kreyssig08; @Goldman09] Therefore, there are three ground states (antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic, superconducting, and non-magnetic/collapsed tetragonal) competing at low temperature. Subsequently, the collapsed tetragonal phase was also observed in Ba122 and Sr122 under much higher pressure. (At room temperature, the pressures needed to stabilize the collapsed tetragonal in Ba122 and Sr122 are 22 GPa and 10 GPa, respectively.[@Uhoya10; @Mittal11; @Uhoya11]) Third, the physical properties of the single crystals of [CaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}are remarkably dependent on the crystal growth procedure. Our previous work[@Ran11] has shown that crystals grown out of an FeAs flux, quenched from high temperature, exhibit a transition from the paramagnetic, tetragonal phase to the non-magnetic, collapsed tetragonal phase below 100 K at ambient pressure, in contrast to the behavior of [CaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}grown from Sn flux.[@Ni08Ca] Further, we discovered that for the FeAs flux grown samples, a process of annealing and quenching can be used as an additional control parameter which can tune the ground state of [CaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}systematically. The effects of annealing and quenching are similar to those of the pressure (as is suggested by the similarity between the annealing phase diagram and pressure phase diagram[@Ran11]), and this can be explained by our TEM results[@Ran11], which reveal nano-scale precipitates with overlapping strain fields. It is very likely that the annealing and quenching process controls the amount of strain built up in the samples and, as a result, mimics the modest pressures needed to stabilize the collapsed tetragonal phase.
Chemical substitution, such as Co substitution, as a control parameter, has been studied extensively for members of the 122 family. For Ba122, Co substitution first suppresses the antiferromagtic/orthorhombic state and then induces superconductivity, making Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ a model system for the study of high-[*T*]{}$_{c}$ superconductivity in Fe-based superconductors.[@Canfield10; @Ni11review; @Ni08BaCo; @Sefat08] For Ca122, the effects of Co substitution have been studied only on the samples grown out of Sn, which have issues with solubility, reproducibility and inhomogeneity.[@Harnagea11; @Matusiak10; @Hu11Ca] The phase diagrams constructed by different groups do not match very well and therefore, need to be clarified. In this work, we studied Co substituted Ca122 grown out of an FeAs flux and by systematically control annealing/quenching temperatures we have minimized these problems. Indeed, as in the case of unsubstituted Ca122 grown out of an FeAs flux, we found that annealing/quenching temperature is a vital parameter to control and understand this system. In this paper, we present a systematic study of the combined effects of Co substitution and annealing/quenching on the physical properties of Ca122 and construct phase diagrams for different substitution levels and different annealing/quenching temperatures. Also, by combining the two control parameters, we are able to extend the 2-dimentional, [*T*]{}-[*x*]{} and [*T*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ ([*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ is the annealing/quenching temperature) phase diagrams into a 3-dimentional, [*T*]{}-[*x*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ phase diagram and reveal richer physics and better control of the system, all at ambient pressure.
Experimental methods
====================
Single crystals of [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}were grown out of an FeAs flux, using conventional high-temperature solution growth techniques.[@Fisk89; @Canfield92; @Canfield01; @Canfieldbook] Small Ca chunks, FeAs powder, and CoAs powder were mixed together according to the ratio Ca:FeAs:CoAs =1:4(1-[*x*]{}$_{nominal}$):4[*x*]{}$_{nominal}$, where [*x*]{}$_{nominal}$ is the nominal Co concentration. The maximum relative error bar in [*x*]{}$_{nominal}$, as determined from potential weighing error for the lowest Co substitution level, is roughly 1.5$\%$. Single crystals were grown by rapidly cooling the Ca-Fe-Co-As melt from 1180$^\circ$C to 1020$^\circ$C over 3 h, slowly cooling from 1020$^\circ$C to 960$^\circ$C over 35 h, and then decanting off the excess liquid flux. These samples will be referred to as as-grown$\textquotedblright$ samples. In the process of decanting off the excess flux, the samples were essentially quenched from 960$^\circ$C to room temperature, which, according to our previous study,[@Ran11] causes strain inside the samples due to the formation of nano-precipitates of FeAs$_{x}$, leading to behavior different from Sn grown samples.[@Ni08Ca] Postgrowth thermal treatments of samples involve annealing samples at temperatures ranging from 350$^\circ$C to 800$^\circ$C and subsequently quenching them from this annealing temperature to room temperature. The initial determination of the [*T*]{}-[*x*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ phase diagrams was done by annealing/quenching individual crystals that have been picked from a growth and resealed in evacuated silica tubes. The resealed individual samples were annealed for 24 hours at annealing temperature of 400$^\circ$C or above. A longer time anneal (5 days) was used at annealing temperature of 350$^\circ$C. Once the [*T*]{}-[*x*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ phase diagrams were established, whole, unopened batches of samples were annealed and quenched from 350$^\circ$C or above. After 14 days at [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 350$^\circ$C or after 5 days at [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ above 350$^\circ$C, the data collected on samples from these whole batch anneals$\textquotedblright$ were quantitatively similar to those collected on the individually annealed samples. Details of the annealing and quenching technique, as well as a study of the salient annealing time scale, can be found in the previous paper.[@Ran11]
Elemental analysis was performed on each these batches using wavelength-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (WDS) in the electron probe microanalyzer of a JEOL JXA-8200 electron microprobe. Since the properties of a given sample are found to be determined by both the Co substitution level ([*x*]{}$_{WDS}$) and the post growth annealing/quenching temperature, samples will be identified by both of these parameters. For example, specific heat data will be presented for an [*x*]{} = 0.033/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 350$^\circ$C sample.
Diffraction from the plate-like samples was first performed at room temperature using a Rigaku Miniflex diffractometer with Cu [*K*]{}$\alpha$ radiation. Only (00l) peaks are observed, from which the values of the [*c*]{}-lattice parameter are inferred. Standard powder x-ray diffraction was not attempted since we have found that [CaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}based compounds are very easily damaged by attempts to grind them. Diffraction lines broaden dramatically even compared to the Ba122 and Sr122.[@Ni08Ca] Of equal concern, the magnetization data from powder is dramatically different from that of intact crystals, probably due to gross deformation or partial amorphization during the process of grinding$\textquotedblright$ the samples.
A temperature dependent, high resolution, single crystal x-ray diffraction measurements were performed on a representative sample using a four-circle diffractometer and Cu [*K*]{}$\alpha_{I}$ radiation from a rotating-anode x-ray source, selected by a germanium (1 1 1) monochromator. For this measurement, a sample with a dimension of 4 $\times$ 3 $\times$ 0.5 mm$^3$ was attached to a flat copper sample holder on the cold finger of a closed-cycle displex refrigerator. The mosaicity of the sample was less than 0.02$^\circ$, full width at half maximum (FWHM), as measured by the rocking curves through the (0 0 10) reflection at room temperature. The diffraction data were obtained as a function of temperature between room temperature and 6 K, the base temperature of the refrigerator. The (0 0 10) and (1 1 10) reflections were measured at each temperature and the diffraction angles were obtained from $\theta$-2$\theta$ scans in order to calculate the lattice parameters [*a*]{} and [*c*]{}.
Temperature dependent magnetization measurements were made in a Quantum Design Magnetic Property Measurement System (MPMS). It turns out that when the magnetic field is applied parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis, the size of the jump in the magnetic susceptibility for the collapsed tetragonal phase transition is significantly larger than that for the antiferromagnetic/structural phase transition, whereas, when the magnetic field is applied perpendicular to the [*c*]{}-axis, the two types of transitions manifest comparable sized jumps in magnetic susceptibility (Fig. \[anisotropy\]). For low annealing/quenching temperatures, only the antiferromagnetic/structural phase transition exists for all Co concentration in our study and susceptibility was measured with the applied magnetic field perpendicular to the [*c*]{}-axis. On the other hand, for higher annealing/quenching temperature, the collapsed tetragonal phase transition occurs for higher Co concentration. Therefore susceptibility was measured with applied magnetic field parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis in order to allow for clearer differentiation between the two types of transition.
The in plane, temperature dependent electrical AC ([*f*]{} = 16 Hz, [*I*]{} = 1 mA) resistance measurements were performed in Quantum Design MPMS systems operated in external device control (EDC) mode, in conjunction with Linear Research LR700 AC resistance bridges. The electrical contacts were placed on the samples in standard 4-probe geometry, using Pt wires attached to the sample with Epotek H20E silver epoxy. The temperature dependent AC ([*f*]{} = 16 Hz, [*I*]{} = 1 mA) resistance was also measured in applied magnetic field up to 14 T in a Quantum Design Physical Property Measurement System (PPMS) so as to determine the anisotropic, upper superconducting critical field, [*H*]{}$_{c2}$([*T*]{}) values. Temperature dependent heat capacity for representative samples was measured in Quantum Design PPMS systems using the relaxation technique in both zero field and magnetic field of either 9 T or 14 T applied along the [*c*]{}-axis.
![(Color online) Temperature dependent anisotropic magnetic susceptibility, with a magnetic field of 1 T applied perpendicular and parrallel to the [*c*]{}-axis, for (a) the [*x*]{} = 0.00/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 350$^\circ$C sample, as an example of the antiferromagnetic/structural transition, and (b) the [*x*]{} = 0.00/as-grown sample, as an example of the collapsed tetragonal phase transiton.[]{data-label="anisotropy"}](anisotropy.eps){width="100mm"}
In order to infer phase diagrams from these thermodynamic and transport data, we need to introduce criterion for determination of the salient transition temperatures. For almost all combinations of Co concentration and annealing/quenching temperature, the antiferromagnetic/structural phase transition (when present) appears as a single sharp feature which is clearly identifiable in both resistance and magnetization. Figure \[criteria\]a shows the susceptibility and resistance, as well as their temperature derivatives, for a [*x*]{} = 0.022/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 350$^\circ$C sample. Clear features, including a sharp drop in susceptibility and a sharp jump in the resistance, occur upon cooling through the transition temperature. The transition temperature is even more clearly seen in the $d(M/H)/dT$ and $dR/dT$ data. In a similar manner criteria for the determination of [*T*]{}$_{c}$ have to be established and used. For this study we use an onset criterion for susceptibility (the temperature at which the susceptibility deviates from the normal-state susceptibility) and an offset criterion for resistance (the temperature at which the maximum slope of the resistance data that goes to zero resistance extrapolates to zero resistance). The criteria for [*T*]{}$_{c}$ are presented in Fig. \[criteria\]b, with an example of a [*x*]{} = 0.033/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 350$^\circ$C sample. For comparison, specific heat data for this sample are also presented. It can be seen that the [*T*]{}$_{c}$ values inferred from both susceptibility and resistance data, as well as that from the onset criterion for specific heat (the temperature at which the specific heat deviates from the normal-state specific heat), match quite well. The collapsed tetragonal phase is induced by higher annealing/quenching temperatures. When the collapses tetragonal phase transition is first order, it often leads to cracks in the resistance bar and loss of data below the transition temperature, which makes it difficult to extract the transition temperature from [*R*]{}([*T*]{}) data. Therefore susceptibility data were primarily used to determine [*T*]{}$_{cT}$. Figure \[criteria\]c shows the temperature derivative of the susceptibility data, with a sharp peak, which was employed to determine [*T*]{}$_{cT}$.
![(Color online) Criteria used to determine the transition temperatures of (a) the antiferromagnetic/structural phase transition, (b) the superconducting phase transition and (c) the collapsed tetragonal phase transition. Inferred transition temperature is indicated by arrow in each figure.[]{data-label="criteria"}](criteria.eps){width="100mm"}
Results
=======
A summary of the WDS measurement data is presented in Table 1. The table shows the nominal concentration, the measured average [*x*]{} value, and twice the standard deviation of the [*x*]{} values measured. For each sample, the measurement was done at 12 different locations on a cleaved surface. Data points of nominal versus actual concentration can be fit very well with a straight line, with a slope of 0.96 $\pm$ 0.01, indicating a linear correlation between the measured Co concentration and the nominal concentration. The error bars are taken as twice the standard deviation determined from the measurements, and the largest deviation from the nominal value is no more than 0.002, demonstrating relative homogeneity of the substituted samples studied here. In the following, the average experimentally determined [*x*]{} values, [*x*]{}$_{WDS}$, will be used to identify all the compounds rather than the nominal concentration, [*x*]{}$_{nominal}$. These results are in stark contrast to the non-monotonic and scattered [*x*]{}$_{WDS}$ versus [*x*]{}$_{nominal}$ results found for the [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}grown from Sn, for which solubility problems in Sn make systematic measurements on homogeneous samples difficult.[@Harnagea11; @Matusiak10; @Hu11Ca]
Figure \[clattice\] presents the [*c*]{}-lattice parameters of the as-grown samples, as well as selected annealed samples, determined via the diffraction from plate-like samples described above, using the (002) and (008) peaks. The [*x*]{} = 0.00/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 400$^\circ$C sample has [*c*]{}-lattice parameter similar to that of the Sn grown sample[@Kreyssig08; @Ran11] whereas the as-grown sample manifests a reduction of almost 2$\%$ in the [*c*]{}-lattice parameter. Data for Sn grown [CaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}at ambient and applied pressure of [*P*]{} = 0.63 GPa demonstrate that the effects of applied pressure and annealing/quenching temperature are remarkably similar. (It should be noted that both the Sn grown sample under 0.63 GPa pressure and the FeAs grown sample in the as-grown state transform to the collapsed tetragonal phase upon cooling below 200 K.[@Kreyssig08; @Ran11]) Substituting Co decreases [*c*]{}-lattice parameter for both annealed/quenched samples and as-grown samples, at roughly the same rate.
![(Color online) Room temperature [*c*]{}-lattice parameter of Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ of as-grown samples and samples annealed/quenched at selected temperatures as a function of measured Co concentration, [*x*]{}, determined via the diffraction from plate-like samples described in the Experimental Methods section. For comparision, data of Sn grown sample under pressure are also presented.[@Kreyssig08; @Ran11] Black dotted lines are the guide to the eyes.[]{data-label="clattice"}](clattice.eps){width="100mm"}
Figures \[Asgrown-MR\]a and \[Asgrown-MR\]b present the temperature dependent magnetic susceptibility, with magnetic field applied parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis, and normalized resistance for [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}single crystal, as-grown, samples with Co substitution levels up to [*x*]{} = 0.059. For the pure compound, CaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$, the susceptibility of the as-grown sample shows a sharp drop ($\sim$50$\%$) below 100 K, which is associated with a phase transition from the high temperature, tetragonal, paramagnetic state to the low temperature, collapsed tetragonal, non-magnetic state.[@Ran11] Note that the size of the jump is almost twice as large as that of the antiferromagnetic/structural phase transition of the Sn grown sample (top of Fig. \[Asgrown-MR\]a) when measured with field parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis. This phase transition can produce a downward jump in resistance when cooling down,[@Yu09] but, given that this is a first order, structural phase transition, it often leads to cracking along the length and width of the bar, as well as loss of contacts. For these reasons resistance data simply stops as temperature drops below [*T*]{}$_{cT}$.
![(Color online) Temperature dependent (a) magnetic susceptibility with a field of 1 T applied parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis and (b) normalized electrical resistance of as-grown Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ samples. For clarity, susceptibility data in (a) have been offset by 2 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ emu/mole from each other and resistance data in (b) have been offset by 0.2 from each other.[]{data-label="Asgrown-MR"}](Asgrown-MR.eps){width="100mm"}
For low Co substitution values, the magnetic susceptibility shows little change with the signature of the phase transition appearing at roughly the same temperature. The only significant change in the magnetization data is the loss of the discontinuos jump in [*M*]{}([*T*]{})/[*H*]{} on cooling for [*x*]{} = 0.028 and higher. In order to confirm that the low temperature state of the Co substituted, as-grown, samples is a tetragonal phase with reduced [*c*]{}-lattice parameter, a temperature dependent, single crystal x-ray measurement was carried out on the [*x*]{} = 0.059 sample. Figure \[latticeT\] displays the temperature dependence of the lattice parameters as well as the unit cell volume. For the [*x*]{} = 0.00 and [*x*]{} = 0.059, as-grown samples, it is clear that there is a reduction of the [*c*]{}-lattice parameter and an expansion of the [*a*]{}-lattice parameter from high temperature to low temperature. The overall unit cell volume shrinks as a result. The lattice parameters for the [*x*]{} = 0.059 sample are almost the same as those for the pure compound at low temperature.
![(Color online) Values for (a) the [*a*]{}-lattice paramter, (b) the [*c*]{}-lattice parameter and (c) unit cell volume as a function of temperature for [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}for [*x*]{} = 0.00 (square)[@Ran11] and [*x*]{} = 0.059 (circle) as-grown samples determined from single crystal X-ray diffraction measurements.[]{data-label="latticeT"}](latticeT.eps){width="100mm"}
However, both the changes in the lattice parameters and the magnetic susceptibility of the [*x*]{} = 0.059 sample are dramatically broadened comparing with those of the pure compound. Instead of a sharp jump at the transition temperature indicating a first order phase transition, the lattice parameters and the magnetic susceptibility change gradually over $\sim$30 K. Moreover, this broadening in signatures of transition coincides with the changes in the resistance data, with the resistance bar surviving as it is cooled down to the base temperature of 1.8 K, instead of cracking and losing contact which is often an indication of a strongly first order structural phase transition. All these thermodynamic, transport and microscopic measurements suggest the possibility that a critical end point of the phase transition may exist and, at [*x*]{} = 0.059, the system has already gone beyond this critical end point resulting in a continuous thermal contraction rather than a first order phase transition. Further structural investigetions of this issue are planned.
The results presented above for the as-grown [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}samples are dramatically different from those reported for the Sn grown samples.[@Harnagea11; @Matusiak10; @Hu11Ca] In the case of the pure compound, this difference is caused by stress and strain built up inside the sample during the process of quenching from 960$^\circ$C.[@Ran11] Control of post growth annealing and quenching can systematically suppress the magnetic/structural transition and stabilize the collapsed tetragonal phase in a manner analogous to applied pressure. For Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$, we expect the annealing/quenching temperatures to serve as a tuning parameter in a similar way. In order to study the effect of the annealing/quenching temperature on the Co substituted samples, we annealed and quenched the samples with different concentrations at temperatures ranging from 350$^\circ$C to 800$^\circ$C and measured their thermodynamic and transport properties.
For annealing/quenching temperature equal or above 400$^\circ$C, samples were annealed for 24 hours. As we discussed in the previous paper,[@Ran11] for these temperatures, 24 hours is longer than the time needed to reach a well defined state. For the annealing/quenching temperature of 350$^\circ$C, we determined the annealing time in a similar way. In Fig. \[1.9-350C\] we show the evolution of the magnetic susceptibility for different annealing times at 350$^\circ$C. It is clear that 24 h is not a sufficient amount of time to reach a well defined state. It leads to split, broadened features with drops in susceptibility below both 130 and 100 K. 48 h leads to a less split but still broadened feature near 125 K. 5 days leads to a single, sharp feature at around 125 K, which is comparable to what is seen for a 14 day anneal. This progression shows that for 350$^\circ$C, the salient time scale for annealing is between 2 and 5 days. Therefore, for 350$^\circ$C, samples were annealed for 5 days. In the case where whole batches were annealed without opening, the annealing time used was longer, for example, for 350$^\circ$C, the whole batches were annealed for 14 days.
![(Color online) Temperature dependent magnetic susceptibility with a field of 1 T applied perpendicular to the [*c*]{}-axis of [*x*]{} = 0.019 samples annealed at 350$^\circ$C for different amount of time varing from 1 day to 14 days. Susceptibility data have been offset by 1 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ emu/mole from each other for clarity.[]{data-label="1.9-350C"}](1.9-350C.eps){width="100mm"}
Figure \[350CMR\]a presents the in plane susceptibility data in a field of 1 T applied perpendicular to the [*c*]{}-axis for annealing/quenching temperature of 350$^\circ$C. After being annealed/quenched at 350$^\circ$C, the pure compound manifests a magnetic/structural phase transition at around 170 K from the high temperature, tetragonal, paramagnetic state to the low temperature, orthorhombic, antiferromagnetic state as indicated by the sharp, modest, drop in susceptibility (and sharp increase in resistance shown in Fig. \[350CMR\]c, as will be discussed momentarily).[@Ran11] This phase transition is progressively suppressed by Co substitution until it is completely suppressed by [*x*]{} = 0.033. The magnetic signature of the phase transition remains quite sharp with the size of the jump fairly constant. The superconducting phase first appears in the [*x*]{} = 0.033 sample, with the superconducting transition temperature [*T*]{}$_{c}$ around 15 K. As the Co substitution level is further increased, [*T*]{}$_{c}$ decreases. An upper limit of the superconducting fraction can be obtained from the zero field cooling susceptibility in the field of 0.01 T as shown in Fig. \[350CMR\]b. Approximately 100$\%$ of diamagnetism is seen for the [*x*]{} = 0.033 and [*x*]{} = 0.038 samples without taking account of demagnetization factor. For higher Co substitution the diamagnetic fraction decreases and becomes essential zero for the [*x*]{} = 0.059 sample.
![(Color online) Temperature dependent (a) magnetic susceptibility with a field of 1 T applied perpendicular to the [*c*]{}-axis, (b) low field magnetic susceptibility measured upon zero field cooling (ZFC) with a field of 0.01 T applied perpendicular to the [*c*]{}-axis and (c) normalized electrical resistance of Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ samples for an annealing/quenching temperature of 350$^\circ$C. Low temperature resistance of superconducting samples are presented in (d).[]{data-label="350CMR"}](350CMR.eps){width="160mm"}
Figure \[350CMR\]c shows normalized, temperature dependent resistance data for the 350$^\circ$C annealed/quenched samples. For substitution levels up to [*x*]{} = 0.028, the antiferromagnetic/structural phase transition is further confirmed by the same sharp, upward jump in resistance, similar to that found in pure Ca122. As the transition temperature is suppressed, this signature remains sharp while the size of the jump increases monotonically and reaches 40$\%$ of room temperature resistance value at [*x*]{} = 0.028. The increasing size of the jump with suppressing [*T*]{}$_{N}$/[*T*]{}$_{S}$ is similar to what has been seen for the pure compound grown out of an FeAs flux, but is in contrast to the case of Sn grown samples under pressure,[@Yu09] where the size of the jump remains relatively constant. Although the resistance starts to decrease at low temperature for the samples with [*x*]{} = 0.019, 0.022 and 0.028, it does not reach instrumental zero. Considering that low field susceptibility does not show significant diamagnetism, the sudden drop in resistance for these three samples most likely indicates filamentary superconductivity.[@Saha09; @Colombier09] Complete superconducting phase transitions with zero resistance are obtained for [*x*]{} $\geq$ 0.033. The fact that resistance shows several steps before reaches instrumental zero, the highest of which has an onset near 30 K, suggest that there may be some microscopic inhomogeneity of the stress and strain. This will be discussed in detail in the Discussion section below. [*T*]{}$_{c}$ decreases gradually with increasing Co concentration and drops to around 2.5 K for [*x*]{} = 0.059. Again, since the diamagnetic fraction for this concentration is essentially zero, it may be a filamentary superconductor.
Before we proceed further, it is important to further explore whether that the superconductivity at optimal substitution and annealing/quenching temperature is a bulk property instead of filamentary superconductivity since zero resistance can be caused by only a thin layer or filament spanning the sample. Low field susceptibility, as a thermodynamic quantity, is normally used to confirm the bulk superconductor. However, the low field susceptibility was measured after cooling in a zero applied field, and therefore only tells the upper limit of the superconducting fraction.
One way to further establish that bulk superconductivity is present is to measure the temperature dependent specific heat and determine the size of the jump at [*T*]{}$_{c}$. Figure \[3.3-350C-Cp\] presents the specific heat data on a representative sample, [*x*]{} = 0.033/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 350$^\circ$C, which shows full diamagnetism from zero field cooled-warming susceptibility data. Specific heat was measured in both zero field and in 9 T and the size of the jump in [*C*]{}$_{P}$ at [*T*]{}$_{c}$ can be inferred from the difference between these two data sets. (As will be shown below, anisotropic [*H*]{}$_{c2}$([*T*]{}) data on an optimal substituted/annealed [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}samples show that 9 T is an adequate field for this substraction and analysis.) Due to finite widths of the superconducting transitions, $\Delta$[*C*]{}$_{P}$/[*T*]{}$_{c}$ and [*T*]{}$_{c}$ values were determined from [*C*]{}$_{P}$/[*T*]{} vs [*T*]{} data using an “isoentropic” construction (i.e., such that the vertical line in Fig. \[3.3-350C-Cp\]b delineates equal areas in the [*C*]{}$_{P}$/[*T*]{} vs [*T*]{} plot). A $\Delta$[*C*]{}$_{P}$/[*T*]{}$_{c}$ value of 16.1 mJ/mol K$^2$ is inferred from this criterion. These data fall onto a manifold of $\Delta$[*C*]{}$_{P}$/[*T*]{}$_{c}$ versus [*T*]{}$_{c}^{2}$ data found for many substituted AFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ materials[@Stewart11; @Sergey09cp; @Kogan09; @Matsuda11] (see discussion below), suggesting that there is bulk superconductivity in this sample.
![(Color online) (a) Temperature dependent specific heat data of the [*x*]{} = 0.033/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 350$^\circ$C sample, measuered in zero field and a field of 9 T applied parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis and (b) the difference between of the two sets of data presented as $\Delta$[*C*]{}$_{P}$/[*T*]{}. The red dased lines represent the isoentropic construction used to determine the jump in [*C*]{}$_{P}$ at [*T*]{}$_{c}$ (see text).[]{data-label="3.3-350C-Cp"}](3.3-350C-Cp.eps){width="100mm"}
Using the criteria discussed in the Experimental Methods section above, a phase diagram of transition temperature versus Co concentration can be constructed based on the magnetic susceptibility and electric resistance data. Figure \[350C-Tx\] presents the [*T*]{}-[*x*]{} phase for an annealing/quenching temperature of 350$^\circ$C. The magnetic/structural phase transition is suppressed continuously and the phase line drops to zero for a substitution level between [*x*]{} = 0.028 and [*x*]{} = 0.033, and the superconducting phase emerges by [*x*]{} = 0.033. [*T*]{}$_{c}$ is highest when the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase has just been suppressed completely; [*T*]{}$_{c}$ is suppressed by further Co substitution. The superconducting region extends to around [*x*]{} = 0.059. But, as mentioned above, by this substitution level the superconductivity may just be filamentary. No clear evidence of either the coexistence of the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic with the superconducting phases or any splitting of the magnetic and structure phase transitions is observed.
![(Color online) Phase diagram of transition temperature, [*T*]{}, versus Co concentration, [*x*]{}, of Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ samples for an annealing/quenching temperature of 350$^\circ$C. The size of filled triangle ([*T*]{}$_{c}$-[*M*]{}) schematically represents size of low temperature diamagnetic fraction. The filled symbols are inferred from magnetization ([*M*]{}) data, the open symbols are inferred from resistance ([*R*]{}) data.[]{data-label="350C-Tx"}](350C-Tx.eps){width="100mm"}
To further study the effects of the annealing/quenching temperature on this series of compounds, we increased the annealing/quenching temperature to 400$^\circ$C. The magnetic susceptibility and resistance data, as well as specific heat data for the [*x*]{} = 0.028/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 400$^\circ$C sample, are shown in Fig. \[400CMR\] and the [*T*]{}-[*x*]{} phase diagram is shown in Fig. \[400C-Tx\]. As in the case of 350$^\circ$C annealing/quenching, the pure compound is in the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic state at low temperature. Substituting Co suppresses the antiferromagnetic/structural transition temperature and again, when it is suppressed completely, the superconducting phase appears. The major difference for this higher annealing/quenching temperature is that the [*T*]{}$_{N}$/[*T*]{}$_{S}$ line is suppressed by several K for [*x*]{} = 0 and by [*x*]{} = 0.028, the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase is already suppressed completely and the superconducting phase appears with full diamagnetism whereas, for 350$^\circ$C annealing, this only occurs for [*x*]{} = 0.033. This is consistent with the fact that increasing the annealing/quenching temperature suppresses the antiferromagnetic/structural transition temperature as shown for pure compound in our previous work.[@Ran11] The temperature dependent specific heat for [*H*]{} = 0 and [*H*]{} = 14 T for the [*x*]{} = 0.028/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 400$^\circ$C sample were substracted and the $\Delta$[*C*]{}$_{P}$/[*T*]{}$_{c}$ data are consistent with bulk superconductivity (see discussion below). Again neither coexistence of the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic and the superconducting phases nor splitting of [*T*]{}$_{S}$ and [*T*]{}$_{N}$ were observed. Both [*T*]{}$_{c}$ and diamagnetism fraction are optimal right after the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic state is completely suppressed and then start to decrease with increasing Co concentration.
![(Color online) Temperature dependent (a) magnetic susceptibility with a field of 1 T applied perpendicular to the [*c*]{}-axis, (b) low field magnetic susceptibility measured upon ZFC with a field of 0.01 T applied perpendicular to the [*c*]{}-axis and (c) normalized electrical resistance of Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ samples for an annealing/quenching temperature of 400$^\circ$C, together with (d) the specific heat data for the [*x*]{} = 0.028/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 400$^\circ$C sample (see text). Low temperature resistance of superconducting samples are presented in the inset of (c).[]{data-label="400CMR"}](400CMR.eps){width="160mm"}
![(Color online) Phase diagram of transition temperature, [*T*]{}, versus Co concentration, [*x*]{}, of Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ samples for an annealing/quenching temperature of 400$^\circ$C. The size of filled triangle ([*T*]{}$_{c}$-[*M*]{}) schematically represents size of low temperature diamagnetic fraction. Filled symbols are inferred from magnetization ([*M*]{}) data, open symbols are inferred from resistance ([*R*]{}) data.[]{data-label="400C-Tx"}](400C-Tx.eps){width="100mm"}
Figure \[500C-Tx\] presents the corresponding data for a 500$^\circ$C annealing/quenching temperature. At this annealing/quenching temperature, the antiferromagnetic/structural transition starts with a lower temperature for the pure compound and the switch between the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic and the superconducting phase occurs between [*x*]{} = 0.019 and 0.022. Only one sample, [*x*]{} = 0.022, shows significant amount of diamagnetism with [*T*]{}$_{c}$ around 9 K.
![(Color online) Temperature dependent (a) magnetic susceptibility with a field of 1 T applied perpendicular to the [*c*]{}-axis, (b) low field magnetic susceptibility measured upon ZFC with a field of 0.01 T applied perpendicular to the [*c*]{}-axis, (c) normalized electrical resistance and (d) phase diagram of transition temperature, [*T*]{}, versus Co concentration, [*x*]{}, of Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ samples for an annealing/quenching temperature of 500$^\circ$C. Low temperature resistance of superconducting samples are presented in the inset of (c). In figure (d) the size of filled triangle ([*T*]{}$_{c}$-[*M*]{}) schematically represents size of low temperature diamagnetic fraction. Filled symbols are inferred from magnetization ([*M*]{}) data, open symbols are inferred from resistance ([*R*]{}) data.[]{data-label="500C-Tx"}](500C-Tx.eps){width="160mm"}
A dramatic change is seen when the annealing/quenching temperature is increased to 600$^\circ$C, as shown in Fig. \[600C-Tx\]. The susceptibility is measured with the magnetic field applied parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis, in which direction the size of the jump in susceptibility for the collapsed tetragonal phase transition is significantly larger than that for the antiferromagnetic/structural phase transition, as discussed above, in the Experimental Methods section. Resistance data was also utilized to confirm the nature of the transition since it shows clearly different signature for the two types of phase transition: an upward jump for the antiferromagnetic/structural phase transition and a downward jump or loss of signal for the collapsed tetragonal phase transition. With the combination of these criteria, it can be seen clearly that the pure compound is in the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic state at low temperature, whereas the samples with [*x*]{} $\textgreater$ 0.022 are in the collapsed tetragonal phase. None of the sample reaches a low-temperature [*R*]{} = 0 state. Figure \[600C-Tx\]c presents the low field susceptibility data. It can be seen, no significant superconducting fraction is observed for sample in either the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic or the collapsed tetragonal states.
![(Color online) Temperature dependent (a) magnetic susceptibility with a field of 1 T applied parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis, (b) low field magnetic susceptibility measured upon ZFC with a field of 0.01 T applied parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis, (c) normalized electrical resistance and (d) phase diagram of transition temperature, [*T*]{}, versus Co concentration, [*x*]{}, of Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ samples for an annealing/quenching temperature of 600$^\circ$C. The inset of (c) presents the resistance data of 1.9$\%$ sample measured upon warming up and cooling down. For clarity, susceptibility data in (a) have been offset by 2 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ emu/mole from each other and resistance data in (b) have been offset by 0.2 from each other. In figure (d), the filled symbols are inferred from magnetization ([*M*]{}) data, the open symbols are inferred from resistance ([*R*]{}) data.[]{data-label="600C-Tx"}](600C-Tx.eps){width="160mm"}
For [*x*]{} = 0.010, two samples were measured. One sample manifests broadened signatures in both susceptibility and resistance that can be associated with the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase transition. The other sample shows double transitions with the upper one consistent with the antiferromagnetic/structural transition and the lower one consistent with the transition into the collapsed tetragonal phase. It is likely that this sample is a mixture of two types of phases, which is reasonable noting that 600$^\circ$C seems to be near the antiferromagnetic/collapsed tetragonal phase boundary and a small degree of inhomogeneity of the local strain may separate the sample into two phases.
For [*x*]{} =0.019, the susceptibility data do not manifest a clear signature of either type of transition whereas resistance measured on the same piece of sample shows a downward jump with hysteresis of $\sim$40K between cooling and warming indicating a transition into the collapsed tetragonal phase, as shown in the inset of Fig. \[600C-Tx\]c. Given that susceptibility, as a thermodynamic measurement, tells more about the bulk properties, it is possible that only part of the sample is in a collapsed tetragonal state at low temperature.
Figure \[600C-Tx\]d shows the phase diagram for the annealing/quenching temperature of 600$^\circ$C reconstructed from these data. The antiferromagnetic/structural phase transition is suppressed by Co substitution, but unlike the cases of the lower annealing/quenching temperatures, which show a superconducting region when the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase is suppressed completely, here the collapsed tetragonal phase line truncates the suppression of [*T*]{}$_{N}$/[*T*]{}$_{S}$ and no bulk superconducting phase is observed. It is worth noting that although the transition temperature of the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase is suppressed by Co substitution, the transition temperature of the collapsed tetragonal phase stays fairly constant as Co concentration increases.
Figures \[700C-Tx\]a to \[700C-Tx\]c present the magnetic susceptibility and normalized resistance data for the annealing/quenching temperature of 700$^\circ$C. Again, the susceptibility is measured with field applied parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis. Both susceptibility and resistance data can be divided into two groups. The signatures in the data from the pure compound clearly show that it’s in the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic state at low temperature. On the other hand, all Co substituted samples show essentially the same signature: very sharp drop in susceptibility and a weak downward jump in resistance which is sometimes accompanied by a loss of contact or continuity due to sample breakage. No significant superconducting fraction is observed, as shown in Fig. \[700C-Tx\]b. Also [*R*]{}([*T*]{}) data does not show any indication of superconductivity for any substitution level.
![(Color online) Temperature dependent (a) magnetic susceptibility with a field of 1 T applied parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis, (b) low field magnetic susceptibility measured upon ZFC with a field of 0.01 T applied parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis, (c) normalized electrical resistance and (d) phase diagram of transition temperature, [*T*]{}, versus Co concentration, [*x*]{}, of Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ samples for an annealing/quenching temperature of 700$^\circ$C. For clarity, susceptibility data in (a) have been offset by 1 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ emu/mole from each other and resistance data in (b) have been offset by 0.1 from each other. In figure (d), the filled symbols are inferred from magnetization ([*M*]{}) data, the open symbols are inferred from resistance ([*R*]{}) data.[]{data-label="700C-Tx"}](700C-Tx.eps){width="160mm"}
Figure \[700C-Tx\]d summaries the phase diagram for this annealing/quenching temperature. Similar to the case of the 600$^\circ$C annealing/quenching, the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase only exist when [*T*]{}$_{N}$/[*T*]{}$_{S}$ > [*T*]{}$_{cT}$. The transition temperature of collapsed tetragonal state remains roughly constant as Co concentration increases, but [*T*]{}$_{cT}$ is clearly higher for the 700$^\circ$C annealed/quenched samples than it is for the 600$^\circ$C ones, consistent with a continued increase in stress/strain with increasing annealing/quenching temperature.
So far, the phase diagram data have only been shown as [*T*]{}-[*x*]{} cuts for a fixed annealing/quenching temperature. The same set of data can also be presented as phase diagrams of transition temperature versus annealing/quenching temperature ([*T*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ cuts) for each Co substitution level. The [*T*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ phase diagrams are presented in Fig. \[TT\]a to \[TT\]g. For the pure compound,[@Ran11] the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase line is suppressed with increasing annealing/quenching temperature and disappears into the collapsed tetragonal phase line at around 800$^\circ$C. No superconductivity is observed. Substituting Co suppresses the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase line. Therefore, for the [*x*]{} = 0.010 sample, the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase line starts at a lower temperature and the entire antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase region shrinks. The collapsed tetragonal phase line is further revealed with the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase line merging with it at around 600$^\circ$C, which is a lower annealing/quenching temperature for the onset of the collapsed tetragonal phase than that for the pure compound. For the [*x*]{} = 0.010 sample, the two phase lines still intersect/overlap each other and there is no superconductivity. As the Co concentration is increased further, the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase line is further suppressed but the collapsed tetragonal phase line remains roughly unchanged. There seems to be a minimum of annealing/quenching temperature (internal strain) to stabilize the collapsed tetragonal phase (roughly [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 600$^\circ$C). Therefore, as the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase line is suppressed further, at annealing/quenching temperatures lower than 600$^\circ$C, the two phase lines separate. For [*x*]{} = 0.019, and even more clearly for [*x*]{} = 0.022, the two phase lines no longer intersect each other, leaving an intermediate region where one finds the superconducting phase. Further increasing Co concentration, the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase line is suppressed more and more, and the space between the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic and the collapsed tetragonal phase lines becomes larger and larger. By [*x*]{} = 0.038, the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase is completely suppressed and the low temperature state is divided into two phases: the superconducting phase and the collapsed tetragonal phase. For [*x*]{} = 0.059, the superconducting signal is rather weak and can only be extracted from resistance data. It is not clear in these cases if any bulk superconductivity remains.
![(Color online) Phase diagram of transition temperature, [*T*]{}, versus annealing/quenching temperatue, [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$, for [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}for (a) [*x*]{} = 0.00, (b) [*x*]{} = 0.010, (c) [*x*]{} = 0.019, (d) [*x*]{} = 0.022, (e) [*x*]{} = 0.028, (d) [*x*]{} = 0.038 and (e) [*x*]{} = 0.059. The size of filled triangle ([*T*]{}$_{c}$-[*M*]{}) schematically represents size of low temperature diamagnetic fraction. Filled symbols are inferred from magnetization ([*M*]{}) data, open symbols are inferred from resistance ([*R*]{}) data.[]{data-label="TT"}](TT.eps){width="100mm"}
Discussion
==========
The thermodynamic, transport and microscopic diffraction measurements of the the [*x*]{} = 0.059, as-grown sample suggest that for the as-grown [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}samples there may be a critical end point beyond which the system has a continuous thermal contraction rather than a first order phase transition. Figure \[Asgrown-Tx\] presents the width of the transition, which is defined as full width at half maximum of the peak in temperature derivative of magnetic susceptibility. It can be seen that the broadening in transition starts from about [*x*]{} = 0.022. The resistance data shown in Fig. \[Asgrown-MR\]b can be divided into two groups according to whether the resistance bar cracks and loses contact when cooling down. It’s clear that the samples with [*x*]{} smaller than 0.028 all lose contacts below the transition temperature indicating these samples undergo first order, structural phase transitions. On the other hand, starting from [*x*]{} = 0.028, the resistance bars survive down to the base temperature of 1.8 K although the resistive data are not ideally smooth. Again these data are consistent with the magnetic susceptibility measurements shown in Fig. \[Asgrown-MR\]a. To fully address the question of the existence of a critical end point, detailed study of thermodynamic and microscopic properties will be needed, but, at this point the as-grown [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}system appears to be a rare example of such isotructural transition that can be tuned in this manner (the volume collapse in Ce being another such example[@Ce]).
![width of transition of as-grown Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ samples as a function of measured Co concentration, [*x*]{}.[]{data-label="Asgrown-Tx"}](Asgrown-Tx.eps){width="100mm"}
Filamentray superconductivity is a common problem in the AFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ based materials.[@Saha09; @Colombier09] In [CaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}compounds great care has to be taken to identify and separate filamentray superconductivity from bulk superconductivity. The resistance data show a small superconductivity like drop at around 25 K in many samples before it reaches zero with further cooling. A magnetic field can been applied to these samples and these steps are suppressed by a field as small as 0.05 T. Figure \[Rfield\] presents the resistance data, in applied magnetic field, for the [*x*]{} = 0.033/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 350$^\circ$C sample, as an example. In a field of 0.05 T, the drop at higher temperature is suppressed completely whereas the final step towards zero remains sharp and is only slightly shifted to lower temperature. This indicates the final step is a rather robust signature of superconductivity, although the question of why the 25 K feature (whatever its origin is) has such an extreme field dependence is left as an unsolved puzzle for now.
![(Color online) Temperature dependent resistance data of the [*x*]{} = 0.033/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 350$^\circ$C sample, measured in zero field and applied field up to 1 T[]{data-label="Rfield"}](Rfield.eps){width="100mm"}
In order to confirm bulk superconductivity, thermodynamic measurements are needed. Whereas low field magnetization data can be suggestive, specific heat data is even clearer evidence. Specific heat measurements were made on the representative samples, the [*x*]{} = 0.033/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 350$^\circ$C sample (Fig. \[3.3-350C-Cp\]) and the [*x*]{} = 0.028/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 400$^\circ$C sample (Fig. \[400CMR\]), both of which are located in close approximity to the suppressed [*T*]{}$_{N}$/[*T*]{}$_{S}$ line and both of which show full diamagnetic fraction in zero field cooling. $\Delta$[*C*]{}$_{P}$/[*T*]{}$_{c}$ values of 16.1 mJ/mol K$^2$ and 15.1 mJ/mol K$^2$ are inferred from the data for the the [*x*]{} = 0.033 and the [*x*]{} = 0.028 samples, respectively. These values can be placed in context of other substituted AFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ compounds on a plot of $\Delta$[*C*]{}$_{P}$([*T*]{}$_{c}$) (Fig. \[BNC\]).[@Stewart11; @Sergey09cp; @Kogan09; @Matsuda11] Based on this comparison we can see that the signature of superconductivity found in specific heat data from these samples is comparable to that of Ba122 with various substitutions and other iron-based superconducting compounds. This is in contrast to the previously reported rare earth substituted Ca122, in which case no clear evidence of bulk superconductivity is observed.[@Saha12]
![(Color online) $\Delta$[*C*]{}$_{P}$ vs [*T*]{}$_{c}$ for the [*x*]{} = 0.033/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 350$^\circ$C sample and the [*x*]{} = 0.028/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 400$^\circ$C sample, plotted together with literature data for various FeAs-based superconducting materials.[@Sergey09cp; @Kogan09; @Matsuda11][]{data-label="BNC"}](BNC.eps){width="100mm"}
To more fully characterize the superconducting state, temperature dependent anisotropic [*H*]{}$_{c2}$ was measured on the [*x*]{} = 0.028/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 400$^\circ$C sample up to 14 T. The [*R*]{}([*T*]{}) data for various [*H*]{} in the direction parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis are shown in Fig. \[Hc2\]a along with an example of the criterion used to infer [*H*]{}$_{c2}$, offset of the superconducting transition. Figure \[Hc2\]b presents the anisotropic [*H*]{}$_{c2}$ plot inferred from the [*R*]{}([*T*]{}) data and, in the inset, the temperature dependence of $\gamma$ = [*H*]{}$_{c2}^{\perp c}$/[*H*]{}$_{c2}^{\parallel c}$. After an initial upward curvature, there is roughly a linear increase of [*H*]{}$_{c2}$ with decreasing temperature. [*H*]{}$_{c2}$ at zero temperature, although is not reached in our measurement, seems to be $\sim$20 T. As can be seen in the inset of Fig. \[Hc2\]b, the $\gamma$ has values between 1.5 and 2.0. These values are consistent with those found for K-substituted, Co-substituted and Ni-substituted Ba122 samples.[@Altarawneh08; @Ni08BaCo; @Ni10TM]
![(Color online) Temperature dependent (a) resistance data of the [*x*]{} = 0.028/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 400$^\circ$C sample, measured in applied field parallel to the [*c*]{}-axis for [*H*]{} = 0, 2 T, 4 T, 6 T, 8 T, 10 T, 12 T and 14 T and (b) anisotropic [*H*]{}$_{c2}$ data determined from [*R*]{}([*T*]{}) data. Inset to (b) shows $\gamma$ = [*H*]{}$_{c2}^{\perp c}$/[*H*]{}$_{c2}^{\parallel c}$ for 10 K $\textless$ [*T*]{} $\textless$ 16 K.[]{data-label="Hc2"}](Hc2.eps){width="100mm"}
The progression of the [*T*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ phase diagrams (Fig. \[TT\]) from the pure compound to the highest substitution level reveals that there is no coexistence of superconductivity with either the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase or the collapsed tetragonal phase. The absence of the superconductivity in the collapsed tetragonal phase region is consistent with the idea that the mechanism of iron-based superconductor depends on magnetic fluctuations. Since in the collapsed tetragonal phase magnetic moment is quenched completely, there is no spin fluctuation to drive the superconducting phase.[@Pratt09]
The absence of superconductivity in the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase region can be understood based on the fact that the antiferromagnetic/structural phase transition remains quite first order even when it is suppressed to around 50 K, which is the lowest [*T*]{}$_{N}$/[*T*]{}$_{S}$ we obtained in these studies. The first order nature of the antiferromagnetic/structural phase transition is demonstrated by the sharpness of both the magnetic and resistive signatures of the transition as well as the hysteresis of the transition temperature of about 7 K, e.g. the susceptibility data of the [*x*]{} = 0.025/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 400$^\circ$C sample are shown in Fig. \[2.5hysteresis\]. The strongly first order nature of the magnetic/structural phase transition in [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}is in stark contrast to Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ which manifest split, second order magnetic and structural phase transitions.[@JPSJFeAs; @Hosono09; @Chu09; @Prozorov10; @Canfield10; @Johnston10; @Stewart11; @Ni11review] For small Co substitution levels, in the case of Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$, a coexisting superconducting state emerges under the suppressed and separated second order phase transitions whereas for [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}the superconducting state does not emerge anywhere below the strongly first order, coupled magnetic/structural transition line. This clear difference is also consistent with magnetic fluctuations being vital for the emergence of the superconducting state.
![(Color online) Temperature dependent magnetic susceptibility of the [*x*]{} = 0.025/[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 400$^\circ$C sample, measured upon warming up and cooling down.[]{data-label="2.5hysteresis"}](2p5hysteresis.eps){width="100mm"}
With annealing/quenching temperature as another tuning parameter, the phase diagram is essentially extended from two dimensions to three dimensions. We can establish a three dimensional phase diagram with substitution level, [*x*]{}, annealing/quenching temperature, [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$, and transition temperature, [*T*]{}, as the three axes, as shown in Fig. \[3D\]. Whereas the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase is clearly suppressed by increasing [*x*]{} and [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$, the collapsed tetragonal phase, once it emerges, varies with [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$, but over this limited substitution range, does not vary significantly with [*x*]{}. At lowest temperatures there is no co-existence between any of these phases with superconductivity being truncated at low [*x*]{} and low [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ by the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase and at high [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ by the collapsed tetragonal phase.
![(Color online) Three dimensional phase diagram with substitution level, [*x*]{}, annealing/quenching temperature, [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$, and transition temperature, [*T*]{}, as three axes. Red (antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic), green (superconducting) and blue (collapsed tetragonal) spheres represent data. Transparent, colored surfaces are guides to the eyes. Black dashed lines are [*T*]{}-[*x*]{} lines for different [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ and yellow dashed lines are [*T*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ lines for different [*x*]{}. Solid, colored areas on the [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$-[*x*]{} plane are low temperature ground states. Note: dark green area (from magnetization data) represents the bulk superconducting region whereas light green area (from resistance data) represents the zero resistance region.[]{data-label="3D"}](3D.eps){width="160mm"}
We can compare this 3D phase diagram to that of the rare earth substituted Ca122 system, which can be considered as a combination of electron substitution and chemical pressure.[@Saha12] Since it is not clear whether the superconductivity observed in rare earth substituted samples is bulk, we focus on the magnetic/structural phase transition region as well as the collapsed tetragonal phase region. The basic structure of the phase diagrams looks similar. Both substitution and effective pressure (in case of Co substitution, it is annealing and in case of RE substitution, it is chemical pressure) suppresses the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase. The rate of suppression, when calculated in terms of extra electrons, is much higher for Co substitution. When annealed/quenched at 350$^\circ$C, the annealing/quenching temperature at which stress and strain is released to the largest extend in our study, by 3.3$\%$ Co the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase is suppressed completely. Whereas for La substitution, which does not cause a significant change of [*c*]{}-lattice parameter, the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase still survives for 10$\%$ La.[@Saha12] This difference can be understood based on the assumption that rare earth substitution perturbs the Ca layer whereas Co substitution perturbs Fe layer. Similarly, in the case of Ba122, K substitution, which perturbs Ba layer, suppresses the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase at a much slower rate than Co substitution, which perturbs Fe layer.[@Ni08BaK; @Johrendt09; @Ni08BaCo]
The three dimensional [*T*]{}-[*x*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ phase diagram we find for Co substitution can also be compared to the earlier data measured on Co substituted samples grown out of Sn[@Harnagea11; @Matusiak10; @Hu11Ca] as well as some recent results on furace cooled$\textquotedblright$ Rh substituted samples grown out of FeAs[@Danura11]. For the Sn grown [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}compounds, our low annealing/quenching temperature ([*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ = 350$^\circ$C) data is qualitatively similar in that there is a suppression of the magnetic/structural phase transition and the appearance of superconductivity. Quantitatively, we find a slightly more rapid suppression of the [*T*]{}$_{N}$/[*T*]{}$_{S}$ line, and a much clearer and systematic evolution of the first order signatures of the magnetic/structural and the collapsed tetragonal phase transitions with substitution and annealing/quenching temperature. Recent Rh substitution work on samples that were allowed to cool to room temperature after a slow cool between 1100 and 1050$^\circ$C found that a very narrow region of Rh substitution revealed partial screening in magnetic susceptibility data for [*x*]{} $\sim$0.02 between the suppression of the [*T*]{}$_{N}$/[*T*]{}$_{S}$ line for low substitution levels and a rapid increase in the collapsed tetragonal phase transition temperature for [*x*]{} greater than 0.024. It is very likely that a systematic study of the effects of annealing/quenching temperature on FeAs grown, Rh substituted samples will reveal a comprehensible, three dimensional phase diagram, perhaps different from Co substitution in some details due to the different effect of Rh and Co on the size of the [*c*]{}-lattice parameter.
Fianlly, we would like to point out that controlled annealing/quenching of FeAs grown [Ca(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_{x}$)$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}opens up a myriad of opportunities for the further research. We are able to tune the system systematically and reproducibly. Given the similar effects of pressure and annealing/quenching temperature, it is now possible for APRES and/or STM to explore what were inaccessible [*T*]{}-[*P*]{} phase diagrams via use of the [*T*]{}-[*x*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ phase diagram. Furthermore, if we extend the [*P*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ analogy from our annealing work on the pure compound[@Ran11], then we expect that continuous tuning can be achieved for Co substituted samples with hydrostatic pressure using He gas medium. For example, the [*T*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ phase diagram of [*x*]{} = 0.022 sample presented in Fig. \[TT\]d suggests that it might be possible to tuning the system from the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase to the superconducting phase and then to the collapsed tetragonal phase with applied pressures of less than 0.5 GPa. If this is the case, then elastic and inelastic neutron scattering studies on a single sample can be used to systematically study the magnetic order and fluctuations across the whole phase space of FeAs-based superconductivity.
Conclusions
===========
We have grown single crystal samples of Co substituted [CaFe$_{2}$As$_{2}$ ]{}out of an FeAs flux and found that the as-grown samples are still in the collapsed tetragonal state at low temperature at ambient pressure, similar to the pure compound[@Ran11]. We systematically studied effects of annealing/quenching temperatures on the physical properties of these samples. The progression of the [*T*]{}-[*T*]{}$_{anneal}$ phase diagram with increasing Co concentration shows that by substituting Co, the antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic and the collapsed tetragonal phase lines are separated and bulk superconductivity is revealed. We established a 3D phase diagram with Co concentration and annealing/quenching temperature as two independent control parameters. At 2 K the superconducting state exists between a low [*x*]{}, low [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$, antiferromagnetic/orthorhombic phase and a high [*T*]{}$_{anneal}$, collapsed tetragonal phase, in a region where magnetic fluctuations can persist to low enough temperatures.
Acknowledgement
===============
The author thanks V. Taufour and T. Li for help with figures and N. Ni (as well as F. Fe and C. Co) for useful discussion. Work at the Ames Laboratory was supported by the Department of Energy, Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11358. S.L.B. acknowledges partial support from the State of Iowa through Iowa State University.
[99]{}
Y. Kamihara, T. Watanabe, M. Hirano, and H. Hosono, J. Am. Chem. Soc. **1**, 3296 (2008).
M. Rotter, M. Tegel, and D. Johrendt, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 107006 (2008).
J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., Iron-Pnictide and Related Superconductors Collection.
New J. Phys., Focus on Iron-Based Superconductors, edited by Hideo Hosono and Zhi-An Ren, 11, Issue 2 (2009).
Physica C, Superconductivity in Iron-Pnictides, edited by Paul C.W. Chu, Alexei Koshelev, Wai Kwok, Igor Mazin, Ulrich Welp, and Hai-Hu Wen, 469, Issues 9-12 (2009).
Supercond. Sci. Technol., Focus on the Electromagnetic Properties of Iron-based Superconductors, edited by Ruslan Prozorov, Alex Gurevich, and Graeme Luke, 23, Number 5 (2010).
Paul C. Canfield and Sergey L. Bud’ko, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. **1**, 27 (2010).
D. C. Johnston, Adv. Phys. **59** , 803 (2010).
G. R. Stewart, Rev. Mod. Phys. **83**, 1589 (2011).
N. Ni and Sergey L. Bud’ko, MRS Bulletin **36**, 620 (2011).
M. Rotter, M. Tegel, D. Johrendt, I. Schellenberg, W. Hermes and R. Pöttgen, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 020503(R) (2008).
N. Ni, S. L. Bud’ko, A. Kreyssig, S. Nandi, G. E. Rustan, A. I. Goldman, S. Gupta, J. D. Corbett, A. Kracher, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 014507 (2008).
J.-Q. Yan, A. Kreyssig, S. Nandi, N. Ni, S. L. Bud’ko, A. Kracher, R. J. McQueeney, R. W. McCallum, T. A. Lograsso, A. I. Goldman, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 024516 (2008).
N. Ni, S. Nandi, A. Kreyssig, A. I. Goldman, E. D. Mun, S. L. Bud’ko, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 014523 (2008).
A. S. Sefat, R. Jin, M. A. McGuire, B. C. Sales, D. J. Singh, and D. Mandrus, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101** 117004 (2008).
N. Ni, M. E. Tillman, J.-Q. Yan, A. Kracher, S. T. Hannahs, S. L. Bud’ko, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 214515 (2008).
N. Ni, A. Thaler, J. Q. Yan, A. Kracher, E. Colombier, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, and S. T. Hannahs, Phys. Rev. B **82**, 024519 (2010).
S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, K. Hashimoto, K. Ikada, S. Tonegawa, R. Okazaki, H. Shishido, H. Ikeda, H. Takeya, K. Hirata, T. Terashima, and Y. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 184519 (2010).
A. Thaler, N. Ni, A. Kracher, J. Q. Yan, S. L. Bud’ko, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **82**, 014534 (2010).
R. Hu, S. L. Bud’ko, W. E. Straszheim, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **83**, 094520 (2011).
E. Colombier, S. L. Bud’ko, N. Ni, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 224518 (2009)
K. Matsubayashi, N. Katayama, K. Ohgushi, A. Yamada, K. Munakata, T. Matsumoto, and Y. Uwatoko, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **78**, 073706 (2009).
M. S. Torikachvili, S. L. Bud’ko, N. Ni, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 104527 (2008).
H. Kotegawa, T. Kawazoe, H. Sugawara, K. Murata, and H. Tou, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn **78**, 083702 (2009).
P.C. Canfield, S.L. Bud’ko, N. Ni, A. Kreyssig, A.I. Goldman, R.J. McQueeney, M.S. Torikachvili, D.N. Argyriou, G. Luke, and W. Yu, Physica C **469**, 404 (2009).
A. I. Goldman, D. N. Argyriou, B. Ouladdiaf, T. Chatterji, A. Kreyssig, S. Nandi, N. Ni, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, and R. J. McQueeney, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 100506(R) (2008).
M. S. Torikachvili, S. L. Bud’ko, N. Ni, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 057006 (2008).
A. Kreyssig, M. A. Green, Y. Lee, G. D. Samolyuk, P. Zajdel, J. W. Lynn, S. L. Bud’ko, M. S. Torikachvili, N. Ni, S. Nandi, J. B. Leao, S. J. Poulton, D. N. Argyriou, B. N. Harmon, R. J. McQueeney, P. C. Canfield, and A. I. Goldman, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 184517 (2008).
A. I. Goldman, A. Kreyssig, K. Prokes, D. K. Pratt, D. N. Argyriou, J. W. Lynn, S. Nandi, S. A. J. Kimber, Y. Chen, Y. B. Lee, G. Samolyuk, J. B. Le˜ao, S. J. Poulton, S. L. Bud’ko, N. Ni, P. C. Canfield, B. N. Harmon, and R. J. McQueeney, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 024513 (2009).
W. Yu, A. A. Aczel, T. J. Williams, S. L. Bud’ko, N. Ni, P. C. Canfield, and G. M. Luke, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 020511 (2009).
H. Lee, E. Park, T. Park, V. A. Sidorov, F. Ronning, and E. D. Bauer, and J. D. Thompson, Phys. Rev. B **80**, 024519 (2009).
K. Prokes, A. Kreyssig, B. Ouladdiaf, D. K. Pratt, N. Ni, S. L. Bud’ko, P.C.Canfield, R.J.McQueeney, D.N.Argyriou, and A. I. Goldman, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 180506 (2010).
T. Park, E. Park, H. Lee, T. Klimczuk, E. D. Bauer, F. Ronning, and J. D. Thompson, J. Phys. Condens. Matter **20**, 322204 (2008).
W. Uhoya, A. Stemshorn, G. Tsoi, Y. K. Vohra, A. S. Sefat, B. C. Sales, K. M. Hope, and S T. Weir, Phys. Rev. B **82**, 144118 (2010).
R. Mittal, S. K. Mishra, S. L. Chaplot, S. V. Ovsyannikov, E. Greenberg, D. M. Trots, L. Dubrovinsky, Y. Su, Th. Brueckel, S. Matsuishi, H. Hosono, G. Garbarino, Phys. Rev. B **83**, 054503 (2011)
W. O. Uhoya, J. M. Montgomery, G. M. Tsoi, Y. K. Vohra, M. A. McGuire, A. S. Sefat, B. C. Sales and S. T Weir, J. Phys. Condens. Matter **23**, 122201 (2011)
S. Ran, S. L. Bud’ko, D. K. Pratt, A. Kreyssig, M. G. Kim, M. J. Kramer, D. H. Ryan, W. N. Rowan-Weetaluktuk, Y. Furukawa, B. Roy, A. I. Goldman, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **83**, 144517 (2011).
L. Harnagea, S. Singh, G. Friemel, N. Leps, D. Bombor, M. Abdel-Hafiez, A. U. B Wolter, C. Hess, R. Klingeler, G. Behr, S. Wurmehl, and B. Büchner, Phys. Rev. B **83**, 094523 (2011)
M. Matusiak, Z. Bukowski, and J. Karpinski, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 020510(R) (2010)
R. Hu, S. Ran, S. L. Bud’ko, W. E. Straszheim, P. C. Canfield, arXiv:1111.7034 (2011)
Z. Fisk, J.P. Remeika, in: K.A. Gschneider, L. Eyring (Eds.), Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths, Vol. **12**, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1989.
P.C. Canfield and Z. Fisk, Philos. Mag. B **65**, 1117 (1992).
P.C. Canfield and I.R. Fisher, J. Crystal Growth **225**, 155 (2001).
P.C. Canfield, Solution Growth of Intermetallic Single Crystals: A Beginner’s Guide, Properties and Applications of Complex Intermetalltics (World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2010), pp. 93–111.
S. R. Saha, N. P. Butch, K. Kirshenbaum, J. Paglione, and P. Y. Zavalij, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103** 037005 (2009).
S. L. Bud’ko, N. Ni, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 220516(R) (2009).
V. G. Kogan, Phys. Rev. B **80**, 214532 (2009).
J. S. Kim, G. R. Stewart, S. Kasahara, T. Shibauchi, T. Terashima and Y. Matsuda, J. Phys. Condens. Matter **23**, 222201 (2011).
J. C. Lashley, A. C. Lawson, J. C. Cooley, B. Mihaila, C. P. Opeil, L. Pham, W. L. Hults, J. L. Smith, G. M. Schmiedeshoff, F. R. Drymiotis, G. Chapline, S. Basu, and P. S. Riseborough, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 235701 (2006).
S. R. Saha, N. P. Butch, T. Drye, J. Magill, S. Ziemak, K. Kirshenbaum, P. Y. Zavalij, J. W. Lynn and J. Paglione, Phys. Rev. B **85**, 024525 (2012).
M. M. Altarawneh, K. Collar, C. H. Mielke, N. Ni, S. L. Bud’ko, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 220505(R) (2008).
D. K. Pratt, Y. Zhao, S. A. J. Kimber, A. Hiess, D. N. Argyriou, C. Broholm, A. Kreyssig, S. Nandi, S. L. Bud’ko, N. Ni, P. C. Canfield, R. J. McQueeney and A. I. Goldman, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 060510(R) (2009).
D. Johrendt and R. Pöttgen, Physica C **469**, 332 (2009).
M. Danura, K. Kudo, Y. Oshiro, S. Araki, T. C. Kobayashi, and M. Nohara, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **80**, 103701 (2011).
\[lastpage\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We extend Gor’kov theory to address superconducting pairing at high magnetic fields and general temperatures with arbitrary attractive interaction strength. This analysis begins with a new interpretation of the high-field Gor’kov gap equation which we associate with an instability in a generalized particle-particle ladder series. Importantly, this interpretation of the non-linear gap equation enables a treatment of pairing which is distinct from condensation. We also show how to consolidate two distinct fermionic pairing schemes in real and momentum space, both corresponding to an Abrikosov lattice. Numerical results for the fermionic local density of states demonstrate that gapless structure in a field is robust and presumably relevant to quantum oscillation experiments. We find that despite their differences, both pairing schemes contain very similar physics. Our formalism is designed to explore a variety of magnetic field effects in the so-called pseudogap phase and throughout the BCS-BEC crossover.'
author:
- Peter Scherpelz
- Dan Wulin
- 'B[ř]{}etislav [Š]{}op[í]{}k'
- 'K. Levin'
- 'A. K. Rajagopal'
bibliography:
- 'Review3.bib'
- 'Review4.bib'
title: 'General pairing theory for condensed and non-condensed pairs of a superconductor in a high magnetic field'
---
Introduction
=============
High magnetic field superconductivity is a difficult theoretical problem with important implications for experiment. Observations of quantum oscillations in the superconducting phase of conventional superconductors were initially unexpected,[@maniv_2001] and further unusual oscillations have been observed in underdoped cuprates.[@Taillefer3] At the same time, theoretical treatments reached surprising conclusions, with some investigations finding re-entrant superconductivity at extremely high magnetic fields.[@rasolt_1992] Adding to the complexity is the observation that the introduction of Landau levels into a pairing scheme appears to cause a three-dimensional superconductor to behave like a one-dimensional system. This greatly enhances fluctuation effects [@lee_1972] and may even de-stabilize superfluid condensation.
The goal of the present paper is to set up a foundation for addressing these issues by extending the standard Gor’kov (BCS-based) approach to apply to general temperatures $T$, away from the instability regime, and to stronger-than-BCS attractive interactions. Although the immediate focus of this paper is on the ordered phase, we use the Gor’kov theory extension to arrive at a compatible description of the normal phase as well. Importantly, this normal phase may possess a rich structure associated with precursor pairing in the presence of magnetic fields.
In a related paper [@scherpelz_2012] we focus on this disordered phase and explore the notion that some degree of pairing at the onset of condensation may be necessary to avoid a strict dimensional reduction that prohibits condensation into a superconducting state altogether. Furthermore, these excited pair states may be present in systems such as high temperature superconductors or in fermionic gases in the BCS-BEC crossover regime, where the non-condensed pairs are associated with a pseudogap state. It should be stressed that the non-condensed pairs we consider are distinct from conventional fluctuations. These pairs arise from strong attractive interactions, not from low dimensionality (and/or disorder effects) which give rise to conventional fluctuations. Our BCS-BEC based approach is similarly distinct from the so-called “phase fluctuation” scenario which is based on soft phase fluctuations presumably arising from low plasma frequencies. Indeed, since we are contemplating both charged and uncharged superfluids, the issue of soft plasma frequencies is not particularly generic.
Gor’kov theory addresses the fermionic degrees of freedom. Two proposals[@ryan_1993; @dukan_1991] have been put forth to describe the nature of those fermionic pairs which form the condensate in the presence of high magnetic fields. These are associated with orbit center-based and magnetic lattice-based pairing schemes. Here we show how the physical implications of each are similar and that both lead to gapless fermionic states which are thought to be the basis for observed quantum oscillations.[@maniv_2001] A central contribution of the present paper is to demonstrate that the (analytically tractable) theoretical structure of these different pairing approaches can be consolidated into a more general formulation which addresses the *non-linear* structure of the Gor’kov theory. This is in contrast to a substantial fraction of the literature on high magnetic field superconductivity which deals with the linear regime where the gap is small. We thus arrive at an interpretation of the Gor’kov gap equation which allows us to extract a set of particle-particle ladder diagrams which properly characterize the pairing fluctuations or non-condensed pairs in the presence of high magnetic fields.
We begin in Section \[secLLRef\] by deriving the Landau level representation of the Gor’kov equations. In Section \[secIntra\] we discuss a “diagonal" approximation made to these equations which is thought [@tesanovic_1998] to be suitable for high magnetic fields. Following this, in section \[secLadder\] we focus on the gap equation and discuss its relationship to a divergent particle-particle ladder series. In section \[secNoncon\] we show that this divergent series captures the contribution of non-condensed pairs to the theory.
The second half of the paper is less general and more concrete. Here we focus on implementing and comparing different state-space representations of this pairing theory. In Section \[sec:pairing\] we discuss the two different existing implementations. In Section \[secNNPair\] we show how to use a “tight-binding” approximation to orbit-center pairing to make the theory analytically tractable, facilitating comparison of the two implementations. Finally, in Section \[secResults\] we show how gaplessness is robust among these pairing theories by comparing local density of states calculations. Our conclusions are presented in Section \[secConclusion\].
Derivation of Gor’kov’s Equations in a Landau Level Basis\[secLLRef\]
=====================================================================
We begin with the Gor’kov equations formulated in real space in terms of the gap $\Delta({\boldsymbol{r}})$ and Green’s functions in integral form: [$$\begin{aligned}
G(&{\boldsymbol{r}},{\boldsymbol{r}}';
i\omega) = G_0({\boldsymbol{r}},{\boldsymbol{r}}'; i\omega) - \int d{\boldsymbol{r}}'' d {\boldsymbol{r}}''' G_0({\boldsymbol{r}},{\boldsymbol{r}}'';i\omega) \notag \\
&{}\times \Delta({\boldsymbol{r}}'')G_0({\boldsymbol{r}}''',{\boldsymbol{r}}''; -i\omega) \Delta^\dag({\boldsymbol{r}}''')G({\boldsymbol{r}}''',{\boldsymbol{r}}'; i\omega)\label{GorkovGR} \end{aligned}$$]{} [$$\Delta^\dag({\boldsymbol{r}}) = -
\frac{g}{\beta}\sum_{i\omega}\int d{\boldsymbol{r}}'G({\boldsymbol{r}}',{\boldsymbol{r}};i\omega)G_0({\boldsymbol{r}}',{\boldsymbol{r}}; -i\omega)\Delta^\dag({\boldsymbol{r}}')\label{GorkovGapR}$$]{} where $g$ is the interaction strength, and $i\omega$ ($i\Omega$) denote fermionic (bosonic) Matsubara frequencies with the traditional subscripts omitted for clarity. These equations allow the identification of the self-energy $\Sigma$, [$$\Sigma({\boldsymbol{r}},{\boldsymbol{r}}';i\omega) = -\Delta({\boldsymbol{r}})\Delta^\dag({\boldsymbol{r}} ')G_0({\boldsymbol{r}}',{\boldsymbol{r}};-i\omega),\label{GorkovSigmaR}$$]{} and we now rewrite Eqs. (\[GorkovGR\]-\[GorkovSigmaR\]) in terms of the Landau level representation that diagonalizes the non-interacting Hamiltonian ${{\mathcal{H}}}_0$. [@vavilov_1997] The bare Green’s function $G_0$ is then given by [$$\begin{aligned}
G_0({\boldsymbol{r}},{\boldsymbol{r}}';i\omega) &= \sum_n
G^0_n(i\omega)\psi_n({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi_n^\dag({\boldsymbol{r}}') \notag \\
&= \sum_n \frac{\psi_n({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi_n^\dag({\boldsymbol{r}}')}{i\omega-\xi_n} \end{aligned}$$]{} where $n = (N,p,k_z)$ is the Landau level state, with $N$ the Landau level, $p$ the degenerate Landau level index, $k_z$ the momentum in the $z$-direction (parallel to a magnetic field ${\boldsymbol{B}}$), and $\xi_n$ the energy of a particle in state $n$. $G$, however, is not in general diagonal in the Landau level representation, and is given by [$$G({\boldsymbol{r}},{\boldsymbol{r}}';i\omega) =
\sum_{mm'}G_{mm'}(i\omega)\psi_m({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi^\dag_{m'}({\boldsymbol{r}}').\label{eq:Gr}$$]{} In this representation, Eq. is multiplied by $\psi_{m}^\dag({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi_{m'}({\boldsymbol{r}}')$ and integrated over both ${\boldsymbol{r}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{r}}'$ to give [$$\begin{aligned}
G_{mm'}&(i\omega) = G^0_m(i\omega)\delta_{mm'} - \sum_{l
n}\int d{\boldsymbol{r}}'' d{\boldsymbol{r}}''' G^0_{m}(i\omega) \notag \\
&{}\times\psi^\dag_{m}({\boldsymbol{r}}'')\Delta({\boldsymbol{r}}'')G^0_l(-i\omega)\psi_l({\boldsymbol{r}}''')\psi_l^\dag({\boldsymbol{r}}'')\Delta^\dag({\boldsymbol{r}}''') \notag \\
&{}\times G_{nm'}(i\omega)\psi_n({\boldsymbol{r}}'''). \notag \end{aligned}$$]{}
We then define a “state-space gap” [$$\Delta_{mn} \equiv \int d{\boldsymbol{r}} \Delta({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi_m^\dag({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi_n^\dag({\boldsymbol{r}})\label{DeltaDef}$$]{} and obtain [$$\begin{aligned}
G_{mm'}(i\omega) =&\
G^0_m(i\omega)\delta_{m m'} - \sum_{l n }
G^0_{m}(i\omega)\Delta_{m l}\notag \\
&{}\times G^0_l(-i\omega)\Delta^\dag_{l n}G_{nm'}(i\omega).\label{LLGFunc} \end{aligned}$$]{}
We multiply the gap equation, Eq. , by $\Delta({\boldsymbol{r}})$, and express the right hand side in the Landau level representation to find [$$\begin{aligned}
\int &d{\boldsymbol{r}} {\left| \Delta({\boldsymbol{r}}) \right|}^2 = -\frac{g}{\beta}
\sum_{mm'n}\sum_{i\omega}
\int
d{\boldsymbol{r}}'d{\boldsymbol{r}} G_{mm'}(i\omega) \notag \\
&{}\times G^0_n(-i\omega)\Delta^\dag({\boldsymbol{r}}')\Delta({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi_m({\boldsymbol{r}}')\psi^\dag_{m'}({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi_n({\boldsymbol{r}}')\psi^\dag_n({\boldsymbol{r}}). \notag \end{aligned}$$]{} Using the above identity for $\Delta_{mn}$, the gap equation becomes [$$1 = -\frac{g}{\beta}\sum_{m m'
n}\sum_{i\omega}\frac{\Delta_{m' n}\Delta^\dag_{mn}}{\int d{\boldsymbol{r}} {\left| \Delta({\boldsymbol{r}}) \right|}^2}G_{mm'}(i\omega)G^0_n(-i\omega).\label{LLDeltaEqn}$$]{}
The self-energy is similarly expressed in the Landau level representation, [$$\Sigma({\boldsymbol{r}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}';i\omega) = \sum_{mm'}\Sigma_{mm'}(i\omega)\psi_m({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi^\dag_{m'}({\boldsymbol{r}}').$$]{} Using Eq. for $\Sigma$, we find [$$\Sigma_{mm'}(i\omega) =
-\sum_nG^0_n(-i\omega)\Delta_{mn}\Delta^\dag_{nm'}.\label{LLSE}$$]{}
In summary, the Gor’kov equations in the Landau level representation for a constant magnetic field are [$$\begin{aligned}
G_{mm'}(i\omega) &= G^0_m(i\omega)\delta_{m
m'} - \sum_{l n } G^0_{m}(i\omega)\Delta_{m l}\notag \\
&\ {}\times G^0_l(-i\omega)\Delta^\dag_{l n}G_{nm'}(i\omega)
\tag{\ref{LLGFunc}} \end{aligned}$$]{} [$$1 = -\frac{g}{\beta}\sum_{m m' n}\sum_{i\omega}\frac{\Delta_{m'
n}\Delta^\dag_{mn}}{\int d{\boldsymbol{r}} {\left| \Delta({\boldsymbol{r}}) \right|}^2}G_{mm'}(i\omega)G^0_n(-i\omega) \tag{\ref{LLDeltaEqn}}$$]{} [$$\Sigma_{mm'}(i\omega) =
-\sum_nG^0_n(-i\omega)\Delta_{mn}\Delta^\dag_{nm'}.\tag{\ref{LLSE}}$$]{}
Intra-Eigenstate Pairing\[secIntra\]
====================================
To make further analytical progress, we must simplify Eqs. (\[LLGFunc\],\[LLDeltaEqn\],\[LLSE\]). Thus, as in the literature [@ryan_1993; @dukan_1994; @vavilov_1997] we assume that the pairing involves degenerate eigenstates. This assumption is justified if we are in a regime where ${\left| \Delta \right|}$ is much less than the splitting between the Landau levels $\hbar\omega_c$, where $\omega_c = eH/(\hbar c m)$ is the cyclotron frequency. This will be a good approximation at very high fields where the splitting between Landau levels is large, the regime we explore in this paper. This approach has been analyzed carefully in Ref. which showed that in this regime inter-Landau level effects that we neglect are perturbative.
We also simplify by defining [$$\Delta^0_{mn}(\zeta) \equiv \frac{\Delta_{mn}(\zeta)}{\sqrt{\int d{\boldsymbol{r}}
{\left| \Delta({\boldsymbol{r}},\zeta) \right|}^2}} \equiv
\frac{\Delta_{mn}(\zeta)}{\Delta}.\label{Deltamn}$$]{} Note that we have introduced an important parameter $\zeta$ which labels different functional forms of $\Delta({\boldsymbol{r}})$. Throughout this paper we will associate the particular value $\zeta_0$ with the condensate configuration $\Delta^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\boldsymbol{r}},\zeta_0)$, which may be distinct from configurations occupied by non-condensed pairs, discussed below. It is convenient to define [$$\phi^2_{mm'}(\zeta) \equiv \sum_{n}\Delta^0_{mn}(\zeta)
\Delta^{0\dag}_{nm'}(\zeta).$$]{}
In order that all the potential pairing partners $n$ of a state $m$ are energy degenerate, the index $n$ is in the same Landau level as $m$, and pairing occurs between states with $z$-momenta $k_z$ and $-k_z$. This allows us to write the fermionic self-energy Eq. as [$$\Sigma_{mm'}(i\omega) =
-G^0_N(k_z;-i\omega) {\left| \Delta \right|}^2 \phi^2_{mm'}(\zeta_0),$$]{} where we write $G^0$ in terms of only the Landau level $N$ and the $z$-momentum $k_z$ of $m$, with $N_m =
N_{m'}$ and $k_{z_{m}} = k_{z_{m'}}$. This simplification of the gap equation, Eq. , leads to [$$1 = -\frac{g}{\beta}\sum_{m m'}\sum_{i\omega}
\phi^2_{mm'}(\zeta_0)
G_{mm'}(i\omega)G^0_N(k_z;-i\omega). \label{eq:17}$$]{}
The Gap Equation as Divergent Particle-Particle Ladder Series\[secLadder\]
==========================================================================
The above formulation enables a consolidation of standard approaches in the literature.[@ryan_1993; @dukan_1991; @dukan_1994; @vavilov_1997] In this context we re-interpret the gap equation of Eq. (\[eq:17\]) as a generalized Thouless condition, which applies to all temperatures below the transition. In the process we show that this gap equation serves to identify a particular particle-particle ladder series. The divergence of this series is a prerequisite for, and an indicator of, the superconducting state. Importantly this ladder series also leads us to a characterization of the associated non-condensed pairs, which may form above the critical temperature for stronger-than-BCS interactions.
It is essential first to characterize the degrees of freedom available to these non-condensed pairs. In the $z$-direction parallel to the magnetic field, the system behaves as in zero-field, where condensed pairs are constructed of fermions with momenta $k_z$ and $-k_z$. Thus, excited pairs must have nonzero total momentum, and we can describe the general pairing of non-condensed pairs as being between momenta $k_z$ and $-k_z+q_z$.[@chen_2005]
In the plane perpendicular to the magnetic field, the condensed electrons are those which pair to form the real-space superconducting gap. Here and throughout we distinguish the order parameter $\Delta^{{\mathrm{sc}}}
({\boldsymbol{r}},\zeta_0)$ from the excitation gap. In a mean-field scheme, such as ours, where individual vortex fluctuations are not included, we assume that $\zeta_0$ corresponds to an Abrikosov lattice with functional form $\Delta^0({\boldsymbol{r}},\zeta_0) = \Delta^{{\mathrm{sc}}}({\boldsymbol{r}},\zeta_0)/\Delta$. We take the *non-condensed* pairs to be those that form other real-space gaps $\Delta^0({\boldsymbol{r}}, \zeta)$ for $\zeta \neq \zeta_0$. Finally, we also allow the Matsubara frequencies to appear with total frequency $i\Omega$.
We next introduce the pair susceptibility, $\chi(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega) \equiv $ [$$\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{mm'}\sum_{i\omega}
\phi^2_{mm'}(\zeta)G_{mm'}(i\omega)G^0_N(k_z-q_z;i\Omega-i\omega)
.\label{chiEq}$$]{} With this important definition, and the introduction of non-condensed pairs, we return to the gap equation, Eq. (\[eq:17\]), which can be rewritten as [$$1 + g\chi \Big(\zeta = \zeta_0,q_z =0;i\Omega =0 \Big) =0 \label{eq:19}.$$]{} One can interpret this equation as reflecting a divergence of a particle-particle ladder summation, shown in Fig. \[LadderSum\]. We argue below that the gap equation is to be associated with a $t$-matrix formed from the ladder diagrams in Fig. \[LadderSum\], given here in an abbreviated form by [$$t^{{\mathrm{pg}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega)
= \frac{g}{1+g\chi(\zeta, q_z,i\Omega)}\label{eq:20}$$]{} (see Section \[secNoncon\] for details). For the condensate configuration, $\zeta = \zeta_0$, $q_z= \Omega = 0$, the $t$-matrix thus diverges for all temperatures below the instability, as in a Bose Einstein condensation condition, where the pairs have vanishing chemical potential. This ladder diagram set is to be distinguished from a series which was previously identified to correspond to the specific instability point Ref. . Here, the condition is stronger, as the incorporation of one dressed $G$ and one bare $G^0$ makes this summation valid throughout the superconducting regime. Furthermore, as we explain in Section \[secNoncon\], it can be extended to the entire strong attraction (BCS-BEC) regime where there is a finite excitation gap at the instability, and in which pairing and condensation must be distinguished. [@scherpelz_2012; @chen_2005]
Characterizing the Non-condensed Pairs in the Gor’kov Equations\[secNoncon\]
============================================================================
BCS theory represents a very special case of superfluidity in which pairing and condensation take place at the same temperature. We have just argued that the Gor’kov gap equation of Eq. (\[eq:19\]) and the closely related $t$-marix of Eq. (\[eq:20\]) effectively constrain the nature of non-condensed pairs which below the transition condense into a state with gap structure $\Delta^0({\boldsymbol{r}},\zeta_0)$.
For the moment, we consider Eq. (\[eq:20\]) as an appropriate characterization of the $t$-matrix (or effective propagator) associated with the non-condensed pairs. We next characterize their feedback into the Gor’kov equations, by including $t$ in the self energy. In a strict Gor’kov theory $\Sigma^{{\mathrm{sc}}}_{mm'}(i\omega) =$ [$$\sum_{\zeta,q_z,i\Omega}\phi^2_{mm'}(\zeta)
t^{{{\mathrm{sc}}}}_{mm'}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega)
G^0_N(q_z-k_z;i\Omega-i\omega),$$]{} where [$$t^{{\mathrm{sc}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega) \equiv
-\delta(\zeta-\zeta_0)\delta(q_z)\delta(i\Omega){\left| \Delta^{{\mathrm{sc}}} \right|}^2,$$]{} with $\Delta^{{\mathrm{sc}}}$ corresponding to the gap $\Delta$ in Eq. .
We now include in the self-energy the non-condensed pair propagator $t^{pg}$ given by Eq. , and in this way go beyond strict Gor’kov theory. This contribution is $\Sigma^{{\mathrm{pg}}}_{mm'}(i\omega) = $ [$$\sum_{\zeta,q_z,i\Omega}\phi^2_{mm'}(\zeta)t^{{{\mathrm{pg}}}}
(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega)
G^0_N(q_z-k_z;i\Omega-i\omega).\label{Sigmapg}$$]{} Furthermore, since $1+g\chi(\zeta_0,0;0)$ diverges below the critical temperature, $t^{{\mathrm{pg}}}$ will be strongly peaked for parameters $(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega) \approx (\zeta_0,0;0).$ Since $i\Omega$ and $q_z$ will be small for the primary contributions to $t^{{\mathrm{pg}}}$, we approximate the right hand side using $G^0_N(q_z-k_z;i\Omega-i\omega)
\approx G^0_N(-k_z;-i\omega)$.
Then the total self-energy is now [$$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_{mm'}&(i\omega) = \Sigma^{{\mathrm{sc}}}_{mm'}(i\omega) +
\Sigma^{{\mathrm{pg}}}_{mm'}(i\omega) \notag \\
&= G^0_N(-k_z;-i\omega)\sum_{\zeta,q_z,i\Omega}
\phi^2_{mm'}(\zeta) \notag \\
&\ {}\times{\left( t^{{\mathrm{sc}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega) +
t^{{\mathrm{pg}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega) \right)}, \end{aligned}$$]{} where $\Sigma^{{\mathrm{sc}}}_{mm'}$ is the original self-energy from Gor’kov theory defined in Eq. , and $\Sigma^{{\mathrm{pg}}}_{mm'}$ is defined in Eq. .
We can further simplify by defining a total ${\left| \Delta \right|}^2$, [$${\left| \Delta \right|}^2 \equiv
{\left| \Delta^{{\mathrm{sc}}} \right|}^2 + {\left| \Delta^{{\mathrm{pg}}} \right|}^2$$]{} with [$${\left| \Delta^{{\mathrm{pg}}} \right|}^2 \equiv -\sum_{\zeta,q_z;i\Omega}
\frac{g}{1+g\chi(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega)}$$]{} and ${\left\langle \phi^2_{mm'}(\zeta) \right\rangle}_\zeta \equiv$ [$$\frac{\sum_{\zeta,q_z,i\Omega}\phi^2_{mm'}(\zeta)
{\left( t^{{\mathrm{sc}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega)+t^{{\mathrm{pg}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega) \right)}}
{\sum_{\zeta,q_z,i\Omega}
{\left( t^{{\mathrm{sc}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega)+t^{{\mathrm{pg}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega) \right)}}.$$]{} This leads to an expression for the self-energy which can be written compactly as [$$\Sigma_{mm'}(i\omega) =
-G^0_N(-k_z;-i\omega){\left\langle \phi^2_{mm'}(\zeta) \right\rangle}_\zeta
{\left| \Delta \right|}^2.$$]{} Together with the number equation $N =
\frac{2}{\beta}\sum_{m,i\omega}G_{mm}(i\omega)$ and Eqs. (\[LLGFunc\],\[LLDeltaEqn\]) this forms a system of equations which can be solved self-consistently.[@chen_2005] In this way we have modified the Gor’kov theory to extend BCS theory into the more general regime where pairing and condensation are treated differently.
Finally, we turn to a more detailed interpretation of the ladder diagrams and the related pair susceptibility. In Fig. \[LadderSum\], particles forming a pair may interact to create a new non-condensed pair in the same excited pair state. That is, we consider a pairing propagator $t_{mn}^{m'n',{{\mathrm{pg}}}}
(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega)$ between states $m,n$ and $m',n'$, where $m = (N,p,k_z,i\omega)$ and $n = (N',p',q_z-k_z,i\Omega-i\omega)$ are pairing partners for a given real-space configuration $\zeta$, total $z$-momentum $q_z$, and total Matsubara frequency $i\Omega$, and $m' = (N'',p'',k_z',i\omega')$ and $n' = (N''',p''',q_z-k_z',
i\Omega-i\omega')$ are pairing partners sharing the same $\zeta$, $q_z$ and $i\Omega$. Note that $m$ now includes frequency, and intra-eigenstate pairing is not enforced here. The bare interaction between the two pairs, as an extension of the BCS mean-field Hamiltonian, is in a separable form $gV_{mn}^{m'n'} =
g\Delta^{0\dag}_{mn}(\zeta)\Delta^0_{m'n'}(\zeta)$. Then the infinite particle-particle ladder summation is [$$\begin{aligned}
&t_{mn}^{m'n',{{\mathrm{pg}}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega)
=
gV_{mn}^{m'n'} - \notag \\
&gV_{mn}^{m''n''}G^0_{n''}G_{m''m'''}
t^{m'n',{{\mathrm{pg}}}}_{m'''n''}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega). \end{aligned}$$]{}
As $V$ is separable between $m,n$ and $m',n'$, this infinite summation has the solution [$$\begin{aligned}
&t^{m'n',{{\mathrm{pg}}}}_{mn}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega) = \notag \\
&\frac{gV_{mn}^{m'n'}}{1 +
g\sum_{m'',m''',n''}V_{m'''n''}^{m''n''}G^0_{n''}G_{m''m'''}}. \end{aligned}$$]{} Using the expression for $V$, and applying the intra-eigenstate pairing approximation, this further simplifies to [$$\begin{aligned}
&t_{mn}^{m'n',{{\mathrm{pg}}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega) = \notag \\
& \frac{g\Delta^{0\dag}_{mn}(\zeta)\Delta^0_{m'n'}(\zeta)}{1+g\sum_{m'',m'''}
\phi^2_{m''m'''}(\zeta)G_{m''m'''}G^0_N(k_z-q_z;i\Omega-i\omega)}.\notag \end{aligned}$$]{} This in turn gives the $t$-matrix appearing in the self-energy as [$$\sum_n t_{mn}^{m'n,{{\mathrm{pg}}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega) =
\phi^2_{mm'}(\zeta)t^{{\mathrm{pg}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega)$$]{} with $t^{{\mathrm{pg}}}(\zeta,q_z;i\Omega)$ defined in Eq. . Note this also justifies our definition of $\chi$ in Eq. .
In summary, beyond the weak attraction limit, pairs can form above the superconducting transition temperature. These pairs of electrons form in excited states rather than the quantum ground state. Interpreting the Gor’kov gap equation as a Bose Einstein condensation condition allows us to specify a precise ladder series structure for these non-condensed pairs. Because it will take us too far afield, elsewhere, we discuss a precise treatment of the parameter $\zeta$, in more microsopic detail. [@scherpelz_2012]
Specifying the Pairing Basis\[sec:pairing\]
===========================================
We now turn to the specific pairing choices that can be made to solve the system, and explore their physical effects. We now consider only a single $\zeta$, and for notational simplicity we now omit this parameter. Ensembles of $\zeta$ are discussed elsewhere.[@scherpelz_2012] In order to make further progress, we must specify $\Delta({\boldsymbol{r}})$ as well as the Landau level state basis we use. This requires that one determine the pairing partners of each fermionic Landau level state. Based on previous work [@ryan_1993; @dukan_1994; @vavilov_1997] here we analyze and compare two complementary choices for the case of an Abrikosov lattice. Throughout we use the Landau gauge ${\boldsymbol{A}}
= (0,B\hat{{\boldsymbol{x}}},0)$ in which the energy gap of an Abrikosov lattice, $\Delta({\boldsymbol{r}})$ is given by [$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta({\boldsymbol{r}}) &= C\sum_m \exp{\left( i\pi
\frac{b_y}{a}m^2 \right)} \psi^{{\mathrm{cm}}}_{0,mb_x,0}({\boldsymbol{r}}) \notag \\
&= \Delta\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{2} b_x}{L_xL_yL_z\sqrt{\pi}l_H}} \notag \\
&\ {}\times\sum_m
\exp{\left[ i \pi
\frac{b_y}{a}m^2 + \frac{2 i m b_x y}{l_H^2}-\frac{{\left( x- m b_x \right)}^2}{l_H^2} \right]} \end{aligned}$$]{} where $\psi^{{\mathrm{cm}}}_{N,X,k_z}$ is the orbit-center Landau level state for a charge-2$e$ particle with Landau level $N$, orbit center $X$, and $z$-momentum $k_z$. The normalization of $\Delta({\boldsymbol{r}})$ is chosen such that $\int d{\boldsymbol{r}}
{\left| \Delta({\boldsymbol{r}}) \right|}^2 = {\left| \Delta \right|}^2$, with $L_x,\ L_y,$ and $L_z$ the sample lengths and $l_H = \sqrt{\hbar c / eH}$ the Hall length. Finally, the Abrikosov lattice is characterized by unit vectors ${\boldsymbol{a}} = (0,a,0)$ and ${\boldsymbol{b}} = (b_x,b_y,0)$. $l_H$ is related to the unit vectors by $ab_x = \pi l_H^2$. For a square lattice ${\boldsymbol{b}} = (a,0,0)$ while for a triangular lattice ${\boldsymbol{b}} = (\sqrt{3}a/2,a/2,0)$, and in general we capture all Abrikosov lattices using the method in Ref. , $\zeta =
b_y/a + ib_x/a$. Throughout the rest of this paper, we implicitly take $b_x,\
b_y,$ and $a$ to be functions of $\zeta$ through the above formula and the restriction that $ab_x = \pi l_H^2$.
The two natural choices are to use either orbit-center wavefunctions, in which case orbit centers positioned symmetrically about a lattice site pair together, or to use magnetic translation group wavefunctions, in which case wavefunctions with opposite reciprocal lattice vectors are paired. We describe those pairs in terms of the notation of $\Delta_{mn}^0(\zeta)$ and $\phi^2_{mm'}(\zeta)$ defined above.
Orbit-center Pairing\[sec:orb\]
-------------------------------
One choice of pairing, originally presented by Ryan and Rajagopal is to have fermions pair about lattice site positions in the orbit center basis.[@ryan_1993; @rajagopal_1992; @rajagopal_1993; @rajagopal_1995] Because the bosonic wave functions forming the Abrikosov lattice are positioned at orbit centers $X = mb_x$, fermions which are equally spaced apart from these positions can pair, so that the pair wavefunction can be represented as $\Psi^{{\mathrm{pair}}}_{N_1,N_2,mb_x,Y,k_z} ({\boldsymbol{r}}) = $ [$$\psi^{{\mathrm{fermion}}}_{N_1,mb_x+Y,k_z,{\uparrow}}({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi^{{\mathrm{fermion}}}_{N_2,mb_x-Y,-k_z,{\downarrow}}({\boldsymbol{r}}).\notag$$]{} Here [$$\begin{aligned}
&\psi^{{\mathrm{fermion}}}_{N,X,k_z}({\boldsymbol{r}}) = \sqrt{\frac{1}{L_y L_z 2^N
N!}}{\left( \frac{1}{\pi l_H^2} \right)}^{1/4} \notag \\
&\ {}\times\exp{\left( i k_z z+\frac{i X y}{l_H^2}-
\frac{{\left( x-X \right)}^2}{2l_H^2} \right)}H_N{\left( \frac{x - X}{l_H} \right)} \end{aligned}$$]{} where $H_N$ is the $N$*th*-order Hermite polynomial. The $\Delta_{mn}^0(\zeta)$ and associated factors are calculated in Appendix \[RRAppendix\]. Quite generally (presuming inter-eigenstate pairs), the result is
[$$\Delta^0_{m = (N_1,X+Y,k_z),n=(N_2,X-Y,-k_z)}(\zeta) =\begin{cases} \sqrt{\frac{
b_x}{L_xL_y^2L_z^2\pi l_H^2}} \frac{1}{2^{N_1+N_2}\sqrt{N_1!N_2!}} e^{i\pi
(b_y/a)(X/b_x)^2}e^{-Y^2/l_H^2} & {{\mathrm{if }}} X = mb_x, m \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}, \\ 0 &
{{\mathrm{otherwise.}}} \end{cases}$$]{}
Magnetic Translation Group Pairing
----------------------------------
The other choice of pairing, originally presented by Dukan, Andreev, and Tesanovic[@dukan_1991; @dukan_1994] and in parallel work by Akera, MacDonald, Norman, and Girvin,[@akera_1991; @norman_1992; @norman_1995] and Nicopoulos and Kumar,[@nicopoulos_1991] is to use the magnetic translation group (MTG) for the fermions, with an index ${\boldsymbol{k}}$.[^1] Following Ref. we choose a unit lattice site for the magnetic translation group, which must be twice the size of the Abrikosov lattice site, with unit vectors $2{\boldsymbol{a}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{b}}$. Then the reciprocal unit vectors are ${\boldsymbol{a}}^* = (-b_y/l_H^2,b_x/l_H^2)$ and ${\boldsymbol{b}}^* = (2a/l_H^2,0)$ so that ${\boldsymbol{a}}_i
{\boldsymbol{a}}_j^* = 2\pi\delta_{ij}$ where ${\boldsymbol{a}}_i$ are the unit vectors and ${\boldsymbol{a}}_j^*$ are the reciprocal unit vectors. Restricting ${\boldsymbol{k}} = (k_x,k_y)$ to be within the limits of the cell $({\boldsymbol{a}}^*, {\boldsymbol{b}}^*)$ gives a complete set of functions. [@bychkov_1983] We also note that $\psi$ is now dependent on $\zeta$, the configuration of the Abrikosov lattice.
This pairing occurs between opposite ${\boldsymbol{k}}$. To conform with our assumption of diagonal pairing, we need to specify that $N_1 = N_2$, and then [$$\Psi^{{\mathrm{pair}}}_{N,{\boldsymbol{k}}}({\boldsymbol{r}}) = \psi^{{\mathrm{fermion}}}_{N,{\boldsymbol{k}},k_z,{\uparrow}}({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi^{{\mathrm{fermion}}}_{N,-{\boldsymbol{k}},-k_z,{\downarrow}}({\boldsymbol{r}})\notag$$]{} with
[$$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{{\mathrm{fermion}}}_{N,{\boldsymbol{k}},k_z} &= \sqrt{\frac{1}{2^N
N!}}{\left( \frac{1}{\pi l_H^2} \right)}^{1/4}\sqrt{\frac{b_x}{L_xL_yL_z}} \exp{\left( i k_z
z \right)} \sum_m \exp{\left( i\frac{\pi b_y}{2a}m^2 + i m k_x b_x \right)} \nonumber \\
&\ {}\times
\exp{\left\{ i{\left( k_y+\frac{\pi m}{a} \right)}y - \frac{{\left[ x - {\left( k_y + \frac{\pi
m}{a} \right)}l_H^2 \right]}}{2 l_H^2} \right\}}H_n{\left\{ {\left[ x - {\left( k_y + \frac{\pi
m}{a} \right)}l_H^2 \right]}/l_H \right\}}. \end{aligned}$$]{}
The $\Delta^0_{mn}(\zeta)$ and associated factors are calculated in Refs. , with the result that for the lowest Landau level [$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta&{}^0_{m = (0,{\boldsymbol{k}},k_z),n = (0,-{\boldsymbol{k}},-k_z)}(\zeta) =
\sqrt{\frac{b_x}{L_xL_yL_z\sqrt{2\pi}l_H}}
\notag \\
&\ {}\times \exp{\left( -{\left( k_yl_H \right)}^2 \right)}
\theta_3\left({\left[ -k_x+ik_y \right]}b_x\bigg|\frac{-b_y}{a}+\frac{i\pi
l_H^2}{a^2}\right), \end{aligned}$$]{} where $\theta_3(u | \tau) =
\sum_{n = -\infty}^\infty \exp{\left( 2inu + i \pi n^2 \tau \right)}$ is the third elliptic theta or Jacobi theta function. Further $\Delta_{mn}^0(\zeta)$ for higher Landau levels can be iteratively calculated from this.[@dukan_1994]
Nearest Neighbor Pairing Approximation for Real Space Pairing\[secNNPair\]
==========================================================================
While the MTG method for pairing results in each fermion pairing with exactly one other degenerate eigenstate, that is not the case for orbit center pairing. If $X$ is a lattice site, then a fermion at $X + Y$ can pair not only with $X - Y$, but also with $X - Y + 2nb_x$ with $n \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}$. A very complicated matrix thus results for the Green’s function, but here we demonstrate that this matrix can be substantially simplified such that it is analytically tractable yet incorporates the important physics.
We begin by noting that $\Delta^0_{mn}$ is proportional to $\exp(-Y^2/l_H^2)$ where $Y$ is half of the distance between the two states that pair. Thus, pairing between states that are well separated will be exponentially suppressed. Using only a single pairing partner is inadequate, however, because it fails to capture interference effects between two pairing partners, as will be demonstrated below. Using two pairing partners does capture these effects and reproduces the correct local density of states for the lattice. This is reminiscent of a hierarchical “tight-binding” scheme, in that the nearest pairing partner can be considered an “on-site” interaction, and the second-nearest pairing partner allows for interactions between lattice sites.
To implement this approach, we begin with Eq. \[LLGFunc\], $G_{mm'}(i\omega) = $ [$$G^0_{m}(i\omega)\delta_{mm'} -
G^0_m(i\omega)\sum_{ln}\Delta_{ml}G^0_{l}(-i\omega)\Delta^\dag_{ln}
G_{nm'}(i\omega).
\tag{\ref{LLGFunc}}$$]{} This can be further simplified by separately including the Green’s functions of pairing partners, resulting in a new equation for the Green’s functions $G_{mm'}(i\omega) = $ [$$G^0_{m}(i\omega)\delta_{mn} +
G^0_m(i\omega)\sum_n\Delta_{mn}[-\tilde G_{nm'}(i\omega)].\label{GNNEq}$$]{} Here by $\tilde G$ we mean (a) flipping the sign of $i\omega$ and (b) conjugating the $\Delta$ appearing within $G$. By this definition, we also have that $\tilde G_{mm'}(i\omega) = $ [$$G^0_m(-i\omega)\delta_{mm'} + G^0_m(-i\omega)
\sum_{n}\Delta^\dag_{mn}G_{nm'}(i\omega).$$]{} This correctly reproduces the original Green’s function above, and by inverting Eq. , we have that
[$$G^{-1}(i\omega) =
{\begin{pmatrix} \ddots & \ddots & & & & \\
\ddots & \ddots & \Delta^\dag_{X-Y,X+Y} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
& \Delta_{X-Y,X+Y} & [G^0_{X+Y}(i\omega)]{{}^{-1}}& \Delta_{X+2b_x-Y,X+Y} & 0 & 0 \\
& 0 & \Delta^\dag_{X+2b_X-Y,X+Y} & -[G^0_{X+2b_x-Y}(-i\omega)]{{}^{-1}}&
\Delta^\dag_{X+2b_x-Y,X+2b_x+Y} &
0 \\
& 0 & 0 & \Delta_{X+2b_x-Y,X+2b_x+Y} & [G^0_{X+2b_x+Y}(i\omega)]{{}^{-1}}&
\Delta_{X+4b_x-Y,X+2b_x+Y} & \\
& 0& 0& 0& \Delta^\dag_{X+4b_x-Y,X+2b_x+Y} & \ddots & \ddots \\
& & & & & \ddots & \ddots \end{pmatrix}}.$$]{}
Here we use only the index corresponding to the orbit center, which is the only one which varies throughout this matrix. We also take $Y > 0$; if $Y < 0$ positions in the matrix will flip but it will be otherwise unchanged. Also note that the values of $G_0^{-1}$ are actually independent of orbit center; the indices remain for clarity.
This Green’s function matrix is computationally simplified as compared to the full orbit-center pairing scheme. Furthermore, in the case of a square or triangular lattice, its eigenvalues can be found analytically. For both a square lattice ($\zeta = i$) and a triangular lattice ($\zeta = 1/2 +
\sqrt{3}i/2$), we have the property that $\Delta^0_{X-Y+2b_x,X+Y+2b_x} =
\Delta^0_{X-Y,X+Y}$, implying that the entries in $G^{-1}$ repeat with period two along the diagonal. We can then posit a plane-wave solution for the eigenvectors, with $a$ and $b$ constants: [$${\boldsymbol{v}} = \sum_q e^{i q k_j}{\left( a{\ensuremath{|X_{\bar{m}}+2qb_x \rangle}} + b{\ensuremath{|X_m+2qb_x \rangle}} \right)},$$]{} where for compactness we set $\bar m = X-Y$, $m = X+Y$, and $\bar n =
X-Y+2b_x$, using the symmetry properties of $\Delta^0_{mn}$. We obtain [$$G^{-1}{\boldsymbol{v}} = {\begin{pmatrix} \vdots \\ \Delta_{\bar{m}m}b + (\omega-\xi)a +
\Delta_{\bar n m} e^{i k_j} b \\
\Delta^\dag_{\bar n m} a + (\omega + \xi) e^{i k_j} b + \Delta^\dag_{\bar m m}
e^{i k_j} a \\ \vdots \end{pmatrix}}.$$]{}
The energy eigenvalues of this system will be zero eigenvalues of $G^{-1}$. For a nontrivial solution, we obtain $
-\Delta^\dag_{\bar n m}{\left( \Delta_{\bar m m}e^{-i k_j} + \Delta_{\bar n m} \right)}
+ (-\omega^2-\xi^2)
- \Delta^\dag_{\bar m m} {\left( \Delta_{\bar m m} + \Delta_{\bar n m}e^{i k_j} \right)}
= 0.$ We thus have $-\omega^2 =$ [$$\xi^2 + {\left| \Delta_{\bar mm} \right|}^2 + {\left| \Delta_{\bar nm} \right|}^2 +
e^{-i k_j} \Delta_{\bar m m}\Delta^\dag_{\bar nm} + e^{i k_j} \Delta^\dag_{\bar
mm}\Delta_{\bar nm}.$$]{}
Here $\Delta_{\bar mm} = C_{\bar mm}
e^{i \pi (b_y / a)(X/b_x)^2}$, where $C_{\bar mm}$ is a real number, and $\Delta_{\bar nm} = C_{\bar nm}
e^{i \pi (b_y / a)[(X+1)/b_x]^2}$. We further simplify [$$\begin{aligned}
&
e^{-i k_j} \Delta_{\bar m m}\Delta^\dag_{\bar nm} + e^{i k_j} \Delta^\dag_{\bar
mm}\Delta_{\bar nm} \notag \\
&= 2{{\textrm{Re}}}{\left( e^{-i k_j} \Delta_{\bar m
m}\Delta^\dag_{\bar nm} \right)} \notag \\
&= 2C_{\bar mm}C_{\bar nm}{{\textrm{Re}}}{\left( e^{-i
k_j}e^{\pm i\pi(b_y/a)} \right)}\notag \end{aligned}$$]{} where we have used the $b_x$ and $b_y$ specific to a square or triangular lattice, and the $+$ is for $X/b_x$ an odd integer, $-$ for $X/b_x$ an even integer. We then have $-\omega^2 = $ [$$\xi^2 + {\left| \Delta_{\bar mm} \right|}^2 + {\left| \Delta_{\bar nm} \right|}^2 +
2C_{\bar mm}C_{\bar nm} {{\textrm{Re}}}{\left( e^{-i k_j} e^{\pm i \pi (b_y/a)} \right)}.$$]{} We also note that for a system of $L_x = 2N_xb_x$, we must have $N_x k_j = 2\pi j$ to enforce periodic boundary conditions, giving $k_j = 2\pi j / N_x$ with $j$ ranging from $0$ to $N_x-1$. With this approximation in place, we may turn to the results of these pairing theories.
Results and Discussion\[secResults\]
====================================
This paper has been rather extensively devoted to theoretical formalism which characterizes the fermionic degrees of freedom. Among the most direct experimentally relevant consequences is the behavior of the local density of states (LDOS) $N({\boldsymbol{r}};\omega)$ vs. $\omega$. Here we address this density of states in the very low temperature regime. This is experimentally accessible using scanning tunneling microscopy.[@fischer_2007] The local density of states $N({\boldsymbol{r}};\omega)$ is calculated via $N({\boldsymbol{r}};\omega) = 2{{\textrm{ Im }}}G^{{\mathrm{ret}}}({\boldsymbol{r}},{\boldsymbol{r}};\omega)$. We determine $G^{{\mathrm{ret}}}({\boldsymbol{r}},{\boldsymbol{r}}';\omega) =
\sum_{mm'}G_{mm'}(\omega+i\delta)\psi_m({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi^\dag_{m'}({\boldsymbol{r}}')$ in the limit $\delta {\rightarrow}0^+$, and for simplicity we address the square lattice at the lowest temperature where there is only a condensate. Also for simplicity our illustrative calculations are for the limiting case of the lowest Landau level, an $s$-wave gap, $N_x = 2$ for orbit center pairing, and normalized to set the mass $m = 1$.
It has been argued quite generally that $N({\boldsymbol{r}};\omega)$ exhibits a gapless behavior, in contrast to superconductivity without a magnetic field. This gaplessness is due[@maniv_2001] to the fact that all fermions are delocalized, unlike in the vortex cores of the low field limit. This observation has direct application to magnetic oscillation measurements, as a gapped state would dampen these oscillations significantly. [@maniv_2001] More specifically in the MTG pairing scheme, systematic studies in Ref. show that the energy eigenvalues satisfy $E_{N,{\boldsymbol{k}},k_z} = \xi_{N,k_z}^2+{\left| \Delta_{m = (N,{\boldsymbol{k}},k_z),n = (N,-{\boldsymbol{k}},-k_z)} \right|}^2$. Because $\Delta_{mn}$ always features a zero for the Abrikosov lattice, $E$ will as well.
The situation for orbit center pairing is more complex, but with the nearest neighbor pairing scheme above, we are able to analytically demonstrate gaplessness in this case as well as for the square and triangular Abrikosov lattices. Such gaplessness will occur when $Y = 0.5b_x$, which means the magnitudes of ${\left| \Delta_{\bar mm} \right|}^2 + {\left| \Delta_{\bar nm} \right|}^2$ and $2{\left| \Delta_{\bar
nm}\Delta^\dag_{\bar mm} \right|}$ are equal (using the notation from the previous section). Thus, for gaplessness to occur, we must also have that [$${{\textrm{arg }}}{\left( e^{-i k_j}e^{\pm i \pi (b_y/a)} \right)} =
\pi,$$]{} or $j_{{\mathrm{gapless}}} = \frac{N_x}{2}{\left( 1\pm\frac{b_y}{a}. \right)}$ For a square lattice, any $N_x = 2m,\ m \in {{\mathbb{N}}}$ will thus feature a gapless state, while for a triangular lattice, any $N_x = 4m$ will feature a gapless state. This also shows the importance of including “nearest-neighbor” pairs; neglecting them cannot produce gapless states.
Beyond this analytical assessment, we observe additional similarities and differences between the pairing schemes, and gain intuition about experiment. Figure \[LDOSomega\] presents a plot of the local density of states as a function of energy for the two different cases and for two different positions of the probe: one at the vortex center (dashed) and the other at the point of maximum $|\Delta|$ (solid curve). Again prominent in the features of these LDOS plots is that both cases show gapless behavior. In both cases, there is only one “nodal” state $m$ per lattice site at which its total excitation $E = 0$. This produces the distinctive parabola-like shape in Fig. \[LDOSomega\], which still touches $N({\boldsymbol{r}};0) = 0$ but does not exhibit a complete gap away from $\omega =
0$. The variation between the solid and dashed curves is rather small, also reflecting this point.
Figure \[LDOSTopo\] presents a contour plot of $N({\boldsymbol{r}};\omega)$ as a function of ${\boldsymbol{r}}$. This figure nicely illustrates that the real space and reciprocal lattice space pairing schemes are rather similar here. Both reflect the symmetry of the Abrikosov lattice. However the former shows slightly more contrast than the latter. [^2]
Conclusions\[secConclusion\]
============================
It is anticipated that the formalism in this paper will be relevant to both ultracold gases in the BCS-BEC crossover regime, and possibly to the pseudogap phase in high temperature superconductors. Magnetic field effects in the latter have revealed a number of mysteries, which appear to be associated with a normal state pairing gap. For the cold Fermi gases there is considerable interest in effects arising from artificial gauge fields or rapid rotation. Previous work on these Fermi gases [@Horotation; @*Radzihovskyrotation; @*Cooperrotation] has presumed, rather improbably, that even in the BEC regime, pairing and condensation appear at the same temperature. Also important is a better understanding of the normal state and of how condensation can take place if the superconductor or superfluid is effectively one dimensional.
This paper has focused on the nonlinear gap region in the presence of a magnetic field. A next step is to address calculations of the onset of superfluid coherence at temperature $T_c(H)$, which is taken to be less than the onset of pairing, $T^*(H)$, in contrast to previous work.[@Horotation; @*Radzihovskyrotation; @*Cooperrotation; @rasolt_1992; @ryan_1993; @rajagopal_1991; @rajagopal_1992; @dukan_1991; @dukan_1994] To this end, our work has established that the Gor’kov equations lend themselves to the nonlinear, analytic approach required, provided only degenerate energy states are paired. It has also shown that unique pairing partners are not required for a tractable theory. A robust result of this theory is that gapless states are present for both real and momentum-space pairing theories in a very high field.
In summary, it is hoped that this formalism lays the foundation to explore a variety of magnetic field effects in the pseudogap phase and throughout the BCS-BEC crossover.
We thank Victor Gurarie, Tin-Lun Ho, and Vivek Mishra for helpful discussions. This work is supported by NSF-MRSEC Grant 0820054. P.S. acknowledges support from the Hertz Foundation.
Details of the Orbit-Center Pairing Calculations \[RRAppendix\]
===============================================================
Since $\Psi^{{\mathrm{pair}}}$ is independent of $k_z$, that subscript will be dropped in pair terms that follow.
Ref. provides an identity, [$$\begin{aligned}
&\psi_{N_1,X+Y}({\boldsymbol{r}}_1)\psi_{N_2,X-Y}({\boldsymbol{r}}_2) = \sum_{P =
0}^{N_1+N_2}C^P_{N_1N_2} \notag \\
&\ {}\times \psi^{{\mathrm{cm}}}_{P,X}({\boldsymbol{r}}_{{\mathrm{cm}}})
\psi^{{\mathrm{rel}}}_{N_1+N_2-P,2Y}({\boldsymbol{r}}_{{\mathrm{rel}}}) \end{aligned}$$]{} where $N_1,N_2,$ and $P$ are Landau levels, ${\boldsymbol{r}}_{cm} = ({\boldsymbol{r}}_1 + {\boldsymbol{r}}_2)/2$, ${\boldsymbol{r}}_{{\mathrm{rel}}} = {\boldsymbol{r}}_1
- {\boldsymbol{r}}_2$, $\psi^{{\mathrm{cm}}}$ is an orbital function with $l {\rightarrow}2^{-1/2} l$ (appropriate for a charge-2e particle), $\psi^{{\mathrm{rel}}}$ has $l {\rightarrow}2^{1/2} l$, and $C^P_{N_1N_2}$ is a complicated combinatorial prefactor which is equal to 1 if $N_1 = N_2 = 0$. Thus, we know that [$$\begin{aligned}
&\Psi^{{\mathrm{pair}}}_{N_1,N_2,X,Y} ({\boldsymbol{r}}) = \sum_{P = 0}^{N_1+N_2} C^P_{N_1N_2}\psi^{{\mathrm{cm}}}_{P,X}({\boldsymbol{r}})\psi^{{\mathrm{rel}}}_{N_1+N_2-P,2Y}(0) \notag \\
&= \sum_{P = 0}^{N_1+N_2}
C^P_{N_1N_2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{L_y L_z 2^{N_1+N_2-P} (N_1+N_2-P)!}}\notag \\
&\ {}\times{\left( \frac{1}{2
\pi l_H^2} \right)}^{1/4} e^{-Y^2/l_H^2}\psi^{{\mathrm{cm}}}_{P,X}({\boldsymbol{r}}) \notag \end{aligned}$$]{}
We can now proceed to calculate the $\Delta_{mn}$ elements for all possible pairs, with the result that
[$$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta_{m=(N_1,X+Y),n=(N_2,X-Y)} = \int d{\boldsymbol{r}} \Delta({\boldsymbol{r}})
\psi^{{\mathrm{fermion\dag}}}_{N_1,X+Y,k_z}({\boldsymbol{r}})
\psi^{{\mathrm{fermion\dag}}}_{N_2,X-Y,-k_z}({\boldsymbol{r}}) \notag \\
&=
\Delta\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{2} b_x}{L_xL_yL_z\sqrt{\pi}l_H}} \int d{\boldsymbol{r}}
\sum_{m}\exp{\left( i\pi \frac{b_y}{a}m^2 \right)} \psi^{{\mathrm{cm}}}_{0,mb_x}({\boldsymbol{r}})
\notag \\
&\ {}\times
\sum_{P = 0}^{N_1+N_2}C^P_{N_1N_2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{L_yL_z 2^{N_1+N_2-P}
(N_1+N_2-P)!}} \notag
{\left( \frac{1}{2 \pi l_H^2} \right)}^{1/4}
e^{-Y^2/l_H^2}\psi^{{\mathrm{cm\dag}}}_{P,X}({\boldsymbol{r}}) \\
&= \begin{cases}
\Delta\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt{2} b_x}{L_xL_yL_z\sqrt{\pi}l_H}} e^{i\pi
(b_y/a)(X/b_x)^2}
C^0_{N_1N_2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{L_y L_z 2^{N_1+N_2}
(N_1+N_2)!}}{\left( \frac{1}{2 \pi l_H^2} \right)}^{1/4} e^{-Y^2/l_H^2} & {{\mathrm{if }}} X =
mb_x, m \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}, \\ 0 & {{\mathrm{otherwise.}}} \end{cases}\notag \end{aligned}$$]{} Here $C^0_{N_1N_2} =
\sqrt{\frac{(N_1+N_2)!}{N_1!N_2!}}\frac{(-1)^{N_2}}{2^{(N_1+N_2)/2}}$ to give [$$\Delta_{m=(N_1,X+Y),n=(N_2,X-Y)} =\begin{cases} \Delta\sqrt{\frac{
b_x}{L_xL_y^2L_z^2\pi l_H^2}} \frac{1}{2^{N_1+N_2}\sqrt{N_1!N_2!}} e^{i\pi
(b_y/a)(X/b_x)^2}e^{-Y^2/l_H^2} & {{\mathrm{if }}} X = mb_x, m \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}, \\ 0 &
{{\mathrm{otherwise.}}} \end{cases}$$]{}
[^1]: Note that Refs. use a different gauge than we use here.
[^2]: Topographic plots at higher frequencies (not shown) have slight deviations from an Abrikosov lattice symmetry for case (i), due to the small $N_x = 2$. Similarly, the “kinks” in the low-frequency LDOS are likely due to the same approximation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A relativistic Bose gas at finite density suffers from a sign problem that makes direct numerical simulations not feasible. One possible solution to the sign problem is to re-express the path integral in terms of Lefschetz thimbles. Using this approach we study the relativistic Bose gas both in the symmetric phase (low-density) and the spontaneously broken phase (high-density). In the high-density phase we break explicitly the symmetry and determine the dependence of the order parameter on the breaking. We study the relative contributions of the dominant and sub-dominant thimbles in this phase. We find that the sub-dominant thimble only contributes substantially when the explicit symmetry breaking is small, a regime that is dominated by finite volume effects. In the regime relevant for the thermodynamic limit, this contribution is negligible.'
author:
- Andrei Alexandru
- Gökçe Başar
- Paulo Bedaque
- 'Gregory W. Ridgway'
- 'Neill C. Warrington'
bibliography:
- 'phi4bib.bib'
title: A study of symmetry breaking in a relativistic Bose gas using the contraction algorithm
---
=1
intro algo phi4 results conclusions
A.A. is supported in part by the National Science Foundation CAREER grant PHY-1151648. A.A. gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of the Physics Department at the University of Maryland where part of this work was carried out. G.B., P.B., G.R and N.C.W. are supported by U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG02-93ER-40762.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For a next-nearest neighbour pair interaction model in a periodic domain, [*a priori*]{} and [*a posteriori*]{} analyses of the quasinonlocal quasicontinuum method (QNL-QC) are presented. The results are valid for large deformations and essentially guarantee a one-to-one correspondence between atomistic solutions and QNL-QC solutions. The analysis is based on truncation error and residual estimates in negative norms and novel [*a priori*]{} and [*a posteriori*]{} stability estimates.'
address: |
C. Ortner\
Mathematical Institute\
24-29 St Giles’\
Oxford OX1 3LB\
UK
author:
- 'C. Ortner'
bibliography:
- 'qc.bib'
title: 'A Priori and A Posteriori Analysis of the Quasi-Nonlocal Quasicontinuum Method in 1D'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Quasicontinuum (QC) methods [@E:2006; @Miller:2008; @Miller:2003a; @Ortiz:1995a; @Shimokawa:2004] are a class of prototypical schemes for coupling atomistic models of solids to continuum elasticity models. They combine, in principle, the accuracy of atomistic models for defects with the efficiency of continuum models for long-range elastic effects. For further detail on the historical development of the QC method see [@Miller:2008; @Miller:2003a].
Not all QC methods are equally reliable in modelling large atomistic systems. Recent analyses of QC methods [@legoll; @Dobson:2008b; @Dobson:qcf.stab; @Dobson:arXiv0903.0610; @Dobson:qce.stab; @Gunzburger:2008a; @Luskin:clusterqc; @emingyang] have identified various sources of inconsistencies (in the sense of numerical analysis; see also Section \[sec:consistency\]) and instabilities due to inadequate treatments of the interface. The two methods that have emerged as the most promising candidates are the force-based QC method [@Dobson:2008a] and the quasinonlocal QC (QNL-QC) method [@Shimokawa:2004] (and its generalization [@E:2006] to longer interaction ranges).
All contributions to the analysis of QC methods cited above consider only linearized problems, except for [@emingyang] where small deformations from a uniform reference state are admitted. The main purpose of the present paper is to introduce a simple yet powerful analytical framework that allows a generalization of these results to genuinely nonlinear situations. To present the new ideas that are required to achieve this in the simplest possible setting, we will focus on a one-dimensional model problem where the atomistic model is formulated in terms of a second neighbour pair interaction energy with applied dead loads. For this model, the QNL-QC method of Shimokawa [*et al.*]{} [@Shimokawa:2004] was previously analyzed in [@Dobson:2008b; @emingyang]. However, the techniques used there would be difficult to extend to the large deformation regime, for which an entirely new approach will be presented here, based on consistency error estimates in negative Sobolev norms and sharp [*a priori*]{} and [*a posteriori*]{} stability estimates. Moreover, care will be taken throughout this paper that the techniques can, in principle, be extended to higher dimensions and to situations with defects. This will primarily be achieved by modifying ideas from [@Ortner:2008a] (where a Galerkin projection without continuum approximation is analyzed), so that no higher regularity results for the hessian operator of the atomistic or QC energy functionals are required.
The present paper also develops the first residual-based [*a posteriori*]{} error analysis for the QNL-QC method. Theorem \[th:exapost\] is the first [*a posteriori*]{} error estimate for the QNL-QC method which rigorously establishes the existence of exact solutions for which the estimate applies. The application of goal oriented [*a posteriori*]{} error control to QC methods was pioneered in [@arndtluskin07b; @arndtluskin07c; @prud06].
At several places in the paper interesting and challenging open problems are discussed.
Finally, it should be remarked that the purpose of this paper is to present a new framework for the analysis of the QC method in the simplest possible setting that still allows the main features one observes in applications: non-smooth solutions and large deformations. Numerical experiments illustrating the results presented here, as well as further interesting observations will be presented after introducing finite element coarse graining into the framework [@OrtnerWang:2009a].
Outline {#outline .unnumbered}
-------
We begin, in Section \[sec:intro:model\_problem\], by presenting an atomistic model problem in a periodic formulation that avoids the difficulties posed by boundaries. In Section \[sec:model:local\_QC\], we formulate the QNL-QC approximation [*without*]{} coarse graining. For an analysis of the QNL-QC including finite element coarse graining of the continuum region see [@OrtnerWang:2009a]. In the remainder of section \[sec:model\] we discuss some features of the atomistic model and introduce the necessary technical background for the subsequent analysis.
In Section \[sec:consistency\] we discuss the concepts of [ *truncation error*]{} and [*residual*]{} in the context of the QC method. Previous work [@Dobson:2008b] has analyzed the truncation error in weighted $\ell^p$-norms, which leads to suboptimal truncation error estimates. As a result, somewhat subtle and technically demanding ideas were required to still obtain (quasi-)optimal error estimates. By contrast, we will see here that if the “correct” norm is chosen, namely a negative Sobolev norm, then these complications can be completely avoided. In [@emingyang], an interesting variant of a negative norm was used that is useful for the nonlinear analysis but does not lead to (quasi-)optimal error estimates (see Remarks \[rem:spijker\] and \[rem:apriori\]).
The subject of Section \[sec:stability\] is a careful and general stability analysis of the QNL-QC method. First, an idea from [@Dobson:qce.stab] will be extended to obtain [*a priori*]{} stability results for large deformations. The main novel contribution in this section, however, is the [*a posteriori*]{} stability result in Theorem \[th:apost\_stab\]. This section concludes with a brief discussion of the difficulties encountered when defects are present, and how the results might be generalized.
Finally, in Section \[sec:existence\] we combine the consistency and stability analyses of the previous sections to obtain [*a priori*]{} as well as [*a posteriori*]{} existence results and error estimates. The techniques used here are not too dissimilar from [@emingyang], however, the point of view taken is a very different one and leads to a different set of existence results. Moreover, the sharper consistency and stability results of the present paper lead to error estimates that are truly (quasi-)optimal in the atomistic spacing and the smoothness of the atomistic solution. See Remarks \[rem:apriori\] and \[rem:aposteriori\] for more detail.
Atomistic Model and QNL-QC Approximation {#sec:model}
========================================
An atomistic model problem {#sec:intro:model_problem}
--------------------------
In atomistic models surfaces create boundary layers in the deformation field and must therefore be considered defects in the lattice. We avoid this issue, by working in an infinite lattice $\eps \Z$, where $\eps > 0$ is the reference [*lattice spacing*]{}. Since the functional analysis becomes unnecessarily difficult in this infinite domain we will, moreover, restrict the set of admissible deformations to those which are $N$-periodic displacements from the reference lattice, that is, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\Ys =~& F x + \Us, \\
\intertext{where $x_\xi = \eps \xi$ for $\xi \in \Z$, and $F > 0$ is
a {\em macroscopic deformation gradient}, and where}
\Us =~& \big\{ u \in \R^\Z : u_{\xi+N} = u_\xi \quad \forall \xi \in
\Z, \text{ and } {\textstyle \sum_{\xi = 1}^N} u_\xi = 0 \big\}.\end{aligned}$$ The condition $\sum_{\xi = 1}^N u_\xi = 0$ is an artefact of the periodic boundary conditions, and ensures locally unique solvabililty of the equilibrium equations to the models that are introduced below. We set $\eps = 1/N$ throughout so that the reference length of the period is one.
We denote the algebraic dual of $\Us$ by $\Us^*$. Equipped with the weighted $\ell^2$-inner product $$\< v, w \> = \eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N v_\xi w_\xi,$$ $\Us$ becomes a Hilbert space, and hence, any $T \in \Us^*$ can be represented by a function $z_T \in \Us$ via $T[v] = \< z_T, v \>$ for $v \in \Us$. Thus, even though forces are usually best understood as elements of $\Us^*$, we will usually identify them with “functions” $f \in \Us$.
The [*stored energy per period*]{} of a deformation $y \in \Ys$ is given by a next-nearest neighbour pair interaction model, $$\label{eq:a_defn}
\Phi(y) := \eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N \big(\phi(y_\xi')
+ \phi(y_\xi' + y_{\xi+1}')\big),$$ where $v_\xi' = \eps^{-1} (v_\xi - v_{\xi-1})$ for $v \in \R^\Z$, and where $\phi$ is a Lennard-Jones type interaction potential which satisfies the following properties:
1. $\phi \in \CC^3((0, +\infty]; \R)$, and
2. there exists $r_* > 0$ such that $\phi$ is convex in $(0, r_*)$ and concave in $(r_*, +\infty)$.
By $\phi \in \CC^3((0, +\infty]; \R)$ we mean that $\phi$ and its first three derivatives are bounded in any interval $(\delta,
+\infty)$, $\delta > 0$. Implicitly, we actually assume that $\phi(r)$ and its derivatives decay rapidly to zero as $r \to \infty$. This justifies the next-nearest neighbour interaction model.
We assume, for simplicity, that the atomistic system is subjected to a dead load $f \in \Us$, so that the total energy of a deformation $y
\in \Ys$ is given by $$\Phi^\tot(y) = \Phi(y) - \< f, y\>.$$ Our goal is to solve the minimization problem $$\label{eq:minproblem_a}
y \in \argmin \Phi^\tot(\Ys),$$ where $\argmin$ denotes the set of local minimizers. The first order necessary optimality condition (or, Euler–Lagrange equation) for is $$\label{eq:model:crit_a}
D\Phi^\tot(y)[u] = 0 \qquad \forall u \in \Us.$$ A deformation $y \in \Ys$ satisfying is called an [*equilibrium*]{} (or critical point). If an equilibrium $y$ also satisfies the [*sufficient second order optimality condition*]{} $$\label{eq:1}
D^2 \Phi^\tot(y)[u,u] > 0 \qquad \forall u \in \Us \setminus \{0\},$$ then we say that $y$ is a [*strongly stable equilibrium*]{}. A strongly stable equilibrium is an isolated local minimizer of $\Phi^\tot$ in $\Ys$.
The quasi-nonlocal QC method {#sec:model:local_QC}
----------------------------
If a deformation $y \in \Ys$ is smooth, in the sense that $y_\xi'
\approx y_{\xi+1}'$ for all $\xi$, then we can approximate the second-neighbour terms by $$\label{eq:qnl_nnn_splitting}
\phi(y_\xi' + y_{\xi+1}') \approx
{{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} \big\{ \phi(2y_\xi') + \phi(2y_{\xi+1}') \big\},$$ which leads to an approximate stored energy functional $$\Phi_\cb(y) = \eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N \big\{ \phi(y_\xi')
+ \phi(2 y_\xi') \big\}
= \eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N \phi_\cb(y_\xi'),$$ where $\phi_\cb(r) = \phi(r) + \phi(2r)$ is called the Cauchy–Born stored energy function. The Cauchy–Born stored energy functional $\Phi_\cb$ is [*local*]{} and its minimization can be achieved efficiently by means of finite element methodology. (Note, though, that in 1D this is not really an issue [@Ortner:2008a].) Moreover, it is considered an excellent approximation to the atomistic model in a smooth deformation regime (see [@E:2007a] for a rigorous theory of the small deformation regime).
If a minimizer of the atomistic model, which we are trying to compute, has defects in a small localized region but is smooth elsewhere then we should couple the atomistic model to the continuum Cauchy–Born model. The QNL-QC method [@Shimokawa:2004] is the simplest energy-based coupling method that is consistent for next-nearest neighbour models (see Section \[sec:consistency\] for a discussion of consistency). For the simple pair interaction energy we use in this paper it can be defined as follows.
Let $\As \subset \{1, \dots, N\}$ be the [*atomistic region*]{} and let $\Cs = \{ 1, \dots, N\} \setminus \As$ be the [*continuum region*]{}. The nearest neigbour terms are left unchanged, while, for $\xi \in \As$, the next-nearest neighbour interaction $\phi(y_\xi' +
y_{\xi+1}')$ is approximated as in . This procedure leads to the QNL-QC stored energy functional $$\label{eq:model:qnl_fcnl}
\Phi_\h(y) = \eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N \phi(y_\xi')
+ \eps \sum_{\xi \in \As} \phi(y_\xi' + y_{\xi+1}')
+ \eps \sum_{\xi \in \Cs} {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} \big\{ \phi(2 y_\xi')
+ \phi(2 y_{\xi+1}') \big\}.$$ Upon defining the total energy $$\Phi_\h^\tot(y) = \Phi_\h(y) - \< f, y \>,$$ in the QNL-QC method, we solve the minimization problem $$\label{eq:qnl_minproblem}
y_\h \in \argmin \, \Phi_\h^\tot(\Ys).$$ The associated first order optimality condition in variational form is $$\label{eq:crit_qc}
D\Phi_\h^\tot(y_\h)[u] = 0 \qquad \forall u \in \Us.$$
For practical reasons, it is important that this approximation can be rewritten in the form $$\Phi_\h(y) = \Phi_\h^\As(y) + \Phi_\h^\Is(y) + \Phi_\h^\Cs(y),$$ where $\Phi_\h^\As$, $\Phi_\h^\Is$, and $\Phi_\h^\Cs$ are the contributions from the atomistic region, the interfacial region, and the continuum region, respectively, and so that $\Phi_\h^\As$ is precisely the atomistic model restricted to (a subset of) $\As$, that $\Phi_\h^\Cs$ is precisely the Cauchy–Born approximation restricted to (a subset of) $\Cs$, and $\Phi_\h^\Is$ is an interface correction that is cheap to compute. This formulation allows for finite element coarsening of the continuum region. For more details on this splitting and its importance, see [@OrtnerWang:2009a]. For the purposes of the analysis presented in this paper, however, is the most useful formulation.
![\[fig:ACI\_sets\] Visualization of the atomistic region, the continuum region, the interface sets, as well as their counterparts for bounds, defined in Section \[sec:model:local\_QC\].](ACI_sets.pdf){width="9cm"}
For future reference, we define the left- and right-interface sets ([*left*]{} and [*right*]{} are understood in relation to the atomistic region(s)) as follows, $$\label{eq:model:defn_I}
\Is_\ell = \big\{ \xi \in \Cs : \xi + 1 \in \Asper \big\}
\quad \text{and} \quad
\Is_r = \big\{ \xi \in \Cs : \xi - 1 \in \Asper \big\},$$ where $\Asper$ denotes the periodically extended atomistic region, $$\Asper = \bigcup_{j \in \Z} \big(Nj + \As).$$ The union $\Is = \Is_\ell \cup \Is_r$ is simply called the [ *interface*]{}. A visualization of these, and the following, definitions is shown in Figure \[fig:ACI\_sets\].
We assume throughout that $$\label{eq:I_dontintersect}
\Is_\ell \cap \Is_r = \emptyset.$$ This means, that any connected component of the continuum region must contain at least two atoms.
In addition, since we will often write expressions in terms of bonds rather than atoms, it is sometimes more convenient to use the following variants of these sets: $$\Is_\ell' = \Is_\ell+1, \quad \Is_r' = \Is_r, \quad
\As' = \As \setminus \Is_\ell', \quad \Cs' = \Cs \cup \Is_\ell',
\quad \text{and} \quad \Is' = \Is_r' \cup \Is_\ell'.$$ These definitions are made mostly for the sake of an intuitive notation in the main results. On a first reading, it may be best to ignore these subtle differences and simply bear in mind that the sets $\As'$, etc., are variants of the originals that allow for an attractive presentation.
A bound on next-nearest neighbour interactions {#sec:bound_nnn}
----------------------------------------------
It will be a crucial ingredient in the analysis of the QNL-QC method to assume that next-nearest neighbour interactions remain in the concave region of the interaction potential, that is, we assume that the solutions of the atomistic model and of the QNL-QC method satisfy $$\label{eq:n2_interaction_bound}
y_\xi' \geq r_* / 2 \qquad \forall \xi \in \{1, \dots, N\}.$$ For most interesting interaction potentials, the case $y_\xi' < r_* /
2$ can only be achieved under extreme compressive forces that will not usually be observed in experiments. As a matter of fact, one can safely assume that under such extreme conditions a classical potential (as opposed to a potential based on quantum mechanics) and zero temperature statics constitute an inappropriate model to begin with.
Note, moreover, that the condition $y_\xi' \geq r_* / 2$ also ensures that $\phi$ and its derivatives satisfy uniform bounds. For future reference, we define the constants $$C_j(s) := \sup_{r \geq s} \phi^{(j)}(r) \qquad \text{for } s > 0
\text{ and for } k = 0,1, \dots,$$ where $\phi^{(j)}$ denotes the $j$th derivative of $\phi$.
Further notation and an auxiliary result {#sec:notation}
----------------------------------------
The second and third finite differences are defined, for $v \in
\R^\Z$, by $$\begin{aligned}
v_\xi'' :=~& \eps^{-2}(v_{\xi+1} - 2 v_\xi + v_{\xi-1}), \quad \text{and} \\
v_\xi''':=~& \eps^{-3}(v_{\xi+1}-3 v_{\xi} + 3 v_{\xi-1} - v_{\xi-2}).\end{aligned}$$ For $v \in \Us$, the functions $v'$, $v''$, and $v'''$ are understood as $N$-periodic functions. We normally associate the function value $v_\xi$ and the second difference $v_\xi''$ with the atom $\xi$, while the first difference $v_\xi'$ and the third difference $v_\xi'''$ are normally associated with the cell, or bond, $(\xi-1, \xi)$.
In addition to the weighted $\ell^2_\eps$-inner product we define the weighted $\ell^p$-norms $$\| v \|_{\ell^p_\eps} := \cases{
\big( \eps\sum_{\xi=1}^N |v_\xi|^p \big)^{1/p}, & 1 \leq p < \infty, \\[3pt]
\displaystyle \max_{\xi = 1, \dots, N} |v_\xi|, & p = \infty,
}$$ We normally drop the subscript in $\ell^\infty_\eps$ and write $\ell^\infty$ instead..
The space $\Us$ will often be equipped with the Sobolev-like norms $$\| v \|_{\Us^{1,p}} = \|v'\|_{\ell^p_\eps}, \quad
\text{for } v \in \Us \quad \text{ and } p \in [1,\infty].$$ The space $\Us$ equipped with the $\Us^{1,p}$-norm is then simply denoted $\Us^{1,p}$. For $p' = p / (p-1)$, the norm on the topological dual $\Us^{-1,p} := (\Us^{1,p'})^*$ of $\Us^{1,p'}$ is denoted $$\| T \|_{\Us^{-1,p}} := \| T \|_{(\Us^{1,p'})^*} =
\sup_{\substack{ v \in \Us \\ \|v \|_{\Us^{1,p'}} = 1 }} T[v],
\qquad \text{for } T \in \Us^{-1,p}.$$
If $\Psi : \Ys \to \R$ is (Fréchet) differentiable then its first variation is denoted $D\Psi$ and is understood as a nonlinear map from $\Ys$ to $\Us^*$, that is, for $y \in \Ys$, $D\Psi(y) \in \Us^*$, $v
\mapsto D\Psi(y)[v]$. Similarly, the second variation $D^2\Psi$ is understood as a nonlinear map from $\Ys$ to $L(\Us, \Us^*)$, that is, for $y \in \Ys$, $D^2\Psi(y) \in L(\Us, \Us^*)$. Equivalently, $D^2\Psi(y)$ can be understood as a symmetric bilinear form on $\Us
\times \Us$, $(v, w) \mapsto D^2\Psi(y)[v,w]$. We will henceforth make no distinction between these different interpretations and use whichever is most convenient at any given moment.
\[th:inverse\_fcn\_thm\] Let $X, Y$ be Banach spaces, $A$ an open subset of $X$, and let $\Fs :
A \to Y$ be Fréchet differentiable. Suppose that $x_0 \in A$ satisfies the conditions $$\begin{aligned}
& \| \Fs(x_0) \|_{Y} \leq \eta, \quad
\| D\Fs(x_0)^{-1} \|_{L(Y,X)} \leq \sigma, \\
& \overline{B_X(x_0, 2\eta\sigma)} \subset A, \\
& \| D\Fs(x_1) - D\Fs(x_2) \|_{L(X,Y)} \leq L \| x_1 - x_2 \|_X \quad
\text{for} \quad \|x_j - x_0\|_X \leq 2 \eta \sigma, \\
& \text{ and } 2 L \sigma^{2} \eta < 1,
\end{aligned}$$ then there exists $x \in X$ such that $\Fs(x) = 0$ and $\|x -
x_0\|_X \leq 2\eta\sigma$.
The result follows, for example, by applying Theorem 2.1 in [@ortner_apostex] with the choices $R = 2 \eta\sigma$, $\omega(x_0, R) = LR$ and $\bar\omega(x_0, R) = \frac12 L
R^2$. Similar results can be obtained by tracking the constants in most proofs of the inverse function theorem, and assuming local Lipschitz continuity of $D\Fs$.
Consistency {#sec:consistency}
===========
It was pointed out in [@Dobson:2008b] that the QNL-QC method is [*not*]{} consistent. This observation was based on the fact that the authors computed the consistency error in the $\ell^\infty$-norm and considered the limit as $\eps \to 0$. As a matter of fact, the QNL-QC (and even the original energy-based QC method [@Ortiz:1995a]) is consistent in appropriate negative norms (see also [@emingyang Lemma 5.11], and [@OrtnerWang:2009a] for more general discussion). However, before we prove this result, we briefly review the notions of truncation error and residual, and explain more clearly what we mean by consistency.
Let $y \in \argmin\,\Phi^\tot(\Ys)$, then the [*truncation error*]{} (associated with this solution) is the linear functional $T \in
\Us^*$, which measures the extent to which $y$ fails to satisfy : $$T[u] = D\Phi_\h^\tot(y)[u] = D\Phi_\h(y)[u] - \< f, u \>.$$ Conversely, if $y_\h \in \argmin \Phi^\tot_\h(\Ys)$ then the linear functional $R \in \Us^*$ that measures the extent to which $y_\h$ fails to satisfy (\[eq:model:crit\_a\]) is called the [*residual*]{} (of the approximate solution $y_\h$): $$R[u] = D\Phi^\tot(y_\h)[u] = D\Phi(y_\h)[u] - \< f, u \>.$$ Since $y$ satisfies (\[eq:model:crit\_a\]) and $y_\h$ satisfies (\[eq:crit\_qc\]) we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
T = D\Phi_\h(y) - D\Phi(y), \quad \text{and} \quad
R = D\Phi(y_\h) - D\Phi_\h(y_\h).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, estimating the truncation error will automatically give us a residual estimate and vice-versa. Hence, we will call both $R$ and $T$ simply the [*consistency error*]{}. (This observation ceases to be valid if coarse-graining is taken into account.)
Traditionally, we call a numerical method [*consistent*]{} if the truncation error tends to zero, in a suitable sense, as the mesh size, or another discretization parameter, tends to zero. In the present case, since $\eps$ is fixed (it is best to think of $\eps$ to be in of the order $O(10^{-3})$ or $O(10^{-4})$), we cannot make such a definition. We will therefore use the term rather loosely and simply discuss the [*order of consistency*]{} of the method. For example first order consistency would mean that the consistency error can be bounded by $\eps$ and a factor that depends on the smoothness of $y$. However, even this nomenclature is not wholly appropriate as the QNL-QC method has different orders in different parts of the domain. This is demonstrated in the following theorem, which provides a sharp bound on the consistency error of the QNL-QC method in the $\Us^{-1,p}$-norms, $1 \leq p \leq \infty$. Even though we will later only use $\Us^{-1,2}$ estimates, the more general case is included here since it requires no additional work.
\[th:consistency\] Let $y \in \Ys$ such that $\min_{\xi \in \Z} y_\xi' > 0$, then $$\| D\Phi(y) - D\Phi_\h(y) \|_{\Us^{-1,p}} \leq
\eps \bar{C}_2 \|y''\|_{\ell^p_\eps(\Is)} + \eps^2 \bar{C}_3 \big(
\|y'''\|_{\ell^p(\Cs'\setminus\Is')} + \| y'' \|_{\ell^{2p}_\eps(\Cs)}^2 \big),$$ where $\bar{C}_i = C_i(2\min_{\xi\in\Cs'} y_\xi')$, $i = 2, 3$.
The first variations of the atomistic and QNL-QC functionals at $y$ are, respectively, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DPhi}
D\Phi(y)[u] = \eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N \phi'(y_\xi')u_\xi'
~+~& \eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N \phi'(y_\xi' + y_{\xi+1}')[u_\xi' + u_{\xi+1}'], \\
\intertext{and}
\label{eq:DPhih}
D\Phi_\h(y)[u] = \eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N \phi'(y_\xi')u_\xi'
~+~& \eps \sum_{\xi \in \As} \phi'(y_\xi' + y_{\xi+1}')[u_\xi'+u_{\xi+1}'] \\
\notag
~+~& \eps \sum_{\xi \in \Cs} {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} \big\{
2 \phi'(2 y_\xi') u_\xi' + 2 \phi'(2y_{\xi+1}') u_{\xi+1}' \big\}.
\end{aligned}$$ The consistency error $T := D\Phi(y) - D\Phi_\h(y)$ therefore satisfies $$\label{eq:truncation_error}
T[u] = \eps \sum_{\xi \in \Cs} \big\{
\phi'(y_\xi' + y_{\xi+1}')[u_\xi'+u_{\xi+1}']
- \phi'(2 y_\xi') u_\xi' - \phi'(2 y_{\xi+1}') u_{\xi+1}' \big\}$$ for all $u \in \Us$. From (\[eq:truncation\_error\]) we can immediately obtain a first-order consistency error estimate, however, one can improve upon this by taking into account symmetries of the interaction law.
If we collect all coefficients that premultiply a term $u_\xi'$, then we obtain second-order errors in the “interior” of the continuum region and first-order errors in the interface. To see this, we recall the definitions of the interface regions from Section \[sec:model:local\_QC\], and compute $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
T[u] =~& \eps \sum_{\xi \in \Is_\ell} \big\{ \phi'(y_{\xi}'+y_{\xi+1}')
- \phi'(2y_{\xi+1}') \big\} u_{\xi+1}'
+ \eps \sum_{\xi \in \Is_r} \big\{ \phi'(y_\xi'+y_{\xi+1}')
- \phi'(2y_\xi') \big\} u_\xi' \\
\label{eq:cons:T_2}
& + \eps\sum_{\xi \in \Cs' \setminus \Is'}
\big\{ \phi'(y_{\xi-1}'+y_\xi') + \phi'(y_\xi' + y_{\xi+1}')
- 2 \phi'(2y_\xi') \big\} u_\xi'.
\end{aligned}$$
Taylor expansions of the first and second terms in curly brackets yield $$\label{eq:cons:taylor_1}
\begin{split}
\phi'(y_\xi'+y_{\xi+1}') - \phi'(2y_{\xi+1}') =~&
- \eps \phi''(2 y_{\xi+1}') y_\xi''
+ {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} \eps^2 \phi'''(\vartheta_{1,\xi}) |y_\xi''|^2,
\quad \text{and} \\
\phi'(y_\xi'+y_{\xi+1}') - \phi'(2y_{\xi}') =~&
\eps \phi''(2 y_{\xi}') y_\xi''
+ {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} \eps^2 \phi'''(\vartheta_{2,\xi}) |y_\xi''|^2,
\end{split}$$ where $\vartheta_{1,\xi} \in \conv\{ y_\xi' + y_{\xi+1}', 2
y_{\xi+1}' \}$ and $\vartheta_{2,\xi} \in \conv\{ y_\xi' +
y_{\xi+1}', 2 y_{\xi}' \}$, and hence $|\phi'''(\vartheta_{i,\xi})|
\leq C_3(2 \min_{\xi\in\Cs'} y_\xi') =: \bar{C}_3$ for $i = 1, 2$.
To expand the third term in curly brackets in (\[eq:cons:T\_2\]), we use (\[eq:cons:taylor\_1\]) twice to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& \phi'(y_\xi' + y_{\xi+1}') + \phi'(y_{\xi-1}'+y_\xi') - 2\phi'(2 y_\xi') \\
=~& \eps^2 \phi'''(2 y_\xi') y_\xi'''
+ \eps^2 {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} \big\{ \phi'''(\vartheta_{2,\xi}) |y_\xi''|^2
+ \phi'''(\vartheta_{1,\xi-1}) |y_{\xi-1}''|^2 \big\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Inserting these expansions and bounds into (\[eq:cons:T\_2\]), and applying several weighted Hölder inqualities we can estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\big|T[u]\big|
\leq~& \eps \sum_{\xi \in \Is_\ell} \big\{ \eps \bar{C}_2 |y_\xi''|
+ \eps^2 {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} \bar{C}_3 |y_\xi''|^2 \big\} |u_{\xi+1}'|
+ \eps \sum_{\xi \in \Is_r} \big\{ \eps \bar{C}_2 |y_\xi''|
+ \eps^2 {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} \bar{C}_3 |y_\xi''|^2 \big\} |u_{\xi}'| \\
& + \eps \sum_{\xi \in \Cs \setminus \Is_r} \big\{ \
\eps^2 \bar{C}_3 |y_\xi'''| + \eps^2 {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} \bar{C}_3 \big(
|y_\xi''|^2 + |y_{\xi-1}''|^2 \big) \big\} |u_\xi'| \\
\leq~& \big\{\eps \bar{C}_2 \| y'' \|_{\ell^p_\eps(\Is)}
+ \eps^2 \bar{C}_3 \| y''' \|_{\ell^p_\eps(\Cs\setminus\Is_r)}
+ \eps^2 \bar{C}_3 \| y'' \|_{\ell^{2p}_\eps(\Cs)}^2 \big\}
\|u'\|_{\ell^{p'}_\eps}.
\qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
The consistency error has no contribution from the atomistic region, which is not surprising since the model is exact in $\As$. In the continuum region, the consistency error reflects the second-order accuracy of the Cauchy–Born approximation for simple lattices [@E:2007a]. Finally, in the interface, the consistency error is only of first order. By estimating $\|y''\|_{\ell^p_\eps(\Is)}$ above by $\|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Is)}$, we can however obtain additional powers of $\eps$, $$\label{eq:higher_epsn_I}
\eps \bar{C}_2 \|y''\|_{\ell^p_\eps(\Is)} \leq
\eps^{1+1/p} \bar{C}_2 (\# \Is)^{1/p} \|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Is)},$$ but at the cost of a dependency on the size of the interfacial region. Moreover it should be stressed that such an estimate might hide the significantly reduced accuracy of the QNL-QC method in the interface.
This loss of accuracy at the interface can potentially become problematic if very high accuracy is sought. For example, a P2 finite element discretization of the continuum region will not be able to increase the accuracy of the computation beyond the error introduced in this interface. Thus, a higher order coupling mechanism would be a highly desirable goal.
A finer analysis of this reduced accuracy for a linearized model problem can be found in [@Dobson:2008b].
Generalizations of Theorem \[th:consistency\] for a variety of QC methods can be found in [@OrtnerWang:2009a]. There, we also include finite element coarse graining in the analysis. We use negative norm consistency error estimates, similar to Theorem \[th:consistency\], to control what we call the [*model error*]{}.
\[rem:spijker\] In [@emingyang Lemma 5.11] a negative-norm truncation error estimate with respect to a so-called [*Spijker norm*]{} can be found, which, in the language of the present work, reads $$\big| D\Phi(y)[u] - D\Phi_\h(y)[u] \big|
\leq C \eps \big( \eps^{-1/2} \| u' \|_{\ell^2_\eps} \big).$$ This estimate follows immediately from . The reason for choosing this norm is that it guarantees uniform closeness of gradients (i.e., $\eps^{-1/2} \| u' \|_{\ell^2_\eps}
\geq \|u'\|_{\ell^\infty}$), a fact that is highly useful in the nonlinear analysis. Unfortunately it leads to suboptimal error estimates. In the analysis of Section \[sec:existence\], we will circumvent this problem by using inverse estimates, but still retain the optimal truncation error estimates.
Stability {#sec:stability}
=========
Having established a fairly sharp consistency error estimate, we turn to the question of stability of the QNL-QC method. Stability estimates are usually easiest to establish in a Hilbert space, particularly, when the operator under investigation is coercive. Coercivity of the QNL-QC hessian evaluated at the reference state $y = Fx$ was established in [@Dobson:2008b; @emingyang], and it was shown in [@Dobson:qce.stab] that these estimates sharply reflect the stability of the full atomistic model. In the following sections we will generalize these results to various situations that admit large deformations.
In one dimension, it is still relatively straightforward to derive stability bounds in the space $\Us^{1,p}$. For example, several stability results for atomistic and quasicontinuum models in the space $\Us^{1,\infty}$, which are particularly useful for a nonlinear analysis, were derived in [@Ortner:2008a]. However, since such results would be very difficult (if not impossible) to obtain in 2D/3D, we will attempt in the next sections to use only $\Us^{1,2}$-stability results in our analysis and still obtain similarly strong nonlinear results.
Preliminary remarks {#sec:stab}
-------------------
[*Linear stability*]{} for minimization problems is normally associated with the coercivity constant (or smallest eigenvalue) in an appropriate function space. Thus, to relate the stability of the atomistic model and that of the QNL-QC, we would like to prove a result of the type $$\label{eq:approx_stab}
c(y) := \inf_{ \substack{u \in \Us \\\|u\|_{\Us^{1,2}} = 1 }} D^2\Phi(y)[u,u]
\approx \inf_{ \substack{u \in \Us \\\|u\|_{\Us^{1,2}} = 1 }} D^2\Phi_\h(y)[u,u]
=: c_\h(y).$$ If the approximate hessian $D^2\Phi_\h$ could be obtained by perturbing the coefficients of $D^2\Phi$ then one could obtain such a result from an error estimate on the hessians, that is, from a bound on $\| D^2\Phi(y) - D^2 \Phi_\h(y) \|_{L(\Us^{1,2},
\Us^{-1,2})}$. However, if we compute the two hessians explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
D^2\Phi(y)[u,u] = \eps\sum_{\xi = 1}^N \phi''(y_\xi')|u_\xi'|^2
~&+~ \eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N \phi''(y_\xi' + y_{\xi+1}') |u_\xi' + u_\xi'|^2,
\quad \text{and} \\
D^2\Phi_\h(y)[u,u] = \eps\sum_{\xi = 1}^N \phi''(y_\xi')|u_\xi'|^2
~&+~ \eps \sum_{\xi \in \As} \phi''(y_\xi' + y_{\xi+1}') |u_\xi' + u_\xi'|^2 \\
&+~ \eps \sum_{\xi \in \Cs} {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} \big\{ \phi''(2y_\xi') |2u_\xi'|^2
+~ \phi''(2y_{\xi+1}') |2u_{\xi+1}'|^2 \big\},\end{aligned}$$ we observe that in the continuum region $D^2\Phi(y)[u,u]$ contains non-zero coefficients for the mixed terms $u_\xi' u_{\xi+1}'$ which are replaced by diagonal terms in the QNL-QC Hessian. This shows that it is impossible to obtain a useful estimate on the difference of the Hessians. Instead, we must aim to prove (\[eq:approx\_stab\]) directly.
The crucial observation which is the basis of the stability analysis in this section is that the non-local hessian terms $|u_\xi' +
u_{\xi+1}'|^2$ can be rewritten in terms of the local quantities $|u_\xi'|^2$ and $|u_{\xi+1}'|^2$ and a strain-gradient correction, $$\label{eq:stab:straingrad}
|u_\xi' + u_{\xi+1}'|^2 = 2 |u_\xi'|^2 + 2 |u_{\xi+1}'|^2
- \eps^2 |u_\xi''|^2.$$ Using this simple formula it is straightforward to rewrite the Hessians in the form $$\label{eq:stab:hessians}
\begin{split}
D^2\Phi(y)[u,u] =~& \eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N A_\xi |u_\xi'|^2 + \eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N \eps^2 B_\xi |u_\xi''|^2, \quad \text{and} \\
D^2\Phi_\h(y)[u,u] =~& \eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N \tilde{A}_\xi |u_\xi'|^2 + \eps \sum_{\xi \in \As} \eps^2 B_\xi |u_\xi''|^2,
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A_\xi =~& \phi''(y_\xi') + 2\phi''(y_{\xi-1}'+y_\xi')
+ 2 \phi''(y_\xi'+y_{\xi+1}'), \\
\tilde{A}_\xi =~& \phi''(y_\xi') + \cases{
2\phi''(y_{\xi-1}'+y_\xi') + 2 \phi''(y_\xi'+y_{\xi+1}'), &
\xi \in \As', \\
2 \phi''(y_{\xi-1}'+y_\xi') + 2 \phi''(2y_\xi'), &
\xi \in \Is_r', \\
2 \phi''(y_{\xi}'+y_{\xi+1}') + 2 \phi''(2y_\xi'), &
\xi \in \Is_\ell', \\
4 \phi''(2y_\xi'), & \xi \in \Cs' \setminus \Is',
} \qquad \text{and} \\
B_\xi =~& - \phi''(y_\xi'+y_{\xi+1}').\end{aligned}$$ The proof of (\[eq:stab:hessians\]) requires purely algebraic manipulations.
We observe that, apart from estimating the effect of replacing $A_\xi$ by $\tilde{A}_\xi$, which is the purpose of the next lemma, our main challenge will be to understand the effect of dropping the strain gradient term in the continuum region.
\[th:error\_A\_lemma\] Let $y \in \Ys$ such that $\min_{\xi \in \Z} y_\xi' > 0$, then $$\|A_\xi - \tilde{A}_\xi\|_{\ell^\infty} \leq
\eps 4 \bar{C}_3 \| y'' \|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)},$$ where $\bar{C}_3 = C_3(2\min_{\xi \in \Cs'} y_\xi')$.
For $\xi \in \As'$, $A_\xi = \tilde{A}_\xi$. For $\xi \in \Cs'
\setminus \Is'$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
A_\xi - \tilde{A}_\xi
=~& 2 (\phi''(y_{\xi-1}'+y_\xi') - \phi''(2y_\xi'))
+ 2 (\phi''(y_{\xi}'+y_{\xi+1}') - \phi''(2y_\xi')) \\
=~& - \eps 2 \phi'''(\vartheta_{1,\xi}) y_{\xi-1}''
+ \eps 2 \phi'''(\vartheta_{2,\xi}) y_\xi'',
\end{aligned}$$ where $\vartheta_{1,\xi} \in \conv\{ y_{\xi-1}'+y_\xi', 2 y_\xi' \}$ and $\vartheta_{2,\xi} \in \conv\{ y_{\xi}'+y_{\xi+1}', 2 y_\xi'
\}$. Hence, we obtain $$|A_\xi - \tilde{A}_\xi| \leq 2 \eps \bar{C}_3 |y_{\xi-1}''| + 2 \eps \bar{C}_3 |y_\xi''| \leq 4 \eps \bar{C}_3 \|y''\|_{\Cs}.$$ Performing a similar calculation for the interfaces, and sacrificing a factor two there, we obtain the stated result.
If $\phi \in \CC^4((0, +\infty])$ then the result of Lemma \[th:error\_A\_lemma\] can be improved. Using similar calculations as in the proof of Proposition \[th:consistency\], one obtains $$\| A_\xi - \tilde{A}_\xi \|_{\ell^\infty} \leq \max\big(
\eps 2 \bar{C}_3 \|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Is)},
\eps^2 \bar{C}_4 (\|y'''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs')} +\|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)}^2)
\big).$$ Even though this result is clearly sharper than Lemma \[th:error\_A\_lemma\], it carries only limited practical value due to the fact that the maximum in $\|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)}$ will typically be attained at the interface.
Before formulating the first stability result, we briefly discuss the nature of the coefficients $B_\xi$. In view of the discussion in Section \[sec:bound\_nnn\] we have assumed throughout that $y_\xi' \geq r_*/2$ for all $\xi \in \Z$ and consequently, $\phi''(y_\xi' + y_{\xi+1}') \leq 0$ for all $\xi$, that is, we obtain the following result.
If $y_\xi' \geq r_*/2$ for all $\xi \in \Z$, then $$\label{eq:sign_Bxi}
B_\xi \geq 0 \qquad \forall \xi \in \Z.$$
An illustrative example {#sec:stab_ex}
-----------------------
Before we turn to the stability estimates, we briefly discuss an example that further stresses the difference between atomistic and QC hessians. We consider the case $y = Fx$ and $\As = \emptyset$, that is, the QNL-QC method reduces to the local QC (or simply, Cauchy–Born) method. In that case, we have $$D^2\Phi(Fx)[u,u] = A \| u' \|_{\ell^2_\eps}^2 + \eps^2 B \|u''\|_{\ell^2_\eps}
\quad \text{and} \quad D^2 \Phi_\h(Fx)[u,u] = A \|u'\|_{\ell^2_\eps}^2,$$ where $A = \phi''(F) + 4 \phi''(2F)$ and $B = - \phi''(2F)$.
In this case, the $\Us^{1,2}$-spectrum of $D^2\Phi_\h(Fx)$ contains only the eigenvalue $A$ and every vector $u \in \Us$ is an eigenvector. On the other hand, the $\Us^{1,2}$-spectrum of $D^2\Phi(Fx)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\Us^{1,2}}(D^2\Phi(Fx)) = \big\{ A + B \mu_j :
j = 1, \dots, N-1 \big\},
\quad \text{where } \mu_j = 4 \sin^2\big( {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} j \pi \eps \big);\end{aligned}$$ see [@Dobson:qce.stab Sec. 3.1] and [@Dobson:qcf.iter Lemma 1] for similar analyses.
Thus, we see that the eigenvalues of the low eigenmodes are well approximated by the local QC stability constant $A$, and in particular, $$c(Fx) = A + 4 B \sin^2(\pi \eps) = A + O(\eps^2) = c_\h(Fx) + O(\eps^2).$$ On the other hand, the eigenvalues corresponding to the high frequency modes are significantly larger, in other words, high frequency perturbations are considerably more expensive in the atomistic model than in the continuum model. This discrepancy is not too surprising since the basic assumption of the Cauchy–Born model is the absence of high-frequence modes in the deformation.
An a priori stability result {#sec:stab_apriori}
----------------------------
A common approach to establish the stability of a QC method is to assume that next-nearest neighbour interactions are dominated by nearest-neighbour interactions [@Dobson:2008a; @LinP:2006a; @emingyang; @Ortner:2008a]. This leads to particularly simple results that can even be made fairly sharp as the numerical experiments in [@Ortner:2008a] demonstrate. If one wishes to include more than the simplest examples in such stability results, then one should specify classes of atomistic solutions that are of interest and prove, for each such class, that the QC hessian is stable when evaluated at those deformations. In [@Ortner:2008a], two main types of stable solutions were identified for a variant of the model problem : (i) elastic deformations and (ii) deformations with a single crack. Here we will focus only on elastic solutions only, for which we obtain the following result.
\[th:simple\_stab\_el\] Let $y \in \Ys$, such that $y_\xi' \geq r_*/2$ for all $\xi \in \Z$, then $$\label{eq:simple_stab_el}
c(y) \geq \min_{\xi = 1, \dots, N} A_\xi,
\quad \text{and} \quad
c_\h(y) \geq \min_{\xi = 1, \dots, N} \tilde{A}_\xi,$$ where $c(y), c_\h(y)$ are defined in and $A_\xi, \tilde{A}_\xi$ are defined in .
Both bounds in follow immediately from and from the fact that $B_\xi \geq 0$ for all $\xi \in \Z$.
Proposition \[th:simple\_stab\_el\] provides a particularly simple example of atomistic configurations for which the QNL-QC method is stable. Due to the representation of next-nearest neighbour interactions developed in Section \[sec:stab\], these results are in fact significantly sharper than those found in [@Dobson:2008a; @emingyang; @Ortner:2008a], and will be sufficient whenever elastic effects dominate. Since there is no regularity assumption on $y$, simple singularities are included as well.
It must be said at this point that the stated goal, namely a proof of $c(y) \approx c_\h(y)$, or at least $c_\h(y) \gtrsim c(y)$, up to a controllable error, has not been obtained here (however, a reverse inequality will be established in the next section). It can be easily seen that such a result would be related to the regularity of eigenfunctions in the continuum region. Namely, let $\bar u$ be an eigenfunction for $D^2 \Phi_\h(y)$, associated with the eigenvalue $c_\h(y)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
c(y) =~& \min_{\|u'\|_{\ell^2_\eps} = 1} D^2 \Phi(y)[u,u] \\
\leq~& D^2\Phi(y)[\bar u, \bar u] \\
\leq~& c_\h(y)
+ \big| D^2\Phi(y)[\bar u, \bar u]
- D^2\Phi_\h(y)[\bar u, \bar u] \big|.
\end{aligned}$$ Using and Lemma \[th:error\_A\_lemma\], we obtain the estimate $$\big| D^2\Phi(y)[\bar u, \bar u]
- D^2\Phi_\h(y)[\bar u, \bar u] \big| \leq 4 \bar{C}_3 \eps \|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)} + \eps^3 \sum_{\xi \in \Cs} B_\xi |\bar u_\xi''|^2.$$ Thus, if one could establish an $O(1)$ bound on $\|\bar{u}''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Cs)}$, for example in terms of the smoothness of $y$ in the continuum region, then one would obtain $$c_\h(y) \geq c(y) - O(\eps).$$ However, such a bound is far from trivial to obtain, even in one dimension.
A posteriori stability {#sec:stab_apost}
----------------------
If we assume that $y = y_\h$ is a local minimizer of the QNL-QC approximation, then we can check the condition whether $D^2\Phi_\h(y_\h) > 0$ [*a posteriori*]{} by solving a (generalized) eigenvalue problem. The question we then ought to ask is whether this stability carries over to the full atomistic model, that is, whether also $D^2\Phi(y_\h) > 0$. If this were not the case then it cannot be guaranteed that a local minimizer in the QNL-QC model corresponds to a local minimizer in the atomistic model. However, for our model problem the answer is surprisingly simple and is given in the following result.
\[th:apost\_stab\] Let $y \in \Ys$ such that $\min_{\xi \in \Z} y_\xi' > 0$, and such that $$\phi''(y_\xi'+y_{\xi+1}') \leq 0 \qquad \forall \xi \in \Cs,$$ then $$c(y) \geq c_\h(y) - \eps 4 \bar{C}_3 \|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)},$$ where $\bar{C}_3 = C_3(2\min_{\xi \in \Cs'} y_\xi')$.
From Lemma \[th:error\_A\_lemma\] and the assumption that $\phi''(y_\xi'+y_{\xi+1}') \leq 0$, or equivalently, $B_\xi \geq 0$ for all $\xi \in \Cs$ we have, for all $u \in \Us$, $$\Phi''(y)[u,u] \geq \Phi_\h''(y)[u,u]
- \eps 4 \bar{C}_3 \|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)} \|u'\|_{\ell^2_\eps}.$$ The stated result follows by taking the infimum over $u \in \Us$ with $\|u\|_{\Us^{1,2}} = 1$.
The analysis in [@Hudson:stab] shows that Theorem \[th:apost\_stab\] is false in higher dimenions. Namely, it is possible that a QC model (for example, a pure Cauchy–Born model) is stable at a uniform deformation $Fx$ while the atomistic model is unstable. Thus, at the very least, one needs to add an additional assumption that the deformation gradients in the continuum region belong to an atomistic stability regime.
A remark on defects
-------------------
Suppose now that a deformation $y \in \Ys$ has a single ‘crack’, that is, there exists a single index $\hat{\xi}$ such that $y_{\hat{\xi}}'
= O(N)$. Assume, for example, that $F > 0$ and that $\hat y \in \Ys$ is given by $$\label{eq:yhat_crack}
\hat y_\xi' = \cases{1, & \text{if } \xi \neq \hat\xi \\
F + (N-1)(F-1), & \text{otherwise}.
}$$ If $N$ is sufficiently large, then $A_{\hat \xi} \leq 0$ and hence Proposition gives no useful information. This is no accident as the following result demonstrates.
\[th:simple\_stab\_cr\] Suppose that there exists a cut-off radius $r_c > r_*$ such that $\phi = 0$ in $[r_c, +\infty)$. Let $\hat{y} \in \Ys$ be defined by (\[eq:yhat\_crack\]), then $$\label{eq:simple_stab_cr}
c(\hat y) \leq \hat{A} \eps
\quad \text{and} \quad
c_\h(\hat y) \leq \hat{A} \eps,
\quad \text{where} \quad
\hat{A} = \phi''(1) + 4 \phi''(2).$$
There exists a unique test function $\hat{u} \in \Us$ such that $$\hat{u}_\xi' = \cases{
(N-1)^{1/2}, & \xi = \hat{\xi}, \\
- (N-1)^{-1/2}, & \xi \neq \hat{\xi}, }$$ and we note that $\|\hat{u}_\xi'\|_{\ell^2_\eps} = 1$.
Next, we observe that $\hat{u}_\xi'' = 0$ for all $\xi$ except for $\xi = \hat{\xi},\hat{\xi}-1$. However, since $\phi = 0$ in $[r_c,
+\infty)$, it follows that $B_{\hat{\xi}-1} = B_{\hat{\xi}} = 0$ for $N$ sufficiently large, and hence we can simply ignore the strain gradient term. Thus, testing $D^2\Phi(\hat{y})$ with $\hat{u}$, we obtain $$D^2\Phi(\hat{y})[\hat{u},\hat{u}] =
\eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N A_\xi (N-1)^{-1}.$$
Setting $\hat{A} = \phi''(1) + 4 \phi''(2)$, we have $A_\xi =
\hat{A}$ for all $\xi$ except $\xi = \hat{\xi}-1, \hat{\xi},
\hat{\xi}+1$. For $\xi = \hat\xi$, we have $A_{\hat{\xi}} \leq 0$ provided that $N$ is sufficiently large, while, for $\xi = \hat{\xi}
\pm 1$, it follows from the concavity of $\phi$ in $(r_*, +\infty)$ that $A_\xi \leq \hat{A}$. Hence, we obtain $$D^2\Phi(\hat{y})[\hat{u},\hat{u}] =
\eps \sum_{\xi = 1}^N A_\xi (N-1)^{-1} \leq \eps \hat{A}.$$
Since $c(\hat{y}) \geq c_\h(\hat{y})$ for this example, the same result also holds for the QC stability constant.
Since deformations with cracks or other defects can surely be stable equilibria, this result only shows that they cannot be analyzed in the $\Us^{1,2}$ space. Different topologies must be chosen to analyze the stability of defects. The analysis in [@Ortner:2008a] suggests that the correct norm for a 1D example with a single crack might be $$\| u \|_{\Us^{1,2}_{\hat{\xi}}} := \Big( \eps \sum_{\xi \neq \hat{\xi}}
|u_\xi'|^2 \Big)^{1/2},$$ however, we will not pursue this direction further in the present work. We note, however, that changing the norm inside the atomistic region does not change the residual estimate. To this this, one verifies that, in the last line of the proof of Theorem \[th:consistency\], the term $\|u'\|_{\ell^{p'}_\eps}$ may be replaced by $\|u'\|_{\ell^{p'}_\eps(\Cs')}$.
Existence and Convergence {#sec:existence}
=========================
In this section, we will combine the consistency and stability analysis of Sections \[sec:consistency\] and \[sec:stability\] to prove [*a priori*]{} and [*a posteriori*]{} existence results and error estimates.
An a priori existence result for elastic deformations {#sec:exapriori}
-----------------------------------------------------
In this section, we extend the main results in [@Dobson:2008b; @emingyang] to the context of large deformations and solutions that are possibly non-smooth in the atomistic region.
We begin by assuming the existence of a strongly stable equilibrium $y$ of the full atomistic model. If we assume that this deformation is “sufficiently smooth” in the continuum region then Theorem \[th:consistency\] shows that the truncation error is small, and hence $y$ can be considered an approximate solution of the QNL-QC equilibrium equations (\[eq:crit\_qc\]). If $y$ is also stable in the QNL-QC model, then we can employ the inverse function theorem, Lemma \[th:inverse\_fcn\_thm\], to prove the existence of an exact solution $y_\h$ of the QNL-QC equilibrium equations in a small neighbourhood of $y$. This idea is made rigorous in the following result, which is best read as follows:
[*“If $y$ is a strongly stable local minimizer of $\Phi^\tot$, which is smooth in the continuum region, then there exists a solution $y_\h$ of the QNL-QC method, which is a good approximation to $y$.”*]{}
\[th:exapriori\] Let $y \in \argmin\,\Phi^\tot$, and assume that $y_\xi' \geq r_*/2$, and that $$\label{eq:exapriori:stabass}
\min_{\xi = 1, \dots, N} A_\xi =: \underline{A} > 0.$$ Then there exist constants $\delta_1, \delta_2$ that depend only on $\min_\xi y_\xi'$ and on $\underline{A}$, such that, if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{th:exapriori_c1}
\eps \|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)} \leq~& \delta_1, \qquad \text{and} \\
\label{th:exapriori_c2}
\eps^{1/2} \|y''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Is)}
+ \eps^{3/2} \big(\|y'''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Cs' \setminus \Is')}
+ \|y''\|_{\ell^4_\eps(\Cs)}^2\big)
\leq~& \delta_2,
\end{aligned}$$ then there exists a (locally unique) local minimizer $y_\h$ of $\Phi_\h^\tot$ in $\Ys$ such that $$\| (y - y_\h)' \|_{\ell^2_\eps} \leq {{\textstyle \frac{4}{\underline{A}}}} \big\{
\eps \bar{C}_2 \|y''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Is)} + \eps^2 \bar{C}_3 \big(
\|y'''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Cs' \setminus \Is')} +
\|y''\|_{\ell^{4}_\eps(\Cs)}^2 \big) \big\}.$$ where $\bar{C}_i = C_i(2\min_{\xi \in \Cs'} y_\xi')$, $i = 2, 3$.
To put the statement into the context of Lemma \[th:inverse\_fcn\_thm\] we define $X = \Us^{1,2}$, $Y =
\Us^{-1,2}$, $\Fs(w) = D\Phi_\h^\tot(y+w)$, and $x_0 = 0$. The set $A$ is given by $$A = \{ w \in \Us : y_\xi' + w_\xi' > 0, \xi \in \Z\}.$$ Since $\phi \in \CC^3((0, +\infty])$, it is clear that $\Fs$ is continuously (Fréchet) differentiable, with $D\Fs(0) = D^2
\Phi_\h(y)$.
[*1. Consistency:* ]{} From Theorem \[th:consistency\] we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\| \Fs(0) \|_{Y} =~& \| D\Phi_\h^\tot(y) \|_{\Us^{-1,2}}
= \| D\Phi_\h(y) - D\Phi(y) \|_{\Us^{-1,2}} \leq \eta,
\qquad \text{where} \\
&~\eta = \eps \bar{C}_2 \|y''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Is)} + \eps^2 \bar{C}_3
\big( \|y'''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Cs' \setminus \Is')} +
\|y''\|_{\ell^{4}_\eps(\Cs)}^2 \big).
\end{aligned}$$
[*2. Stability:* ]{} The assumption that $y_\xi' \geq r_*/2$ implies that $B_\xi \geq 0$ for all $\xi$. Using this fact, the “elasticity assumption” (\[eq:exapriori:stabass\]), as well as Lemma \[th:error\_A\_lemma\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
D^2\Phi_\h(y)[u,u] \geq~& \eps\sum_{\xi = 1}^N \tilde{A}_\xi |u_\xi'|^2 \\
\geq~& \eps\sum_{\xi = 1}^N A_\xi |u_\xi'|^2 - \eps 4 \bar{C}_3
\|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)} \|u'\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Cs)}^2 \\
\geq~& \big(\underline{A} - \eps 4 \bar{C}_3
\|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)}\big) \|u'\|_{\ell^2_\eps}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we obtain $$c_\h(y) \geq \underline{A} - \eps 4 \bar{C}_3
\|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)},$$ and consequently, if $\underline{A} - \eps 4 \bar{C}_3
\|u''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)} > 0$, then $$\| D\Fs(0)^{-1} \|_{L(\Us^{-1,2}, \Us^{1,2})} \leq
\big( \underline{A} - \eps 4 \bar{C}_3 \|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)}
\big)^{-1}.$$ Setting $\delta_1 = \underline{A} / (8 \bar{C}_3)$, becomes $$\label{eq:exapost_bd0}
\eps 4 \bar{C}_3 \|y''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)} \leq {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} \underline{A},$$ and hence we obtain that $$\| D\Fs(0)^{-1} \|_{L(\Us^{-1,2}, \Us^{1,2})} \leq
\sigma := 2/\underline{A}.$$
[*3. Lipshitz bound:* ]{} Next, we compute a Lipschitz bound for $D\Fs = D^2\Phi_\h$. To this end, we first need to establish a lower bound on $y_\xi' + w_\xi'$ for all $w$ satisfying $\|w'\|_{\ell^2_\eps} \leq 2\eta\sigma$. Since the $\Us^{1,2}$-topology cannot provide this bound directly, we need to resort to an inverse inequality: for all $w \in \Us$ such that $\|w\|_{\Us^{1,2}} \leq 2 \eta \sigma$, we have $$\label{eq:inverse1}
\|w'\|_{\ell^\infty} \leq \eps^{-1/2} \|w'\|_{\ell^2_\eps}
\leq M_1' \big( \eps^{1/2} \|y''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Is)}
+ \eps^{3/2} (\|y'''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Cs' \setminus \Is')}
+ \|y''\|_{\ell^4_\eps(\Cs)}^2) \big),$$ where $M_1'$ is a constant that depends only on $\underline{A}$ and on $\bar{C}_2, \bar{C}_3$. Hence, if $$\label{eq:exapriori:bd1}
\eps^{1/2} \|y''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Is)}
+ \eps^{3/2} (\|y'''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Cs' \setminus \Is')}
+ \|y''\|_{\ell^4_\eps(\Cs)}^2)
\leq {{\textstyle \frac{\delta}{M_1'}}} \min_\xi y_\xi',$$ then the desired bound $$y_\xi' + w_\xi' \geq \delta y_\xi'$$ holds.
It is now a simple exercise to show that, for any two displacements $w_1, w_2 \in \Us$, such that $\|w_i\|_{\Us^{1,2}} \leq 2
\eta\sigma$, we have the Lipschitz bound $$\big|D^2\Phi_\h(y+w_1)[u,v] - D^2\Phi_\h(y+w_2)[u,v]\big|
\leq L' \| (w_1 - w_2)' \|_{\ell^\infty} \|u'\|_{\ell^2_\eps} \|v'\|_{\ell^2_\eps}
\quad \forall u, v \in \Us,$$ where $L'$ is a constant that depends only $C_3(\delta \min_\xi
y_\xi')$. Applying the same inverse inequality as in (\[eq:inverse1\]) we obtain that, $$\| D\Fs(w_1) - D\Fs(w_2) \|_{L(\Us^{1,2}, \Us^{-1,2})}
\leq \eps^{-1/2} L' \| w_1 - w_2 \|_{\Us^{1,2}}.$$ We set $L = \eps^{-1/2} L'$. (At this point we could choose $\delta$ in order to optimize the size of $L$ against the requirement (\[eq:exapriori:bd1\]). Since we are only interested in a qualitative result, we will ignore this possibility.)
[*4. Conclusion:* ]{} To conclude the proof, we only need to check the condition under which $2 L \sigma^{2} \eta < 1$. Inserting the bounds for the various terms, assuming that (\[eq:exapriori:bd1\]) and (\[eq:exapost\_bd0\]) hold, we obtain that $$2 L \sigma^{2} \eta \leq M_2' \big\{ \eps^{1/2} \|y''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Is)}
+ \eps^{3/2} \big(\|y'''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Cs' \setminus \Is')}
+ \|y''\|_{\ell^4_\eps(\Cs)}^2\big) \big\}$$ where $M_2'$ depends only on $\underline{A}$, on $\bar{C}_2,
\bar{C}_3$, and on $L'$.
Hence, we conclude that, if (\[th:exapriori\_c1\]) and hold with $$\delta_1 = \underline{A} / (8 \bar{C}_3) \quad \text{and} \quad
\delta_2 = \min\big\{ {{\textstyle \frac{\delta}{M_1'}}} \min_\xi y_\xi',
1 / M_2' \big\},$$ then there exists $w_\h \in \Us$ such that $F(w_\h) = 0$, or equivalently $D\Phi_\h^\tot(y+w_\h) = 0$, and $$\| w_\h \|_{\Us^{1,2}} \leq 2 \eta \sigma \leq {{\textstyle \frac{4}{\underline{A}}}} \eta.$$ Taking into account the bound for $\eta$ from step 1, we obtain the stated error estimate.
Local minimality of $y_\h = y + w_\h$ follows from which implies that $$c_\h(y) \geq {{\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}} \underline{A},$$ and the local Lipschitz bound, which guarantees $$c_\h(y_\h) \geq c_\h(y) - L (2\eta\sigma)
> c_\h(y) - {{\textstyle \frac{1}{\sigma}}}
= 0.$$ Thus $D^2\Phi_\h(y_\h)$ is positive definite and therefore $y_\h$ is a local minimizer.
\[rem:apriori\] As indicated above, Theorem \[th:exapriori\_c1\] is a variation or generalization of [@Dobson:2008b Thm. 4.1] and [@emingyang Thm. 5.13], and hence we should briefly discuss the differences between these results.
Theorem 4.1 in [@Dobson:2008b] treats a linearized case, but is otherwise fairly sharp. For example, the stability condition derived in [@Dobson:2008b Lemma 2.3] was later shown to be exact [@Dobson:qce.stab]. The convergence rate in terms of the atomic spaces $\eps$ (or $h$ in [@Dobson:2008b]) is optimal, however, the dependence of the error on the smoothness of the exact solution is much stronger than in Theorem \[th:exapriori\_c1\]. This is a consequence of deriving the trunction error estimate in an $\ell^p$-type norm, and comparing the QC solution with a continuum solution instead of the exact atomistic solution.
Although a very different terminology is used, some aspects of the proof of [@emingyang Thm. 5.13] are quite similar to the analysis presented here. However, in [@emingyang] the consistency analysis is based on a higher order expansion of the atomistic solution in terms of the Cauchy–Born model. As a result, the analysis proves the existence of atomistic and QC solutions only for “sufficiently small and sufficiently smooth” applied forces, in a small neighbourhood of the reference state $Fx$. Moreover, the use of a different norm for measuring the truncation error [@emingyang Eq. (5.27)] leads to error estimates that are optimal in $\eps$ only in the $\Us^{1,\infty}$-norm, and it is unclear from the presentation how the error depends on the smoothness of the atomistic solution.
The work in [@emingyang] is more general than the present paper in that it analyzes the more general [*geometrically consistent QC scheme*]{} proposed in [@E:2006].
An a posteriori existence result {#sec:exapost}
--------------------------------
Theorem \[th:exapriori\] is an [*a priori*]{} result, that is, it guarantees the existence and accuracy of a QNL-QC solution under certain assumption on a given atomistic solution. Results of this type can guarantee that certain classes of atomistic solutions can be reliably approximated by the QNL-QC method. In practise, however, an [*a posteriori*]{} result of the same type may be even more interesting. Given a computed QNL-QC solution $y_\h$, we may ask whether an (exact) atomistic solution $y$ exists that $y_\h$ is an approximation to. Questions of this kind are investigated in the literature on [*numerical enclosure methods*]{} (see [@Plum:2001a] for a recent review, or [@ortner_apostex] where this concept is called [*a posteriori existence*]{}) and leads to the following result, which is best read as follows:
[*“If $y_\h$ is a strongly stable QNL-QC solution, which is smooth in the continuum region, then there exists an exact solution $y$ of the full atomistic model, for which $y_\h$ is a good approximation.”*]{}
\[th:exapost\] Let $y_\h \in \argmin \Phi_\h^\tot$, such that $c_\h(y_\h) > 0$ and $$\phi''\big( (y_\h)_\xi' + (y_\h)_{\xi+1}' \big) \leq 0
\qquad \forall \xi \in \Cs.$$ Then there exist constants $\delta_1, \delta_2$ that depend only on $\min_\xi (y_\h)_\xi'$ and on $c_\h(y_\h)$ such that, if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{th:exapost_c1}
\eps \|y_\h''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)} \leq~& \delta_1, \qquad \text{and} \\
\label{th:exapost_c2}
\eps^{1/2} \|y_\h''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Is)}
+ \eps^{3/2} \big(\|y_\h'''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Cs' \setminus \Is')}
+ \|y_\h''\|_{\ell^4_\eps(\Cs)}^2\big)
\leq~& \delta_2,
\end{aligned}$$ then there exists a strongly stable local minimizer $y$ of $\Phi^\tot$ in $\Ys$ such that $$\big\| (y_\h - y)' \big\|_{\ell^2_\eps} \leq
2 \frac{\eps \bar{C}_2 \|y_\h''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Is)} + \eps^2 \bar{C}_3
\big( \|y_\h'''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Cs' \setminus \Is')}
+ \|y_\h''\|_{\ell^{4}_\eps(\Cs)}^2 \big)}{c_\h(y_\h) - \eps 4 \bar{C}_3 \|y_h''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)}}.$$ where $\bar{C}_i = C_i(2\min_{\xi \in \Cs'} (y_\h)_\xi')$, $i = 2, 3$.
The proof follows along very similar lines as the proof of Theorem \[th:exapriori\], and we will therefore only focus on those parts of the argument that change.
To put the statement into the context of Lemma \[th:inverse\_fcn\_thm\], we define $X = \Us^{1,2}, Y = \Us^{-1,2}$, $\Fs(w) = D\Phi^\tot(y_\h + w)$, and $x_0 = 0$. The set $A$ is again given by $$A = \big\{ w \in \Us : (y_\h)_\xi' + w_\xi' > 0, \xi \in \Z \big\}.$$ Since $\phi \in \CC^3(0, +\infty)$, it follows that $\Fs$ is continuously Fréchet differentiable, with $D\Fs(0) =
D^2\Phi(y_\h)$.
[*1. Consistency:* ]{} From Theorem \[th:consistency\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\| \Fs(0) \|_Y =~& \|D\Phi^\tot(y_\h)\|_{\Us^{-1,2}}
= \| D\Phi(y_\h) - D\Phi_\h(y_\h) \|_{\Us^{-1,2}} \leq \eta,
\quad \text{where} \\
&~ \eta = \eps \bar{C}_2 \|y_\h''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Is)} + \eps^2 \bar{C}_3
\big( \|y_\h'''\|_{\ell^2_\eps(\Cs' \setminus \Is')} +
\|y_\h''\|_{\ell^{4}_\eps(\Cs)}^2 \big).
\end{aligned}$$
[*2. Stability:* ]{} Using Theorem \[th:apost\_stab\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
c(y_\h) \geq c_\h(y_\h) - \eps 4 \bar{C}_3 \|y_\h''\|_{\ell^\infty(\Cs)}
=: 1/\sigma,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{C}_3 = C_3(2\min_{\xi \in \Cs'} (y_\h)_\xi')$. Hence, if we require that (\[th:exapost\_c1\]) holds with $\delta_1 =
c_\h(y_\h) / (8 \bar{C}_3)$, then we obtain $$\| D\Fs(0)^{-1} \|_{L(\Us^{-1,2}, \Us^{1,2})} \leq 1/ c(y_\h) \leq \sigma
\leq 2 / c_\h(y_\h).$$
[*3. Lipschitz bound:* ]{} The proof of a Lipschitz bound for $D\Fs$ is a verbatim repetition of step 3 in the proof of Theorem \[th:exapriori\]. For some fixed $0 < \delta < 1$, we obtain that, if $\|w_i'\|_{\ell^2_\eps} \leq 2 \eta \sigma$, $i = 1,2$, then $$\|D\Fs(w_1) - D\Fs(w_2)\|_{L(\Us^{1,2}, \Us^{-1,2})} \leq
\eps^{-1/2} L' \| w_1 - w_2 \|_{\Us^{1,2}},$$ where $L'$ depends only on $C_3(\delta \min_\xi (y_\h)_\xi')$. The actual Lipschitz constant is again set to $L = \eps^{-1/2} L'$.
[*4. Conclusion:* ]{} The conclusion of the proof follows precisely step 4 in the proof of Theorem \[th:exapriori\]. The different constant in the error estimate is due to the sharper definition of $\sigma$.
\[rem:aposteriori\] Theorem \[th:exapost\] is the first rigorous [*a posteriori*]{} error estimate of this type for the QNL-QC method. However, the basic idea behind the result, that is, to use [*a posteriori*]{} information about the approximate solution to deduce the existence of an exact solution, is not new. A similar approach to the one used in the proof of Theorem \[th:exapost\] can be found in the work of Plum [@Plum:2001a] on numerical enclosure methods for semilinear differential equations. A detailed analysis of these ideas, in the context of [*a posteriori*]{} error control for finite element methods was given in [@ortner_apostex]. The first application of this idea in an analysis of a QC method was presented in [@Ortner:2008a Thm. 5.1]. The latter result differs from Theorem \[th:exapost\] not only in the type of QC method analyzed, but also in the choice $\Us^{1,\infty}$ for the function space setting. While that choice gives uniform neighbourhoods and thus asymptotically sharper existence conditions, a sharp stability result such as Theorem \[th:apost\_stab\] would be difficult to prove. Moreover, a generalization of [@Ortner:2008a Thm. 5.1] to higher dimensions seems virtually impossible.
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
In order to outline a new framework for the analysis of QC methods, we have chosen a particularly simple setting, admitting only second-neighbour pair interactions, and disregarding finite element coarse graining of the continuum region. Extensions of this work to more complex interaction models and to coarse-grained models are in progress [@OrtnerWang:2009a; @XHLi:3n]. The most interesting extension, however, will be to the application-relevant two- and three-dimensional setting. While great care was taken in this paper that a clear path for such a generalization is available, many interesting questions will need to be carefully considered in order to establish the consistency and (linear) stability of the QC method. Even the relatively basic question of consistency is still open for a general finite range interaction model, however, the work in [@E:2006] provides a promising starting point. No results on the stability of the QC method in 2D/3D can be found in the literature at present.
[^1]: This work was supported by the EPSRC Critical Mass Programme “New Frontiers in the Mathematics of Solids”.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Schwope et al (1997) suggested that the newly discovered Polar RX J2115-5840 is a near-synchronous system. We have obtained circular polarisation observations of RX J2115-5840 which show that the spin and orbital periods differ by 1.2%. We find the first direct evidence of ‘pole-switching’ in a near-synchronous Polar. Further our data requires that the accretion flow must be directed onto the same magnetic field line at all spin-orbit beat phases implying that at some phases the flow must follow a path around the white dwarf before accreting.'
author:
- 'Gavin Ramsay,$^{1}$ David Buckley,$^{2}$ Mark Cropper,$^{1}$ M. Kate Harrop-Allin$^{1}$'
title: 'RX J2115-5840: confirmation of a new near-synchronous Polar'
---
Introduction
============
RX J2115-5840 (EUVE 2116–58.6) was discovered during the [*ROSAT*]{} (Voges et al 1996) and [*EUVE*]{} (Bowyer et al 1996) all sky surveys. Subsequent ground based observations confirmed the source as a Polar. Schwope et al (1997) suggested that the orbital and spin periods of RX J2115-5840 differ by $\sim$1%. This would make it the fourth near synchronous Polar and the first one below the 2–3 hr period gap. We obtained 2 weeks of white light polarimetric observations in July-Aug 1997 at SAAO to investigate this possibility.
Results
=======
The circular polarisation data are shown in Fig. \[cpol\]: the circular polarisation is generally either close to zero or shows positive excursions. However, there are occasions when negative polarisation is seen (HJD 2450000+ 659, 666 and 672). These observations suggests that RX J2115–58 is not fully synchronised.
(6,8) (-3,-2.)
To investigate the circular polarisation data more closely, we used a Discrete Fourier Transform to obtain an amplitude spectrum (Fig \[power\]). The highest amplitude peak corresponds to a period of 110.889 mins – similar to the spectroscopic period of 110.8 mins reported by Vennes et al (1996). The second highest peak corresponds to a period of 109.547 mins – similar to the shorter of the two possible optical photometric periods, 109.84 and 109.65 mins, reported by Schwope et al (1997). If we assume that the binary orbital period is $\Omega$=110.889 min and the spin period of the white dwarf is $\omega$=109.547 min we find the following more complex frequencies in the amplitude spectrum: 3$\Omega$, 2$\omega$, 3$\omega$, $\omega\pm\Omega$, 2$\omega+\Omega$, 4$\Omega$–3$\omega$. Any other frequencies which are present have amplitudes lower than 1%. The spin-orbit beat frequency corresponds to a period of 7.1 days.
(8,7) (-4,-28.5)
The spin-orbital beat period
============================
To make a more detailed investigation of these data we folded the circular polarimetry on the proposed spin and orbital periods and the spin-orbital beat period (the left hand panel of Fig \[beat\_phase\]). Folding the data which correspond to a discrete beat phase on the proposed spin period of the white dwarf, we find that the polarisation curve shows a negative excursion lasting approximately half the spin cycle. At other spin phases the polarisation is close to zero (the right hand panel of Fig \[beat\_phase\]). At $\phi_{(\omega-\Omega)}$=0.20 the polarisation is not significantly modulated. At other beat phases a prominent positive hump is seen in the folded spin polarisation curves, the peak of which advances in phase as $\phi_{(\omega-\Omega)}$ increases.
(8,7) (-3.5,-29.5)
Pole-Switching
==============
In fully synchronous Polars, the accretion flow is locked with respect to the binary orbital rotation frame and the bulk of the accretion flow is thought to be directed onto the geometrically preferred magnetic pole of the white dwarf. However, in the case of near-synchronous Polars, the accretion flow rotates around the magnetic field of the white dwarf on the spin-orbit beat period. This has the effect that the accretion flow will be directed preferentially onto first one then the other magnetic pole of the white dwarf. At two phases of the spin-orbit beat period we expect that the flow will be equally directed onto both poles. This ‘pole-switch’ will manifest itself most obviously in the circular polarisation curves where the polarisation will change sign after the accretion flow has ‘switched’ poles. This is seen in the right hand panel of Fig \[beat\_phase\] where at $\phi_{(\omega-\Omega)}\sim$0.00 the polarisation is modulated with a positive hump, but at $\phi_{(\omega-\Omega)}\sim$0.07 and 0.17 it is modulated with a negative hump.
(8,4) (-2,8.5)
We consider two accretion scenarios which are described in Fig \[scenario\]. The phasing of the data on the spin, orbital and beat phases requires that the accretion flow must be directed onto the same magnetic field line at all spin-orbit beat phases implying that at some phases the flow must follow a path around the white dwarf before accreting. This is difficult to reconcile with simple views of how the accretion stream attaches onto the magnetic field of the white dwarf. Possible reasons for this are described in a more detailed paper that has been submitted to [*MNRAS*]{}.
Bowyer, S., et al, 1996, ApJS, 102, 129 Schwope, A. D., et al, 1997, AA, 326, 195 Vennes, S., et al, 1996, AJ, 112, 2254 Voges, W., et al, 1996, IAUC 6420
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Hawking emissivities for the scalar-, vector-, and tensor-mode bulk gravitons are computed in the full range of the graviton’s energy by adopting the analytic continuation numerically when the spacetime background is $(4+n)$-dimensional non-rotating black hole. The total emissivity for the gravitons is only $5.16\%$ of that for the spin-$0$ field when there is no extra dimension. However, this ratio factor increases rapidly when the extra dimensions exist. For example, this factor becomes $147.7\%$, $595.2\%$ and $3496\%$ when the number of extra dimensions is $1$, $2$ and $6$, respectively. This fact indicates that the Hawking radiation for the graviton modes becomes more and more significant and dominant with increasing the number of extra dimensions.'
address: 'Department of Physics, Kyungnam University, Masan, 631-701, Korea.'
author:
- 'D. K. Park[^1]'
title: 'Emissivities for the various Graviton Modes in the Background of the Higher-Dimensional Black Hole'
---
Recent quantum gravity such as string theories[@polchin98] or brane-world scenario[@bwsc1] generally requires the extra dimensions to reconcile general relativity with quantum physics. Especially the modern brane-world scenarios predict the emergence of the TeV-scale gravity, which opens the possibility to make tiny black holes by high-energy scattering in the future colliders[@hec1]. In this reason much attention is paid recently to the effect of the extra dimensions in the black hole physics.
The absorption problem and Hawking radiation for the spin $0$, $1/2$ and $1$ particles in the background of the $(4+n)$-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole were explored in Ref.[@kanti1]. The numerical calculation supports the fact that the black holes radiate mainly on the brane. In fact this was pointed out by Emparan, Horowitz and Myers(EHM) in Ref.[@emp00] by making use of the higher-dimensional black body radiation. This claim was also supported in the background of the higher-dimensional charged black hole[@jung05-1].
More recently, this issue was re-examined when the situation is different. If, for example, black hole has a rotation, there is an important factor we should consider carefully called superradiance[@superr1]. The superradiance in the background of the higher-dimensional black hole was examined for the bulk fields[@frol1] and brane fields[@ida02]. However, numerical calculation has shown that in spite of the consideration of the superradiance EHM claim still holds due to the incrediably large difference in the energy amplification for the brane field and bulk field[@jung05-3].
There is an another factor we have not considered thoroughly. This is an Hawking radiation for the higher-spin particles like graviton. Since the graviton is not generally localized on the brane unlike the usual standard model particles, the argument of EHM should be carefully re-checked in the graviton emission. Generalizing the Regge-Wheeler method[@reg57], the various gravitational perturbations were studied in Ref.[@koda03] in the background of the higher-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole. Using the radial equations derived in Ref.[@koda03], the low-energy and high-energy behaviors for the bulk graviton absorption and emission spectra were recently studied[@corn95]. The graviton emission on the brane is also examined using an axial perturbation[@park05-1]. In Ref.[@park05-1] it was argued that the graviton emission can be dominant one in the Hawking radiation when there are many extra dimensions. We would like to explore this issue again in the bulk emission. In the following we will compute the absorption and emission spectra for the various graviton modes numerically. We will show the emission rates are generally enhanced when the number of extra dimensions,[*say*]{} $n$, increases. However, the increasing rate for the gravitons is much larger than that for the spin-$0$ field. For example, the total emissivities for the gravitons is only $5.16\%$ of that for the spin-$0$ field in four dimensions. However, this ratio becomes $595.2\%$ when $n=2$ and $3496\%$ when $n=6$. Thus the Hawking radiation for the higher-spin fields becomes dominant when the extra dimensions exist.
We start with $(4+n)$-dimensional Schwarzschild spacetime whose metric is $$\label{metric1}
ds^2 = - h dt^2 + h^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 d \Omega_{n+2}^2$$ where $h = 1 - (r_H / r)^{n+1}$ and the angle part $d \Omega_{n+2}^2$ is a spherically symmetric line element in a form $$\label{angle-part}
d\Omega_{n+2}^2 = d\theta_{n+1}^2 +
\sin^2 \theta_{n+1} \Bigg[ d\theta_{n}^2 + \sin^2 \theta_n \bigg(
\cdots + \sin^2 \theta_2 \left( d\theta_1^2 + \sin^2 \theta_1 d\varphi^2
\right) \cdots \bigg) \Bigg].$$
It is well-known[@koda03] that when $n \neq 0$, there are three gravitational metric perturbations, [*i.e.*]{} scalar, vector and tensor perturbations. For the vector and tensor modes the radial equation reduces to the following Schrödinger-like expression $$\label{VT1}
\left( \frac{d^2}{d r_{\ast}^2} + \omega^2 \right) \Psi = V_{VT} \Psi$$ where $r_{\ast}$ is a “tortoise” coordinate defined $d r / d r_{\ast} = h$ and the effective potential $V_{VT}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{poten1}
V_{VT}&=& \frac{h}{r^2} \left[ \ell (\ell + n + 1) + \frac{n (n + 2)}{4}
- \frac{k (n+2)^2}{4}
\left(\frac{r_H}{r} \right)^{n+1} \right]
\\ \nonumber
& & k = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
-1 & \mbox{for tensor mode} \\
3 & \mbox{for vector mode}
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ with $\ell \geq 2$.
The radial equation for the scalar mode also reduces to the Schrödinger-like expression. However, the effective potential $V_S$ is comparatively complicate as following $$\label{poten2}
V_S = \frac{h}{r^2}
\frac{q y^3 + p y^2 + w y + z}{4 [2 m + (n+2) (n+3) y]^2}$$ where $y = 1 - h = (r_H / r)^{n+1}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bozo1}
m&=& \ell (\ell + n + 1) - (n + 2)
\hspace{2.0cm} q = (n+2)^4 (n+3)^2
\\ \nonumber
z&=& 16 m^3 + 4 m^2 (n+2) (n + 4)
\\ \nonumber
p&=& (n+2) (n + 3) \left[4 m (2 n^2 + 5 n + 6) + n (n + 2) (n + 3) (n - 2)
\right]
\\ \nonumber
w&=& -12 m (n + 2) \left[m (n - 2) + n (n + 2) (n + 3) \right]\end{aligned}$$ with $\ell \geq 2$.
In the $4d$ limit the vector mode corresponds to the gravitational axial perturbation[@vish70], whose effective potential reduces to $$\label{axial}
V_A(r) = \frac{h}{r^2} \left[(2 \lambda + 2) - 3
\left(\frac{r_H}{r}\right) \right],$$ and the scalar mode corresponds to the gravitational polar perturbation[@zer70] with $$\label{polar}
V_P(r) = \frac{h}{(2 \lambda r + 3 r_H)^2}
\left[8 \lambda^2 (\lambda + 1) + 12 \lambda^2 \left(\frac{r_H}{r}\right)
+ 18 \lambda \left(\frac{r_H}{r}\right)^2 +
9 \left(\frac{r_H}{r}\right)^3 \right]$$ where $\lambda = (\ell - 1) (\ell + 2) / 2$. There is no correspondence of the tensor mode in four dimension. The most striking result in the $4d$ gravitational metric perturbations is the fact that the effective potentials $V_A$ and $V_P$, which look completely different from each other, are expressed as a single equation[@chand83] $$\label{4dfinal}
V_{P,A} (r) = \pm \beta \frac{d f}{d r_*} + \beta^2 f^2 + \kappa f$$ where $\beta = 3 r_H$, $\kappa = 4 \lambda (\lambda + 1)$ and $f = h / r (2 \lambda r + 3 r_H)$. In fact, this relation was found when Newman-Penrose formalism[@newman62] is applied to the $4d$ gravitational perturbations. Making use of this explicit relation, one can show that the effective potentials $V_A$ and $V_P$ have the same transmission coefficient. This fact also indicates that the absorption and emission spectra for the vector mode graviton and scalar mode graviton by a Schwarzschild black hole are exactly same in four dimensions.
Now, we would like to discuss how the absorption and emission spectra are computed. We first consider the vector and tensor modes of the bulk graviton. Defining the dimensionless parameters $x \equiv \omega r$ and $x_H \equiv \omega r_H$, one can rewrite Eq.(\[VT1\]) in the following $$\begin{aligned}
\label{radial1}
& &4 x^2 \left( x^{n+1} - x_H^{n+1} \right)^2
\frac{d^2 \Psi}{d x^2} + 4 (n+1) x_H^{n+1} x \left( x^{n+1} - x_H^{n+1} \right)
\frac{d \Psi}{d x}
\\ \nonumber
& & + \left[4 x^{2 n + 4} - \left( x^{n+1} - x_H^{n+1} \right)
\left\{ (2 \ell + n) (2 \ell + n + 2) x^{n+1} - k (n+2)^2
x_H^{n+1} \right\} \right] \Psi = 0.\end{aligned}$$ One can easily show that if $\Psi$ is a solution of Eq.(\[radial1\]), its complex conjugate $\Psi^{\ast}$ is also solution. Eq.(\[radial1\]) also guarantees the Wronskian between them is $$\label{wron1}
W[\Psi^{\ast}, \Psi]_x \equiv \Psi^{\ast} \frac{d \Psi}{d x} - \Psi
\frac{d \Psi^{\ast}}{d x} =
\frac{{\cal C} x^{n+1}}{x^{n+1} - x_H^{n+1}}$$ where ${\cal C}$ is an integration constant.
Now, we would like to consider the solution of Eq.(\[radial1\]), which is convergent in the near-horizon regime, [*i.e.*]{} $x \sim x_H$. Since $x = x_H$ is a regular singular point, this solution can be derived by a series expression as following $$\label{nearh1}
{\cal G}_{n,\ell} (x, x_H) = e^{\lambda_n \ln |x - x_H|}
\sum_{N=0}^{\infty} d_{\ell,N} (x - x_H)^N.$$ Inserting Eq.(\[nearh1\]) into (\[radial1\]) easily yields $$\label{lambdafac}
\lambda_n = -i \frac{x_H}{n+1}.$$ The sign of $\lambda_n$ is chosen for the near-horizon solution to be ingoing into the black hole. The recursion relation for the coefficients $d_{\ell,N}$ can be obtained too. Since it is ,of course, $n$-dependent and lengthy, we will not present it here. The Wronskian (\[wron1\]) enables us to derive $$\label{wron2}
W[{\cal G}_{n,\ell}^{\ast}, {\cal G}_{n,\ell}]_x =
\frac{-2 i |g_{n,\ell}|^2 x^{n+1}}{x^{n+1} - x_H^{n+1}}$$ where $g_{n,\ell} \equiv d_{\ell,0}$.
Next, we would like to discuss the solution of Eq.(\[radial1\]), which is convergent in the asymptotic regime. This is also expressed as a series form by inverse power of $x$ as following: $$\label{asymp1}
{\cal F}_{n,\ell (\pm)} (x , x_H) = (\pm i)^{\ell + 1 + \frac{n}{2}} x
e^{\mp i x} (x - x_H)^{\pm \lambda_n}
\sum_{N=0}^{\infty} \tau_{N (\pm)} x^{-(N+1)}$$ with $\tau_{0 (\pm)} = 1$. The solutions ${\cal F}_{n,\ell (+)}$ and ${\cal F}_{n,\ell (-)}$ are respectively the ingoing and outgoing solutions. Using Eq.(\[wron1\]), one can show easily $$\label{wron3}
W[{\cal F}_{n,\ell (+)}, {\cal F}_{n,\ell (-)}]_x =
\frac{2 i x^{n+1}}{x^{n+1} - x_H^{n+1}}.$$ The recursion relation for the coefficients $\tau_{N (\pm)}$ is straightforwardly derived, which is too lengthy to present here.
Now, we would like to discuss how the coefficient $g_{n,\ell}(\equiv d_{\ell,0})$ is related to the scattering amplitude. Since the real scattering solution, [*say*]{} ${\cal R}_{n,\ell}$ should be ingoing wave in the near-horizon regime and the mixture of ingoing and outgoing waves at the asymptotic regime, one may express it in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{real-sol}
& &{\cal R}_{n,\ell}\stackrel{x \rightarrow x_H}{\sim}
g_{n,\ell}(x - x_H)^{\lambda_n}
\left[1 + O(x -x_H)\right] \\ \nonumber
& &{\cal R}_{n,\ell}\stackrel{x \rightarrow \infty}{\sim}
\frac{i^{\ell + 1 + \frac{n}{2}} 2^{\frac{n}{2} - 1}}
{ \sqrt{\pi}}
\Gamma \left( \frac{1 + n}{2} \right)
Q_{n,\ell}
\\ \nonumber
& & \hspace{2.0cm} \times
\left[e^{-i x + \lambda_n \ln |x - x_H|} - (-1)^{\ell + \frac{n}{2}}
S_{n,\ell}(x_H) e^{i x - \lambda_n \ln |x - x_H|} \right]
+ O\left(\frac{1}{x}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $S_{n,\ell}(x_H)$ is a scattering amplitude and $Q_{n,\ell}$ is a quantity related to the multiplicities ${\cal N}_{n,\ell}$ as following: $$\label{add1}
Q_{n,\ell} = \frac{2}{(n+4) (n+1)} {\cal N}_{n,\ell}.$$ The multiplicities ${\cal N}_{n,\ell}^{(S)}$, ${\cal N}_{n,\ell}^{(V)}$ and ${\cal N}_{n,\ell}^{(T)}$ for the scalar-, vector- and tensor-mode bulk gravitons are given by[@corn95] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{add2}
{\cal N}_{n,\ell}^{(S)}&=& \frac{(2 \ell + n + 1) (\ell + n) !}
{\ell ! (n+1) !}
\\ \nonumber
{\cal N}_{n,\ell}^{(V)}&=& \frac{\ell (\ell + n + 1) (2 \ell + n + 1)
(\ell + n - 1)!}
{(\ell + 1) ! n!}
\\ \nonumber
{\cal N}_{n,\ell}^{(T)}&=& \frac{n (n+3) (\ell + n + 2) (\ell - 1)
(2 \ell + n + 1) (\ell + n - 1)!}
{2 (\ell + 1)! (n + 1)!}.\end{aligned}$$
Introducing a phase shift $\delta_{n,\ell}$ as $S_{n,\ell} \equiv e^{2 i \delta_{n,\ell}}$, one can rewrite the second equation of Eq.(\[real-sol\]) in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{real-sol2}
& &{\cal R}_{n,\ell}\stackrel{x \rightarrow \infty}{\sim}
\frac{2^{\frac{n}{2}}}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\Gamma \left(\frac{1 + n}{2} \right)
Q_{n,\ell}
e^{i \delta_{n,\ell}}
\\ \nonumber
& & \hspace{2.0cm} \times
\sin \left[x + i \lambda_n \ln |x - x_H| - \frac{\pi}{2}
\left(\ell + \frac{n}{2}\right) + \delta_{n,\ell} \right]
+ O\left(\frac{1}{x}\right).\end{aligned}$$
The near-horizon behavior of the real scattering solution, [*i.e.*]{} the first one of Eq.(\[real-sol\]), implies that the Wronskian $W[{\cal R}_{n,\ell}^{\ast}, {\cal R}_{n,\ell}]_x$ is same with Eq.(\[wron2\]). However, Eq.(\[real-sol2\]) implies $$\label{wron4}
[{\cal R}_{n,\ell}^{\ast}, {\cal R}_{n,\ell}]_x = -i \frac{2^n}{\pi}
\Gamma^2 \left(\frac{1 + n}{2} \right)
Q_{n,\ell}^2
e^{-2 \beta_{n,\ell}} \sinh 2 \beta_{n,\ell}
\frac{x^{n+1}}{x^{n+1} - x_H^{n+1}}$$ where $\delta_{n,\ell} = \eta_{n,\ell} + i \beta_{n,\ell}$. Equalizing these two Wronskians yields a relation between $g_{n,\ell}$ and $\beta_{n,\ell}$ as following: $$\label{relat1}
|g_{n,\ell}|^2 = \frac{2^{n-2}}{\pi}
\Gamma^2 \left(\frac{1 + n}{2} \right)
Q_{n,\ell}^2
\left(1 - e^{-4 \beta_{n,\ell}} \right).$$ Thus one can calculate the transimission coefficient $1 - |S_{n,\ell}|^2 = 1 - e^{-4 \beta_{n,\ell}}$ if $g_{n,\ell}$ is known.
Now, we would like to explain how to compute $g_{n,\ell}$. For the explanation it is convenient to introduce a new radial solution $\tilde{{\cal R}}_{n,\ell}(x)$, which differs from ${\cal R}_{n,\ell}(x)$ in its normalization in such a way that $$\label{newra}
\tilde{{\cal R}}_{n,\ell}(x, x_H) \stackrel{x \rightarrow x_H}{\sim}
(x - x_H)^{\lambda_n} \left[1 + O(x -x_H)\right].$$ Since ${\cal F}_{n,\ell(\pm)}$ are two linearly independent solutions of Eq.(\[radial1\]), one can express $\tilde{{\cal R}}_{n,\ell}$ as a linear combination of them as following $$\label{newra2}
\tilde{{\cal R}}_{n,\ell}(x, x_H) = f_{n,\ell}^{(-)} (x_H)
{\cal F}_{n,\ell(+)} (x , x_H) + f_{n,\ell}^{(+)} (x_H)
{\cal F}_{n,\ell(-)} (x , x_H)$$ where $f_{n,\ell}^{(\pm)}$ are called jost functions. Using Eq.(\[wron3\]) one can compute the jost functions as following $$\label{jost1}
f_{n,\ell}^{(\pm)} (x_H) = \pm \frac{x^{n+1} - x_H^{n+1}}{2 i x^{n+1}}
W[{\cal F}_{n,\ell(\pm)}, \tilde{{\cal R}}_{n,\ell}]_x.$$ Inserting the explicit expressions of ${\cal F}_{n,\ell(\pm)}$ in Eq.(\[asymp1\]) into Eq.(\[newra2\]) and comparing it with the second equation of Eq.(\[real-sol\]), one can derive the following two relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{relat2}
S_{n,\ell}(x_H)&=& \frac{f_{n,\ell}^{(+)} (x_H)}
{f_{n,\ell}^{(-)} (x_H)}
\\ \nonumber
f_{n,\ell}^{(-)} (x_H)&=& \frac{2^{\frac{n}{2} - 1}}
{\sqrt{\pi} g_{n,\ell}(x_H)}
\Gamma \left(\frac{1 + n}{2}\right)
Q_{n,\ell}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining Eq.(\[relat1\]) and (\[relat2\]), one can express the greybody factor(or transmission coefficient) of the black hole in terms of the jost function in the following $$\label{jost2}
1 - |S_{n,\ell}|^2 = \frac{1}{|f_{n,\ell}^{(-)}|^2}.$$
The partial absorption cross sections for the vector and tensor graviton modes by the $(4+n)$-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole are given by $$\label{abs1}
\sigma_{n,\ell} = 2^{n+1} \pi^{(n+1) / 2}
\Gamma \left( \frac{3 + n}{2} \right)
Q_{n,\ell}
\frac{r_H^{n+2}}{x_H^{n+2} |f_{n,\ell}^{(-)}|^2}.$$ Applying the Hawking formula[@hawking75], one can compute the bulk emission rate, [*i.e.*]{} the energy emitted to the bulk per unit time and unit energy interval, as following $$\label{emission1}
\frac{\Gamma}{d \omega} =
\left[2^{n + 3} \pi^{(n+3) / 2} \Gamma \left( \frac{3 + n}{2} \right)
\right]^{-1} (n + 4) (n + 1)
\frac{\omega^{n+3} \sigma_{abs} (\omega)}
{e^{\omega / T_H} - 1}$$ where $\sigma_{abs}$ is a total absorption cross section and $T_H$ is an Hawking temperature given by $T_H = (n+1) / 4 \pi r_H$. Thus one can compute the absorption and emission spectra in the full range of $\omega$ if the jost functions are computed.
One can compute the jost functions by matching the near-horizon and asymptotic solutions. This is achieved by the analytic continuation[@jung05-1; @jung05-3] using a solution of Eq.(\[radial1\]) which is convergent at the arbitrary point $x = b$. This solution is also expressed as a series form as following $$\label{interme}
\varphi_{n,\ell} (x, x_H) = (x - x_H)^{\lambda_n}
\sum_{N=0}^{\infty} D_N (x - b)^N.$$ The recursion for the coefficients $D_N$ can be obtained by inserting Eq.(\[interme\]) into (\[radial1\]). Since it is too lengthy, we will not present it here. Using a solution (\[interme\]) one can increase the convergent region for the asymptotic solution from the near-horizon regime and decrease for the asymptotic solution from the asymptotic regime. Repeating the procedure eventually makes the two solutions which have common convergent region. Then one can compute the jost functions by making use of these two solutions and Eq.(\[jost1\]).
Now, we would like to discuss the case of the scalar mode graviton. Introducing the dimensionless parameters $x = \omega r$ and $x_H = \omega r_H$ again, one can rewrite the radial equation for the scalar mode as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scalar-radial}
& &4 x^2 \left(x^{n+1} - x_H^{n+1}\right)^2
\left[2 m x^{n+1} + (n + 2) (n + 3) x_H^{n+1} \right]^2
\frac{d^2 \Psi}{d x^2}
\\ \nonumber
& &+ 4 (n + 1) x_H^{n + 1} x \left(x^{n+1} - x_H^{n+1}\right)
\left[2 m x^{n+1} + (n + 2) (n + 3) x_H^{n+1} \right]^2
\frac{d \Psi}{d x}
\\ \nonumber
& & \hspace{1.0cm}
\Bigg[ 4 x^{2 n + 4}
\left[2 m x^{n+1} + (n + 2) (n + 3) x_H^{n+1} \right]^2
\\ \nonumber
& & \hspace{2.0cm}
- \left(x^{n+1} - x_H^{n+1}\right)
\left\{z x^{3 n + 3} + w x_H^{n+1} x^{2 n + 2} + p x_H^{2 n + 2}
x^{n + 1} + q x_H^{3 n + 3} \right\}
\Bigg] \Psi = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The calculational procedure is exactly same with the case of vector or tensor mode. All Wronskians in Eq.(\[wron1\]), (\[wron2\]) and (\[wron3\]) as well as the multiplication factor in Eq.(\[lambdafac\]) are exactly same with the previous case. The differences arise only in the recursion relations for the coefficients $d_{\ell,N}$, $\tau_{N(\pm)}$ and $D_N$ and the multiplicity defined in Eq.(\[add2\]). Although the recursion relations in the scalar mode case are much more complicate and lengthy, they do not make any difficulty in the numerical calculation. In actual numerical computation we summed up the partial modes for $2 \leq \ell \leq 12$ to plot the absorption and emission spectra of the graviton modes.
=6.0cm =6.0cm
Fig.1 shows the total absorption and emission rates for the vector(or axial)-mode graviton and scalar(or polar)-mode graviton when $n=0$. To compare the graviton spectra with those for the low-spin field, we plot the absorption and emission rates for the spin-$0$ scalar field together. As Eq.(\[4dfinal\]) implies, the absorption and emission spectra for both graviton modes are exactly identical. As Fig.1(b) indicates, the emission rates for the gravitons are much smaller than that for the spin-$0$ field. The total emission rates for both gravitons are only $5.16\%$ of that for the spin-$0$ field. Thus, in $4d$ the Hawking radiation for the low-spin fields such as standard model fields is dominant one. However, the situation is drastically changed when the extra dimensions exist.
=5.5cm =5.5cm =5.5cm
Fig.2 shows that the total emission rates for the scalar-, vector-, and tensor-mode gravitons when $n=1$, $2$, and $6$. Like Fig.1 the emission spectrum of the spin-$0$ field is plotted together for a comparision. As Fig.2 indicates, the emissivities for all fields generally increase with increasing $n$. However, the increasing rates for the gravitons in the Hawking emissivities with increasing $n$ is much larger than that for the spin-$0$ field.
$ $ spin-$0$ scalar-mode / spin-$0$ vector-mode / spin-$0$ tensor-mode / spin-$0$
------- --------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
$4d$ $0.000297531$ $0.0258$ $0.0258$
$5d$ $0.00104968$ $0.8115$ $0.60405$ $0.06161$
$6d$ $0.002679$ $3.02476$ $2.37418$ $0.55351$
$10d$ $0.118857$ $4.94863$ $13.4278$ $16.5793$
Table 1 shows the relative emissivities when $n=0$, $1$, $2$ and $6$. When $n = 2$, the emission rate for the scalar mode graviton is almost three times than that for the spin-$0$ field. When $n = 6$, the emission rate for the tensor-mode graviton is seventeen times than that for the spin-$0$ field!!! The remarkable fact is that the ratio of the tensor-mode graviton to the spin-$0$ field increases rapidly with increasing $n$ compared to other graviton modes.
In this letter we computed the absorption and emission spectra for the various modes of the bulk gravitons in the higher-dimensional non-rotating black hole background. The total emissivities for the gravitons are only $5.16\%$ compared to that for the spin-$0$ field in four dimensions. However, this ratio increases rapidly when the extra dimensions exist. When, for example, $n=1$, $2$ and $6$, this ratio goes to $147.7\%$, $595.2\%$ and $3496\%$, respectively. This fact indicates that the emission of the higher-spin field like gravitons becomes more and more dominant and has a experimental significance when there are many extra dimensions. Same conclusion was derived in the emission on the brane[@park05-1]. Thus, it is important in our opinion to re-examine the EHM argument “[*black holes radiate mainly on the brane*]{}” with considering the Hawking radiation for the gravitons. We hope to study this issue in the future.
[**Acknowledgement**]{}: This work was supported by the Kyungnam University Research Fund, 2006.
[99]{} J. Polchinski, [*String Theory*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998). N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, [*The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B429**]{} (1998) 263 \[hep-ph/9803315\]; L. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, [*New Dimensions at a Millimeter to a Fermi and Superstrings at a TeV*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B436**]{} (1998) 257 \[hep-ph/9804398\]; L. Randall and R. Sundrum, [*A Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Extra Dimension*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 3370 \[hep-ph/9905221\]; L. Randall and R. Sundrum, [*An Alternative to Compactification*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 4690 \[hep-th/9906064\]. S. B. Giddings and T. Thomas, [*High energy colliders as black hole factories: The end of short distance physics*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{} (2002) 056010 \[hep-ph/0106219\]; S. Dimopoulos and G. Landsberg, [*Black Holes at the Large Hadron Collider*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 161602 \[hep-ph/0106295\]; D. M. Eardley and S. B. Giddings, [*Classical black hole production in high-energy collisions*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D66**]{} (2002) 044011 \[gr-qc/0201034\]; D. Stojkovic, [*Distinguishing between the small ADD and RS black holes in accelerators*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{} (2005) 011603 \[hep-ph/0409124\]; V. Cardoso, E. Berti and M. Cavaglià, [*What we (don’t) know about black hole formation in high-energy collisions*]{}, Class. Quant. Grav. [**22**]{} (2005) L61 \[hep-ph/0505125\]. C. M. Harris and P. Kanti, [*Hawking Radiation from a $(4+n)$-dimensional Black Hole: Exact Results for the Schwarzschild Phase*]{}, JHEP 0310 (2003) 014 \[hep-ph/0309054\]; P. kanti, [*Black Holes in Theories with Large Extra Dimensions: a Review*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A19**]{} (2004) 4899 \[hep-ph/0402168\]. R. Emparan, G. T. Horowitz and R. C. Myers, [*Black Holes radiate mainly on the Brane*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 499 \[hep-th/0003118\]. E. Jung and D. K. Park, [*Absorption and Emission Spectra of an higher-dimensional Reissner-Nordström black hole*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B717**]{} (2005) 272 \[hep-th/0502002\]. Y. B. Zel’dovich, [*Generation of waves by a rotating body*]{}, JETP Lett. [**14**]{} (1971) 180; W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, [*Floating Orbits, Superradiant Scattering and the Black-hole Bomb*]{}, Nature [**238**]{} (1972) 211; A. A. Starobinskii, [*Amplification of waves during reflection from a rotating black hole*]{}, Sov. Phys. JETP [**37**]{} (1973) 28; A. A. Starobinskii and S. M. Churilov, [*Amplification of electromagnetic and gravitational waves scattered by a rotating black hole*]{}, Sov. Phys. JETP [**38**]{} (1974) 1. V. Frolov and D. Stojković, [*Black hole radiation in the brane world and the recoil effect*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D66**]{} (2002) 084002 \[hep-th/0206046\]; V. Frolov and D. Stojković, [*Black Hole as a Point Radiator and Recoil Effect on the Brane World*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{} (2002) 151302 \[hep-th/0208102\]; V. Frolov and D. Stojković, [*Quantum radiation from a $5$-dimensional black hole*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D67**]{} (2003) 084004 \[gr-qc/0211055\]. E. Jung, S. H. Kim and D. K. Park, [*Condition for Superradiance in Higher-dimensional Rotating Black Holes*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B615**]{} (2005) 273 \[hep-th/0503163\]; E. Jung, S. H. Kim and D. K. Park, [*Condition for the Superradiance Modes in Higher-Dimensional Black Holes with Multiple Angular Momentum Parameters*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B619**]{} (2005) 347 \[hep-th/0504139\]. D. Ida, K. Oda and S. C. Park, [*Rotating black holes at future collider: Greybody factors for brane field*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D67**]{} (2003) 064025 \[hep-th/0212108\]; C. M. Harris and P. Kanti, [*Hawking Radiation from a $(4+n)$-Dimensional Rotating Black Hole*]{} \[hep-th/0503010\]; D. Ida, K. Oda and S. C. Park, [*Rotating black holes at future colliders II : Anisotropic scalar field emission*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D71**]{} (2005) 124039 \[hep-th/0503052\]; G. Duffy, C. Harris, P. Kanti and E. Winstanley, [*Brane decay of a $(4+n)$-dimensional rotating black hole: spin-$0$ particle*]{}, JHEP [**0509**]{} (2005) 049 \[hep-th/0507274\]; M. Casals, P. Kanti and E. Winstanley, [*Brane Decay of a $(4+n)$-Dimensional Rotating Black Hole II: spin-$1$ particles*]{} \[hep-th/0511163\]. E. Jung and D. K. Park, [*Bulk versus Brane in the Absorption and Emission: $5$D Rotating Black Hole Case*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B731**]{} (2005) 171 \[hep-th/0506204\]. T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, [*Stability of a Schwarzschild Singularity*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**108**]{} (1957) 1063. H. Kodama and A. Ishibashi, [*A master equation for the gravitational perturbations of maximally symmetric black holes in higher dimensions*]{}, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**110**]{} (2003) 701 \[hep-th/0305147\]. A. S. Cornell, W. Naylor and M. Sasaki, [*Graviton emission from a higher-dimensional black hole*]{}, JHEP [**0602**]{} (2006) 012 \[hep-th/0510009\]; V. Cardoso, M. Cavaglià and L. Gualtieri, [*Black hole particle emission in higher-dimensional spacetime*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{} (2006) 071301 \[hep-th/0512002\]; [*Hawking emission of gravitons in higher dimensions: non-rotating black hole*]{} JHEP 0602 (2006) 021; S. Creek, O.Efthimiou, P. Kanti and K. Tamvakis, [*Graviton Emission in the Bulk from a Higher-Dimensional Schwarzschild Black Hole*]{} \[hep-th/0601126\]. D. K. Park, [*Hawking Radiation of the Brane-Localized Graviton from the $(4+n)$-dimensional Black Hole*]{} \[hep-th/0512021\]. C. V. Vishveshwara, [*Scattering of Gravitational Radiation by a Schwarzschild Black-hole*]{}, Nature [**227**]{} (1970) 936. F. J. Zerilli, [*Effective Potential for even-parity Regge-Wheeler Gravitational Perturbation Equations*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**24**]{} (1970) 737. S. Chandrasekhar, [*The Mathematical Theory of Black Hole*]{} (Oxford University Press, New York, 1983). E. Newman and R. Penrose, [*An Approach to Gravitational Radiation by a Method of Spin Coefficients*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**3**]{} (1962) 566. S. W. Hawking, [*Particle Creation by Black Holes*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**43**]{} (1975) 199.
[^1]: Email:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Possible phase transition of strongly interacting matter from hadron to a Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) state have in the past received considerable interest. It has been suggested that this problem might be treated by percolation theory. The Color String Percolation Model (CSPM) is used to determine the equation of state (EOS) of the QGP produced in central Au-Au collisions at RHIC energies. The bulk thermodynamic quantities- energy density, entropy density and the sound velocity- are obtained in the framework of CSPM. It is shown that the results are in excellent agreement with the recent lattice QCD calculations(LQCD).'
address: 'Department of Physics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA'
author:
- Brijesh K Srivastava
title: Percolation and Deconfinement
---
Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions, Percolation, QGP, EOS
Introduction
============
One of the main goal of the study of relativistic heavy ion collisions is to study the deconfined matter, known as Quark-Gluon Plasma(QGP), which is expected to form at large densities. It has been suggested that the transition from hadronic to QGP state can be treated by percolation theory [@celik]. The formulation of percolation problem is concerned with elementary geometrical objects placed on a random d-dimensional lattice. The objects have a well defined connectivity radius $\lambda$, and two objects can communicate if the distance between them is less than $\lambda$. Several objects can form a cluster of communication. At certain density of the objects a infinite cluster appears which spans the entire system. This is defined by the dimensionless percolation parameter $\xi$ [@isich]. Percolation theory has been applied to several areas ranging from clustering in spin system to the formation of galaxies. Figure 1 shows the transition from disconnected to connected system at high densities.
In nuclear collisions there is indeed, as a function of parton density, a sudden onset of large scale color connection. There is a critical density at which the elemental objects form one large cluster, loosing their independent existence. Percolation would correspond to the onset of color deconfinement and it may be a prerequisite for any subsequent QGP formation.
The determination of the EOS of hot, strongly interacting matter is one of the main challenges of strong interaction physics (HotQCD Collaboration) [@bazavov]. Recent LQCD calculations for the bulk thermodynamic observables, e.g. pressure, energy density, entropy density and for the sound velocity have been reported [@bazavov]. A percolation model coupled with hydrodynamics has been utilized to calculate these quantities from the STAR data at RHIC energies in central Au+Au collisions.
Color String Percolation Model
==============================
Multiparticle production at high energies is currently described in terms of color strings stretched between the projectile and target. Hadronizing these strings produce the observed hadrons. The strings act as color sources of particles through the creation of $q \bar{q}$ pairs from the sea. The number of strings grows with the energy and with the number of nucleons of participating nuclei. Color strings may be viewed as small discs in the transverse space filled with the color field created by colliding partons. Particles are produced by the Schwinger mechanisms [@swinger1]. With growing energy and size of the colliding nuclei the number of strings grow and start to overlap to form clusters [@pajares1; @pajares2]. At a critical density a macroscopic cluster appears that marks the percolation phase transition. 2D percolation is a non-thermal second order phase transition, but in CSPM the Schwinger barrier penetration mechanism for particle production and the fluctuations in the associated string tension due to the strong string interactions make it possible to define a temperature. Consequently the particle spectrum is “born” with a thermal distribution [@pajares3; @bialas]. The percolation threshold at which the spanning cluster appear, a “connected” system of color sources, identifies the percolation phase transition.
With an increasing number of strings there is a progression from isolated individual strings to clusters and then to a large cluster which suddenly spans the area. In two dimensional percolation theory the relevant quantity is the dimensionless percolation density parameter given by [@pajares1; @pajares2] $$\xi = \frac {N S_{1}}{S_{N}}$$ where N is the number of strings formed in the collisions and $S_{1}$ is the transverse area of the single string and $S_{N}$ is the transverse nuclear overlap area. The critical cluster which spans $S_{N}$, appears for $\xi_{c} \ge$ 1.2 [@satz1]. As $\xi$ increases the fraction of $S_{N}$ covered by this spanning cluster increases.
The percolation theory governs the geometrical pattern of string clustering. It requires some dynamics to describe the interaction of several overlapping strings. It is assumed that a cluster behaves as a single string with a higher color field corresponding to the vectorial sum of the color charge of each individual string. Knowing the color charge, one can calculate the multiplicity $\mu_{n}$ and the mean transverse momentum $\langle p_{t}^{2} \rangle_{n}$ of the particles produced by a cluster of strings. One finds [@pajares1; @pajares2]
$$\mu_{n}= \sqrt \frac {nS_{n}}{S_{1}}\mu_{1}$$
$$\langle p_{t}^{2} \rangle_{n}= \sqrt \frac {nS_{1}}{S_{n}}\langle p_{t}^{2} \rangle_{1}$$
where $\mu_{1}$ and $\langle p_{t}^{2}\rangle_{1}$ are the mean multiplicity and average transverse momentum squared of particles produced by a single string with a transverse area $S_{1} = \pi r^{2}_{0}$. In the saturation limit, all the strings overlap into a single cluster that approximately occupies the whole interaction area, one gets the following universal scaling law
$$\langle p_{t}^{2}\rangle_{n} = \frac {S_{1}}{S_{n}}\frac {\langle p_{t}^{2}\rangle_{1}}{\mu_{1}}{\mu_{n}}$$
This scaling law shows a reasonable agreement with all the experimental data for all projectiles, targets and energies [@pajares4]. In the limit of high density one obtains $$\langle \frac {nS_{1}}{S_{n}} \rangle = 1/F^{2}(\xi)$$ with $$F(\xi) = \sqrt \frac {1-e^{-\xi}}{\xi}$$ being the color suppression factor. It follows that $$\mu = N F(\xi)\mu_{1}, \langle p_{t}^{2}\rangle = \frac{1}{F(\xi)}\langle p_{t}^{2}\rangle_{1}$$ A similar scaling is found in the Color Glass Condensate approach (CGC)[@larry]. The saturation scale $Q_{s}$ in CGC corresponds to $ {\langle p_{t}^{2} \rangle_{1}}/F(\xi)$ in CSPM. The net effect due to $F(\xi)$ is the reduction in hadron multiplicity and increase in the average transverse momentum of particles. The CSPM model calculation for hadron multiplicities and momentum spectra was found to be in excellent agreement with experiment [@diasde; @diasde2]. Within the framework of clustering of color sources, the elliptic flow, $\it v_{2}$, and the dependence of the nuclear modification factor on the azimuthal angle show reasonable agreement with the RHIC data [@bautista]. The critical density of percolation is related to the effective critical temperature and thus percolation may be the way to achieve deconfinement in the heavy ion collisions [@pajares3]. An additional important check of this interacting string approach was provided by the measurement of Long Range forward backward multiplicity Correlations (LRC) by the STAR group at RHIC [@LRC2].
Experimental Determination of the Percolation density Parameter $\xi$
=====================================================================
To obtain the value of $\xi$ from data, a parameterization of p-p events at 200 GeV is used to compute the $p_{t}$ distribution [@nucleo]
$$dN_{c}/dp_{t}^{2} = a/(p_{0}+p_{t})^{\alpha}$$
where a, $p_{0}$, and $\alpha$ are parameters used to fit the data. This parameterization also can be used for nucleus-nucleus collisions to take into account the interactions of the strings[@nucleo] $$p_{0} \rightarrow p_{0} \left(\frac {\langle nS_{1}/S_{n} \rangle_{Au-Au}}{\langle nS_{1}/S_{n} \rangle_{pp}}\right)^{1/4}$$ where $S_{n}$ corresponds to the area occupied by the n overlapping strings. The thermodynamic limit, i.e. letting n and $S_{n}$ $\rightarrow \infty$ while keeping $\xi$ fixed, is used to evaluate $F(\xi)$ given by Eq.(5). For nucleus-nucleus collisions Eq.(8) becomes
$$dN_{c}/dp_{t}^{2} = \frac {a}{{(p_{0}{\sqrt {F(\xi_{pp})/F(\xi)}}+p_{t})}^{\alpha}}$$
In pp collisions $ \langle nS_{1} / S_{n} \rangle_{pp}$ $\sim$ 1 due to the low string overlap probability.
The STAR analysis of charged hadrons had presented the preliminary results for the percolation density parameter, $\xi$ at RHIC for several collisions systems as a function of centrality[@nucleo]. Figure 2 shows $\xi$ as function of the number of participant nucleons($N_{part}$) in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 200 and 62.4 GeV.
These experimental $\xi$ values are used to get the bulk thermodynamic observables.
Determination of the Temperature
================================
The strong longitudinal chromo-electric fields produce Schwinger-Bialas [@swinger1; @pajares3; @bialas] like radiation with a thermal spectrum, in analogy with the Hawking-Unruh radiation [@hawking; @unruh; @parikh; @khar1; @khar2; @khar3]. Both the Schwinger-Bialas and Hawking-Unruh derivations lead to the same value of the maximum entropy temperature. Above the critical value of $\xi$, the QGP in CSPM consists of massless constituents (gluons). The percolation density parameter $\xi$ determines the cluster size distribution, the temperature T($\xi$) and the transverse momentum in the collision [@pajares3]. The connection between $\xi$ and the temperature $T(\xi)$ involves the Schwinger mechanism (SM) for particle production. In CSPM the Schwinger distribution for massless particles is expressed in terms of $p_{t}^{2}$ $$dn/d{p_{t}^{2}} \sim e^{-\pi p_{t}^{2}/x^{2}}$$ with the average value of string tension $\langle x^{2} \rangle$. Gaussian fluctuations in the string tension around its mean value transforms SM into the thermal distribution [@bialas] $$dn/d{p_{t}^{2}} \sim e^{(-p_{t} \sqrt {\frac {2\pi}{\langle x^{2} \rangle}} )}$$ with $\langle x^{2} \rangle$ = $\pi \langle p_{t}^{2} \rangle_{1}/F(\xi)$. The temperature is given by $$T(\xi) = {\sqrt {\frac {\langle p_{t}^{2}\rangle_{1}}{ 2 F(\xi)}}}$$ The string percolation density parameter $\xi$ which characterizes the percolation clusters also determines the temperature of the system. In this way at $\xi_{c}$=1.2 the percolation phase transition at $T(\xi_{c})$ models the thermal deconfinement transition. In the determination of temperature using Eq.(13) the value of $F(\xi)$ is obtained using the experimental data [@nucleo]. We will adopt the point of view that the experimentally determined chemical freeze-out temperature is a good measure of the phase transition temperature, $T_{c}$ [@braunmun]. The single string average transverse momentum ${\langle p_{t}^{2}\rangle_{1}}$ is calculated at $\xi_{c}$ = 1.2 with the universal chemical freeze-out temperature of 167.7 $\pm$ 2.6 MeV [@bec1]. This gives $ \sqrt {\langle {p_{t}^{2}} \rangle _{1}}$ = 207.2 $\pm$ 3.3 MeV which is close to $\simeq$200 MeV used previously in the calculation of the percolation transition temperature [@pajares3]. Above $\xi_{c}$ =1.2 the size and density of the spanning cluster increases. We use the measured value of $\xi$ = 2.88 to determine the temperature, before the expansion, $T_{i}$ = 193.6$\pm$3.0 MeV of the quark gluon plasma in reasonable agreement with $T_{i}$ = 221$\pm 19^{stat} \pm 19^{sys}$ from the enhanced direct photon experiment measured by the PHENIX Collaboration[@phenix].
Bulk Thermodynamic Quantities
=============================
Among the most important and fundamental problems in finite-temperature QCD are the calculation of the bulk properties of hot QCD matter and characterization of the nature of the QCD phase transition. The QGP according to CSPM is born in local thermal equilibrium because the temperature is determined at the string level. We use CSPM coupled to hydrodynamics to calculate energy density, pressure, entropy density and sound velocity. As mentioned earlier the strings interact strongly to form clusters and produce the pressure at the early stages of the collisions, which is evident from the presence of elliptical flow in CSPM [@bautista]. After the initial temperature $ T > T_{c}$ the CSPM perfect fluid may expand according to Bjorken boost invariant 1D hydrodynamics [@bjorken] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac {1}{T} \frac {dT}{d\tau} = - C_{s}^{2}/\tau \\
\frac {dT}{d\tau} = \frac {dT}{d\varepsilon} \frac {d\varepsilon}{d\tau} \\
\frac {d\varepsilon}{d\tau} = -T s/\tau \\
s =(1+C_{s}^{2})\frac{\varepsilon}{T}\\
\frac {dT}{d\varepsilon} s = C_{s}^{2} \end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon$ is the energy density, s the entropy density, $\tau$ the proper time, and $C_{s}$ the sound velocity. Above the critical temperature only massless particles are present in CSPM. The initial energy density $\varepsilon_{i}$ above $T_{c}$ is given by [@bjorken] $$\varepsilon_{i}= \frac {3}{2}\frac { {\frac {dN_{c}}{dy}}\langle m_{t}\rangle}{S_{n} \tau_{pro}}$$ To evaluate $\varepsilon_{i}$ we use the charged pion multiplicity $dN_{c}/{dy}$ at midrapidity and $S_{n}$ values from STAR for 0-10% central Au-Au collisions with $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$200 GeV [@levente]. The factor 3/2 in Eq.(19) accounts for the neutral pions.
The dynamics of massless particle production has been studied in QE2 quantum electrodynamics. QE2 can be scaled from electrodynamics to quantum chromodynamics using the ratio of the coupling constants [@wong]. The production time $\tau_{pro}$ for a boson (gluon) is [@swinger] $$%\tau_{pro} = \frac {2.405\hbar}{mc^{2}}.
\tau_{pro} = \frac {2.405\hbar}{\langle m_{t}\rangle}$$ In CSPM the total transverse energy is proportional to $\xi$. From the measured value of $\xi$ and $\varepsilon$ it is found that $\varepsilon$ is proportional to $\xi$ for the range $1.2 < \xi < 2.88$, $\varepsilon_{i}= 0.788$ $\xi$ GeV/$fm^{3}$ [@nucleo; @levente]. This relationship has been extrapolated to below $\xi= 1.2$ and above $\xi =2.88$ for the energy and entropy density calculations. Figure 3 shows $\varepsilon/T^{4}$ as obtained from CSPM along with the LQCD calculations [@bazavov] and the CSPM pressure $3p/T^{4}$.
For an ideal gas of massless constituents, the energy density and pressure are related by $\varepsilon = 3P$. In LQCD the basic quantity is the interaction measure $\Delta = \varepsilon- 3p/T^{4}$, which is also known as the trace anomaly. In CSPM $\Delta$ reaches zero for T $ > 2 T_{c}$ while in case of LQCD it is strongly interacting even for T $ > 4 T_{c}$ [@bazavov].
The sound velocity requires the evaluation of s and $ {dT}/{d\varepsilon}$, which can be expressed in terms of $\xi$ and $F(\xi)$. With $q^{1/2}$ = $F(\xi)$ one obtains:
$$\frac {dT}{d\varepsilon} = \frac {dT}{dq}\frac {dq}{d\xi} \frac {d\xi}{d\varepsilon}$$
Then $C_{s}^{2}$ becomes: $$C_{s}^{2} = (-1/4)(1+ C_{s}^{2}) \left(\frac {\xi e^{-\xi}}{1- e^{-\xi}}-1\right)$$ for $\xi \geq \xi_{c}$, an analytic function of $\xi$ for the equation of state of the QGP for T $\geq T_{c}$.
{width="7.0cm"}
{width="7.0cm"}
Figure 4 shows the comparison of $C_{s}^{2}$ from CSPM and LQCD. The LQCD values were obtained using the EOS of 2+1 flavor QCD at finite temperature with physical strange quark mass and almost physical light quark masses [@bazavov]. At $T/T_{c}$=1 the CSPM and LQCD agree with the $C_{s}^{2}$ value of the physical hadron gas with resonance mass truncation M $\leq$ 2.5 GeV [@satz].
The entropy density $s/T^{3}$ is obtained from energy density and speed of sound as shown in Fig.5 along with the LQCD results. CSPM is in excellent agreement with the LQCD calculations in the phase transition region for $T/T_{c} \leq $1.5.
Summary
=======
The percolation analysis of the color sources applied to STAR data at RHIC provides a compelling argument that the QGP is formed in central Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 200 GeV. It also suggests that the QGP is produced in all soft high energy high multiplicity collisions when the string density exceeds the percolation transition. The results are also in agreement with lattice QCD in the phase transition region, when the results are plotted with respect to $T/T_{c}^{CSPM}$ and $T/T_{c}^{LQCD}$. The value of $C_{s}^{2}$=0.14 is in agreement with the physical resonance gas value at the critical temperature. Thus clustering and percolation can provide a conceptual basis for the QCD phase diagram which is more general than symmetry breaking [@satzx].
Acknowledgement
===============
This research was supported by the Office of Nuclear Physics within the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science under Grant No. DE-FG02-88ER40412.
[00]{} T. Celik, F. Karsch, H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B[**97**]{}, 128 (1980). M. B. Isichenko, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**64**]{}, 961 (1992). A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D[**80**]{}, 014504 (2009). J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**82**]{}, 664 (1951). M. A. Braun, C. Pajares, Eu. Phys. J. C[**16**]{}, 349 (2000). M. A. Braun, F. del Moral, C. Pajares, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 024907 (2002). J. Dias de Deus, C. Pajares, Phys. Lett. B[**642**]{}, 455 (2006). A. Bialas, Phys. Lett. B[**466**]{}, 301 (1999). H. Satz, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**63**]{}, 1511 (2000). J. Dias de Deus, E. G. Ferreiro, C. Pajares, R. Ugoccioni, Phys. Lett. B[**581**]{}, 156 (2004). J. Schaffner-Bielich, D. Kharzeev, L. McLerran, R. Venugopalan, Nucl. Phys. A[**705**]{}, 494 (2002). J. Dias de Deus, E. G. Ferreiro, C. Pajares, R. Ugoccioni, Eur. Phys. J. C[**40**]{}, 229 (2005). P. Brogueira, J. Dias de Deus, J. G. Milhano, Nucl. Phys. A. [**832**]{}, 76 (2010). I. Bautista, L. Cunqueiro, J. Dias de Deus, C. Pajares, J. Phys. G[**37**]{}, 015103 (2010). B. I. Abelev et al., (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 172301 (2009). B. K. Srivastava, R. P. Scharenberg, T. Tarnowsky, (STAR Collaboration), Nukleonika [**51**]{}, s109 (2006). S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. [**43**]{}, 199 (1975). W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D[**14**]{}, 870 (1976). M. K. Parikh, F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 5042 (2000). D. Kharzeev, K. Tuchin, Nucl. Phys. A[**753**]{}, 316 (2005). D. Kharzeev, E. Levin, K. Tuchin, Phys. Rev. C[**75**]{}, 044903 (2007). P. Castorina, D. Kharzeev, H. Satz, Eur. Phys. J. C[**52**]{}, 187 (2007). P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, Christof Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B[**596**]{}, 61 (2004). F. Becattini, P. Castorina, A. Milov, H. Satz, Eur. Phys. J. C[**66**]{}, 377 (2010). A. Adare et al., (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 132301 (2010). J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D[**27**]{}, 140 (1983). B. I. Abelev et al., (STAR Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C[**79**]{}, 34909 (2009). C. Y. Wong, Introduction to high energy heavy ion collisions (World Scientific,1994). J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**128**]{}, 2425 (1962). P. Castorina, J. Cleymans, D. E. Miller, H. Satz, arXiv:hep-ph/0906.2289v1. H. Satz, Quantum field theory in extreme environments, Paris, April 2009.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, by using variational methods and critical point theory, we shall mainly study the existence of infinitely many solutions for the following fractional Schrödinger-Maxwell equations $$( -\Delta )^{\alpha} u+V(x)u+\phi u=f(x,u), \hbox{in } \mathbb{R}^3 ,$$ $$(-\triangle)^{\alpha}\phi =K_{\alpha} u^2 \ \ \mathrm{in}\ \ \mathbb{R}^3$$ where $\alpha \in (0,1],$ $K_{\alpha}={\displaystyle\frac }{\pi^{-\alpha}\Gamma(\alpha)}{\pi^{-(3-2\alpha)/2}\Gamma((3-2\alpha)/2)},$ $( -\Delta )^{\alpha}$ stands for the fractional Laplacian. Under some more assumptions on $f,$ we get infinitely many solutions for the system.'
author:
- |
Zhongli Wei$^{a,b}$ \
School of Sciences, Shandong Jianzhu University,\
Jinan, Shandong, 250101, People’s Republic of China\
$^{b}$ School of Mathematics, Shandong University,\
Jinan, Shandong 250100, People’s Republic of China. .
title: 'Existence of infinitely many solutions for the fractional Schrödinger- Maxwell equations [^1] [^2] '
---
[**Key words** ]{} Fractional Laplacian, Schrödinger-Maxwell equations, infinitely many solutions.\
[**2000 MR. Subject Classification**]{} 35B40, 35B45, 35J55, 35J60, 47J30.
Introduction and the Main Result
================================
In this paper, we study the fractional Schrödinger-Maxwell equations $$\label{FSMeq 1.1}
( -\Delta )^{\alpha}u+V(x)u+\phi u=f(x,u), \hbox{in \ \ $ \mathbb{R}^3$ ,}$$ $$\label{FSMeq 1.2}
(-\triangle)^{\alpha}\phi =K_{\alpha} u^2 \ \ \mathrm{in}\ \ \mathbb{R}^3$$ where $ u,\phi:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow \mathbb{R},f: \mathbb{R}^3\times\rightarrow \mathbb{R}, $ $\alpha \in (0,1],$ $K_{\alpha}={\displaystyle\frac }{\pi^{-\alpha}\Gamma(\alpha)}{\pi^{-(3-2\alpha)/2}\Gamma((3-2\alpha)/2)},$ $ (-\triangle)^{\alpha}$ stands for the fractional Laplacian. Here the fractional Laplacian $(-\triangle)^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha \in (0,1] $ of a function $\phi:\mathbb{R}^3\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is defined by: $$\mathcal {F}((-\triangle)^{\alpha}\phi)(\xi)=|\xi|^{2\alpha}\mathcal {F}(\phi)(\xi),\ \forall \alpha\in
(0,1],$$ where $\mathcal
{F}$ is the Fourier transform, i.e., $$\mathcal
{F}(\phi)(\xi)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\exp\{-2\pi
i\xi\cdot x\}\phi(x)\mathrm{d} x.$$ If $\phi$ is smooth enough, $(-\Delta )^\alpha$ can also be computed by the following singular integral : $$(-\triangle)^{\alpha}\phi(x)=c_{3,\alpha}\mathrm{P.V.}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\frac{\phi(x)-\phi(y)}{|x-y|^{3+2\alpha}}\mathrm{d}
y.$$ Here $\mathrm{P.V.}$ is the principal value and $c_{3,\alpha}$ is a normalization constant. Such a system is called Schrödinger-Maxwell equations or Schrödinger-Poisson equations which is obtained while looking for existence of standing waves for the fractional nonlinear Schrödinger equations interacting with an unknown electrostatic field. For a more physical background of system , we refer the reader to [@DM; @PRSE; @2004; @134; @BF; @TMNA; @1998; @11] and the references therein.
When $\alpha =1$, system was first introduced by Benci and Fortunato in [@DM; @PRSE; @2004; @134], and it has been widely studied by many authors; The case $V \equiv 1$ or being radially symmetric, has been studied under various conditions on $f$ in [@AR; @CCM; @2008; @10]-[@LZ; @FZ; @NA; @2009; @70]; When $V(x)$ is not a constant, the existence of infinitely many large solutions for has been considered in [@AP; @jmaa; @2008; @345]-[@HuangWN; @TangXH; @RM; @2014; @65] via the fountain theorem (cf. [@WillemM; @1996; @ZouWM; @MM; @2001; @104].)
In system , we assume the following hypotheses on potential $V$ and nonlinear term $f :$\
($\mathbb{V}$) $V\in C(\mathbb{R}^3,\mathbb{R})$, $\inf_{x\in \mathbb{R}^3}V(x)\geq a_1>0,$ where $a_1$ is a positive constant. Moreover, $\lim\limits_{|x|\rightarrow \infty } \ V(x)=+ \infty.$\
$(\mathbb{H}_1)$ $f\in C( \mathbb{R}^3\times \mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$, and there exist $c_1,c_2>0,\, p\in(4,2_\alpha^*)$ such that $$|f(x,u)|\leq c_1|u|+c_2| u|^{p-1}, \ \
\forall \ x\in \mathbb{R}^3,\ u\in\mathbb{R},$$ where, $2_\alpha^*=\frac{6}{3-2 \alpha}, \ \alpha> \frac{3}{4},$ $f(x,u)u\geq 0$ for $u\geq 0$.\
$(\mathbb{H}_2)$ $\lim_{ |u|\to\infty}\frac{F(x,u)}{ u^4}=+\infty\ $ uniformly for $ x\in \mathbb{R}^3,$ here $F(x,u)=\int_0^u f(x,t)\, \mathrm{d}t.$\
$(\mathbb{H}_3)$ Let $G(x,u)=\frac 1 4f(x,u)u-F(x,u),$ there exist $a_0>0, $ and $g(x)\geq 0$ such that $\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}g(x) \mathrm{d}x <+ \infty, $ $G(x,u)\geq -a_0g(x),\quad\forall\ (x,u)\in \mathbb{ R}^3\times\ \mathbb{R}.$\
$(\mathbb{H}_4)$ $f(x,-u)=-f(x,u)\ \forall\ x\in \mathbb{R}^3,\ u\in \mathbb{R} .$
Now, we are ready to state the main result of this paper.
\[FSMeq thm1.1\] Assume that $(\mathbb{V})$ and $(\mathbb{H}_1)-(\mathbb{H}_4)$ satisfy. Then system possesses infinitely many nontrivial solutions.
$(i):$ There are functions $f$ satisfying the assumptions $(\mathbb{H}_1)-(\mathbb{H}_4),$ for example $(1): \ f(x,u)=4u^3\ln(u^2+1)+\frac{2u^5}{(u^2+1)},$ then $a_0=0,$ $(\mathbb{H}_3)$ is satisfied; $(2): \ f(x,u)=e^{-\sum_{i=1}^3|x_i|}u+|u|^{p-2}u,\ p\in(4,2_\alpha^*),\ \alpha >\frac{3}{4},$ then $a_0=\frac{r_0^2}{4}, g(x)=e^{-\sum_{i=1}^3|x_i|}, r_0=\left(\frac{p}{p-4}\right)^{1/(p-2)}+1,$ $(\mathbb{H}_3)$ is satisfied.\
$(ii):$ the assumption $(\mathbb{H}_3)$ is weaker than the assumptions $(f_4)$ in paper $\cite{LiQD Weizl NA 2010 72}$ and $(f3')$ in paper $\cite{HuangWN TangXH RM 2014 65}.$
Variational settings and preliminary results
============================================
Now, let$'$s introduce some notations. For any $1 \leq r < \infty, L^r(\mathbb{R}^3)$ is the usual Lebesgue space with the norm $$\|u\|_{L^r}=\Big(\int_{ \mathbb{R}^3}|u(x)|^r\,\mathrm{d}x\Big)^{\frac 1 r}.$$ The fractional order Sobolev space: $$H^\alpha (\mathbb R^3)=\left\{u\in L^2(\mathbb R^3):\ \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(|\xi|^{2\alpha}\hat{u}^2+\hat{u}^2)\ \mathrm{d} \xi<\infty\right\},$$ where $\hat{u}=\mathcal {F}(u)$, The norm is defined by $$\|u\|_{H^\alpha(\mathbb
R^3)}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(|\xi|^{2\alpha}\hat{u}^2+\hat{u}^2)\ \mathrm{d}
\xi\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ The spaces $D^\alpha (\mathbb R^3)$ is defined as the completion of $C_0^{\infty}(\mathbb R^3)$ under the norms $$\|u\|_{D^\alpha(\mathbb
R^3)}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(|\xi|^{2\alpha}\hat{u}^2 \mathrm{d}
\xi\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}|(-\Delta)^{\alpha/2}u(x)|^2 \mathrm{d}
x\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Note that, by Plancherel’s theorem we have $\|u\|_{2}=\|\hat{u}\|_2,$ and $$\aligned \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}|(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u(x)|^2 \mathrm{d} x&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}
(\widehat{(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u(\xi)})^2 \mathrm{d} \xi
=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(|\xi|^\alpha \hat{u}(\xi))^2 \mathrm{d}
\xi \\ & =\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}|\xi|^{2\alpha}\hat{u}^2 \mathrm{d} \xi<\infty, \ \forall
u\in H^\alpha(\mathbb R^3).\endaligned$$ It follows that $$\|u\|_{H^\alpha(\mathbb
R^3)}=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(|(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u(x)|^2 +u^2)\mathrm{d} x \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ In our problem, we work in the space defined by $$\label{FSMeq-space}
E:=\bigg\{u\in H^\alpha(\mathbb R^3)\Bigm|\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(|(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u(x)|^2 +V(x)u^2)\mathrm{d} x \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}<\infty\bigg\}.$$ Thus, $E$ is a Hilbert space with the inner product $$(u,v)_E:=\int_{ \mathbb{R}^3}\big((-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u(x)\cdot(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}v(x) +V(x)uv\big)\,\mathrm{d}x.$$ and its norm is $\|u\|=(u,u)^{\frac 12}.$ Obviously, under the assumptions $(\mathbb{V}),$ $\|u\|_E \equiv \|u\|_{H^{\alpha}}. $
\[FLKGSlem2.1\] $H^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ is continuously embedded into $L^p(\mathbb{R}^3)$ for $p\in [2,2^*_{\alpha}];$ and compactly embedded into $L^p
_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ for $p\in [2,2^*_{\alpha})$ where $2^*_{\alpha}={\displaystyle\frac }{6}{3-2\alpha}.$ Therefore, there exists a positive constant $C_p$ such that $$\|u\|_p\leq C_p \|u\|_{H^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)}.$$
\[FLKGSlem2.2\] Under the assumption $(\mathbb{V}),$ the embedding $E$ is compactly embedded into $L^p(\mathbb{R}^3)$ for $p\in [2,2^*_{\alpha}).$
\[FLKGSlem2.3\] For $1<p<\infty$ and $0<\alpha < N/p,$ we have $$\label{FLKGS 2.1}
\|u\|_{L^{\frac{pN}{N-p\alpha}}(\mathbb{R}^N)}\leq B \|(-\Delta)^{\alpha/2}u\|_{L^p(\mathbb{R}^N)}$$ with best constant $$B=2^{-\alpha}\pi^{-\alpha/2}\frac{\Gamma((N-\alpha)/2)}{\Gamma((N+\alpha)/2)}
\left(\frac{\Gamma((N)}{\Gamma(N/2)}\right)^{\alpha/N}.$$
\[FLKGSlem2.4\] For any $u\in H^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and for any $h\in D^{-\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^N),$ there exists a unique solution $\phi=\left((-\Delta)^\alpha+u^2\right)^{-1}h\in D^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^N)$ of the equation $$(-\Delta)^\alpha \phi +u^2 \phi =h,$$ (being $ D^{-\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ the dual space of $ D^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^N)$). Moreover, for every $u\in H^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and for every $h,g \in D^{-\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^N),$ $$\label{FLKGS 2.2}
\langle h, \left((-\Delta)^\alpha+u^2\right)^{-1}g \rangle
=\langle g, \left((-\Delta)^\alpha+u^2\right)^{-1}h \rangle$$ where $\langle\cdot, \cdot\rangle$ denotes the duality pairing between $ D^{-\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and $ D^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^N).$
If $u\in H^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^N),$ then by Hölder inequality and $\eqref{FLKGS 2.1}$ $$\label{FSMeq 2.4}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} u^2\phi^2\mathrm{d}x \leq \|u\|^2_{2p}\|\phi\|^2_{2q}\leq B^2 \|u\|^2_{2p}\|\phi\|^2_{D^\alpha},$$ where $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1, \ q=\frac{N}{N-2\alpha},\ 2q=2^*_{\alpha}.$ Thus $\left(\int |(-\Delta)^{\alpha/2}\phi|^2+\int u^2\phi^2\right)^{1/2}$ is a norm in $ D^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ equivalent to $ \|\phi \|_{D^{\alpha}}.$ Hence, by the application of Lax-Milgram Lemma, we obtain the existence part. For every $u\in H^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and for every $h,g \in D^{-\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^N),$ we have $\phi_g= \left((-\Delta)^\alpha+u^2\right)^{-1}g, \ \phi_h=\left((-\Delta)^\alpha+u^2\right)^{-1}h.$ Hence, $${\begin{array}}{l}\langle h, \left((-\Delta)^\alpha+u^2\right)^{-1}g \rangle
={\displaystyle\int }h\left((-\Delta)^\alpha+u^2\right)^{-1}g \mathrm{d}x \\[3mm]
={\displaystyle\int }h\phi _g \mathrm{d}x =\int \left((-\Delta)^\alpha+u^2\right)\phi _h\phi _g \mathrm{d}x \\[3mm]
={\displaystyle\int }\left((-\Delta)^\alpha \phi _h+u^2\phi _h\right)\phi _g \mathrm{d}x
={\displaystyle\int }\left((-\Delta)^\alpha \phi _g+u^2\phi _g\right)\phi _h \mathrm{d}x
\\[3mm]= {\displaystyle\int }g \phi _h \mathrm{d}x = \int g \left((-\Delta)^\alpha+u^2\right)^{-1}h \mathrm{d}x
=\langle g, \left((-\Delta)^\alpha+u^2\right)^{-1}h \rangle. {\end{array}}$$ So, we get .
\[FLKGS lem4.1\] Let $f$ be a function in $C_0^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and let $0 < \alpha < n .$ Then, with $$\label{FLKGS 4.1}
c_{\alpha}\doteq \pi ^{-\alpha/2}\Gamma(-\alpha/2),$$ $$\label{FLKGS 4.2}
c_{\alpha}(\xi ^{-\alpha}\widehat{f}(\xi))^\vee{}(x)= c_{n-\alpha} \int_{\mathbb{R}^n}|x-y|^{\alpha -n}f(y)\mathrm{d}y.$$
\[FLKGS lem4.2\] For every $u\in H^\alpha$ there exists a unique $\phi =\phi(u) \in D^\alpha$ which solves equation . Furthermore, $\phi(u)$ is given by $$\label{FLKGS 4.3}
\phi(u)(x)= \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}|x-y|^{2\alpha -3}u^2(y)\mathrm{d}y.$$ As a consequence, the map $\Phi : \ u\in H^\alpha \mapsto \phi(u) \in D^\alpha $ is of class $C^1$ and $$\label{FLKGS 4.4}
[ \Phi(u)]'(v)(x)=2 \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}|x-y|^{2\alpha -3}u(y)v(y)\mathrm{d}y, \ \ \forall u,v \in H^\alpha.$$
The existence and uniqueness part follows by Lemma \[FLKGSlem2.4\]. By Lemma \[FLKGS lem4.1\] and the Fourier transform of equation , the representation formula holds for $u\in C_0^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3);$ by density it can be extended for any $u\in H^\alpha.$ The representation formula is obvious.
System and are the Euler-Lagrange equations corresponding to the functional $J: H^\alpha(\mathbb
R^3)\times D^\alpha(\mathbb
R^3)\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is $$J(u,\phi)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(|(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u(x)|^2 +V(x) u^2 -\frac{1}{2}|(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\phi(x)|^2+ K_{\alpha} \phi u^2\right)\mathrm{d}x -\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}
F(x,u)\mathrm{d}x,$$ where $F(x,t)={\displaystyle\int }_0^t f(x,s)\mathrm{d}s, \ t\in \mathbb{R}.$\
Evidently, the action functional $J$ belongs to $C^1(H^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^3)\times D^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^3),\mathbb{R})$ and the partial derivatives in $(u, \phi)$ are given, for $\xi \in H^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and $\eta \in D^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^3),$ by $${\begin{array}}{l}
\left\langle{\displaystyle\frac }{\partial J}{\partial u}(u,\phi), \xi\right\rangle
= \dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left((-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u(x)(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\xi (x)
+ V(x)u\xi + K_{\alpha} \phi u\xi \right)\mathrm{d}x -\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}
f(x,u)\xi(x) \mathrm{d}x, \\[4mm]
\left\langle{\displaystyle\frac }{\partial J}{\partial \phi}(u,\phi), \eta \right\rangle
= {\displaystyle\frac }{1}{2}\dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(-(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\phi(x)(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}\eta (x)
+K_{\alpha} u^2\eta \right)\mathrm{d}x.
{\end{array}}$$ Thus, we have the following result:
\[propst2.2\] The pair $(u,\phi)$ is a weak solution of system and if and only if it is a critical point of $J$ in $ H^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^3)\times D^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^3).$
So, we can consider the functional $J : H^{\alpha}(\mathbb{R}^3) \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ defined by $J(u)=
J (u, \phi(u)). $ After multiplying by $\phi(u)$ and integration by parts, we obtain $$\dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}|(-\triangle)^{\alpha/2}\phi(u)|^2 \mathrm{d}x= K_{\alpha}
\dint_{\mathbb{R}^3} \phi(u) u^2\mathrm{d}x
.$$ Therefore, the reduced functional takes the form
$$\label{FLKGS 4.5}
J(u)= \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(|(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha }{2}}u(x)|^2
+V(x)u^2) \mathrm{d} x
+\frac{1}{4} K_{\alpha} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u^2 \phi(u)\mathrm{d} x
- \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}F(x,u)\mathrm{d} x .$$
\[FLKGS lem4.3\] Assume that there exist $c_1, c_2 > 0$ and $p > 1$ such that $$\label{FLKGS 4.6}
|f(s)| = c_1|s| + c_2|s|^{ p-1}, \ \ \forall s \in \mathbb{R}.$$ Then the following statements are equivalent:\
i) $(u, \phi)\in (H^\alpha \cap L^p) \times D^\alpha $ is a solution of the system $\eqref{FSMeq 1.1}-\eqref{FSMeq 1.2}; $\
ii) $u\in H^\alpha \cap L^p $ is a critical point of $J$ and $\phi =\phi(u).$
By the assumption , the Nemitsky operator $u\in H^\alpha \cap L^p \mapsto F(x,u) \in L^1$ is of class $C^1.$ Hence, by Lemma \[FLKGS lem4.2\], for every $u, v\in H^\alpha $ $${\begin{array}}{lll}J'(u)[v]& =& \dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha }{2}}u(x)(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha }{2}}v(x) \mathrm{d} x
+ \dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}V(x)uv \mathrm{d} x\\[3mm]
& & +{\displaystyle\frac }{1}{2} K_{\alpha} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}uv \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}|x-y|^{2\alpha -3}u^2(y)\mathrm{d}y \mathrm{d} x\\[3mm]
& & +{\displaystyle\frac }{1}{2} K_{\alpha} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u^2 \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}|x-y|^{2\alpha -3}u(y)v(y)\mathrm{d}y \mathrm{d} x
- \dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}f(x,u)v\mathrm{d} x \\[3mm]
&=& \dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha }{2}}u(x)(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha }{2}}v(x) \mathrm{d} x
+ \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}V(x)uv \mathrm{d} x\\[3mm]
& & + K_{\alpha} \dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}uv \phi(u) \mathrm{d} x
- \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f(x,u)v\mathrm{d} x .{\end{array}}$$ By Fubini-Tonelli’s Theorem, we can obtain the conclusion.
If $1 \leq p < \infty$ and $a, b \geq 0,$ then $$\label{FSMeq 2.10}
(a+b)^p\leq 2^{p-1}(a^p+b^p).$$ From and , for any $u \in E$ using Hölder inequality we have $$\|\phi(u)\|^2_{D^\alpha}=K_{\alpha}\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\phi(u)u^2\mathrm{d} x\leq K_{\alpha}
\|\phi(u)\|_{q}\|u\|^2_{2p}\leq C\|\phi(u)\|_{D^\alpha}\|u\|^2_{2p}.$$ where $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1, \ q= 2^*_{\alpha}=\frac{6}{3-2\alpha}, \ \alpha>\frac{3}{4}.$ Here and subsequently, $C$ denotes an universal positive constant. This and lemma \[FLKGSlem2.2\] implies that $$\label{FSMeq 2.11}
\|\phi(u)\|_{D^\alpha}\leq C\|u\|^2_{2p}\leq C\|u\|^2_{E},$$ $$\label{FSMeq 2.12}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\phi(u)u^2\mathrm{d} x\leq C\|u\|^4_{2p}\leq C\|u\|^4_{E}.$$
\[FSM lem2.8\] Assume that a sequence $\{u_n\} \subset E,$ $u_n\rightharpoonup u$ in $E $ as $n \rightarrow \infty $ and $\{u_n\} $ be a bounded sequence. Then $$\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(\phi(u_n)u_n-\phi(u)u)(u_n-u)\mathrm{d}x\right| \rightarrow 0, \ \ \mathrm{as} \ \ n\rightarrow \infty.$$
Let $\{u_n\} $ be a sequence satisfying the assumptions $u_n\rightharpoonup u$ in $E $ as $n \rightarrow \infty $ and $\{u_n\} $ is bounded. Lemma \[FLKGSlem2.2\] implies that $u_n \rightarrow u$ in $ L^r(\mathbb{R}^3),$ where $2 \leq r < 2^*_{\alpha},$ and $u_n \rightarrow u$ for a.e. $x\in \mathbb{R}^3.$ Hence $\sup_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\|u_n\|_r<\infty$ and $\|u\|_r$ is finite. By Hölder inequality, , and $$\label{FSMeq 2.13}
{\begin{array}}{l} \left|\dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}(\phi(u_n)u_n-\phi(u)u)(u_n-u)\mathrm{d}x\right|\\[4mm]
\leq \left(\dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}(\phi(u_n)u_n-\phi(u)u)^2\mathrm{d}x\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left(\dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u_n-u)^2\mathrm{d}x\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\[4mm]
\leq \left(2\dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}(|\phi(u_n)u_n|^2+|\phi(u)u|^2)\mathrm{d}x\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\|u_n-u\|_2 \\[4mm] \leq C (\|u_n\|_E^6+\|u\|_E^6)^{\frac{1}{2}}\|u_n-u\|_2
\rightarrow 0, \ \ \mathrm{as} \ \ n\rightarrow \infty.{\end{array}}$$
Proof of Theorem \[FSMeq thm1.1\]
=================================
We say that $J\in C^1(X, \mathbb{R})$ satisfies the $(C)_c$-condition if any sequence $\{u_n\}$ such that $$J(u_n) \rightarrow c, \ \ \ \|J'(u_n)\| (1 + \|u_n\|) \rightarrow 0$$ has a convergent subsequence, where $X$ is a Banach space.
\[FSMeq lem3.1\] Assume that $(\mathbb{V})$ and $(\mathbb{H}_1)-(\mathbb{H}_4)$ satisfy. Then any sequence $\{u_n\}\subset E $ satisfying $$J(u_n) \rightarrow c > 0, \ \ \ \langle J'(u_n),u_n\rangle \rightarrow
0,$$ is bounded in $E.$ Moreover, $\{u_n\} $ contains a converge subsequence.
To prove the boundedness of $\{u_n\} $, arguing by contradiction, suppose that $\|u_n\|\rightarrow \infty $ as $n \rightarrow \infty .$ By $(\mathbb{H}_3)$ for sufficiently large $n \in \mathbb{N} $ $${\begin{array}}{ll}
c+1&\geq J(u_n)-{\displaystyle\frac }{1}{4}\langle J'(u_n),u_n\rangle\\[3mm]
& = {\displaystyle\frac }{1}{4} \|u_n\|^2 +\dint_{\mathbb{R}^3} G(x, u_n)\mathrm{d}x \\[3mm]
& \geq {\displaystyle\frac }{1}{4} \|u_n\|^2 -a_0\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}g(x) \mathrm{d}x\rightarrow +\infty.
{\end{array}}$$ Thus $\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N} }\|u_n\| < \infty.$ i.e. $\{u_n\} $ is a bounded sequence.
Now we shall prove $\{u_n\} $ contains a subsequence, without loss of generality, by Eberlein-Shmulyan theorem (see for instance in [@Yosida; @K; @1999]), passing to a subsequence if necessary, there exists a $u \in E$ such that $ u_n \rightharpoonup u \ \mathrm{in}\ E, $ again by Lemma \[FLKGSlem2.2\], $ u_n \rightarrow u \ \mathrm{in}\ L^s(\mathbb{R}^3), $ for $2 \leq s < 2^*_{\alpha}$ and $ u_n \rightarrow u $ a.e. $x\in \mathbb{R}^3. $ By $(\mathbb{H}_1)$ and using Hölder inequality we have $${\begin{array}}{l}
\left|\dint_{\mathbb{R}^3} (f(x,u_n)-f(x,u))(u_n-u)\mathrm{d}x\right|\\[3mm]
\leq \dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left |c_1(|u_n|+|u|)+c_2(|u_n|^{p-1}+|u|^{p-1})\right||u_n-u|\mathrm{d}x\\[3mm]
\leq c_1(\|u_n\|_2+\|u\|_2)\|u_n-u\|_2+c_2(\|u_n\|_p^{p-1}+\|u\|_p^{p-1})\|u_n-u\|_p\\[3mm]
\rightarrow 0,\ \mathrm{as} \ n \rightarrow \infty.
{\end{array}}$$ Since $J\in C^1(E),$ we have $J'(u_n) \rightarrow J'(u)$ in $E^*.$ i.e. $$\langle J'(u_n)-J'(u),u_n-u\rangle \rightarrow 0,\ \mathrm{as} \ n \rightarrow \infty.$$ This together with Lemma \[FSM lem2.8\] implies $${\begin{array}}{ll}
\|u_n-u\|^2&= \langle J'(u_n)-J'(u),u_n-u\rangle -K_{\alpha}\dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}(\phi(u_n)u_n-\phi(u)u)(u_n-u)\mathrm{d}x\\[3mm]
& + \dint_{\mathbb{R}^3} (f(x,u_n)-f(x,u))(u_n-u)\mathrm{d}x
\rightarrow 0,\ \mathrm{as} \ n \rightarrow \infty.
{\end{array}}$$ That is $ u_n \rightarrow u $ in $E.$
\[FSMeq lem3.1\] Suppose that assumptions $(\mathbb{V}),$ $(\mathbb{H}_1)$ and $(\mathbb{H}_2)$ satisfy, for any finite dimensional subspace $\widetilde{E}\subset E,$ there holds $$\label{FSMeq 3.2}
J(u)\rightarrow - \infty, \ \ \ \|u\|\rightarrow \infty, \ \ u\in \widetilde{E}.$$
Arguing indirectly, assume that for some sequence $\{u_n\}\subset
\widetilde{E}$ with $\|u_n\|\to \infty,$ there is $M>0$ such that $J(u_n)\ge -M,$ $ \forall$ $n\in \mathbb N.$ Set $v_n=\frac{u_n}{\|u_n\|},$ then $\|v_n\|=1$. Passing to a subsequence, we may assume that $v_n\rightharpoonup v$ in $E.$ Since $\dim \widetilde{E}<\infty$, then $v_n\to v\in \widetilde{E} $, $v_n(x)\to v(x)$ a.e. on $x\in\mathbb R^3$, and so $\|v\|=1$. Let $\Omega:=\{x\in \mathbb R^3:v(x)\not
=0\}$, then $\text{meas}(\Omega)>0$ and for a.e. $x\in \Omega$, we have $\lim_{n\to \infty}|u_n(x)|\to
\infty.$ It follows from , that $$\label{FSMeq 3.2}
\lim_{n\to \infty}{\displaystyle\frac }{4\dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}
F(x,u_n)\mathrm{d} x}{\|u_n\|^4}=\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{2\|u_n\|^2+K_{\alpha} \dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}
\phi(u_n)u_n^2\mathrm{d} x-4J(u_n)}{\|u_n\|^4}\leq C.$$ But by the non-negative of $F,$ ($(\mathbb{H}_2)$ and Fadou’s Lemma, for large $n$ we have
$$\aligned
&\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{4\dint_{\mathbb{R}^3}
F(x,u_n)\mathrm{d}x}{\|u_n\|^4}\geq \lim_{n\to \infty}\int_\Omega
\frac{4F(x,u_n)v_n^4}{u_n^4}\mathrm{d} x\\
&\geq \liminf_{n\to \infty}\int_\Omega
\frac{4F(x,u_n)v_n^4}{u_n^4}\mathrm{d} x\\
& \ge \int_\Omega \liminf_{n\to \infty}
\frac{F(x,u_n)v_n^4}{u_n^4}\mathrm{d} x\\
&=\int_\Omega \liminf_{n\to \infty}
\frac{F(x,u_n)}{u_n^4}[\chi_\Omega(x)]v_n^4\mathrm{d} x\to \infty, \ n\to \infty.
\endaligned$$ This contradicts to .
\[FSMeq cor3.1\] Under assumptions $(\mathbb{V}),$ $(\mathbb{H}_1)$ and $(\mathbb{H}_2),$ for any finite dimensional subspace $\widetilde{E}\subset E,$ there is $ R = R(\widetilde{E} ) > 0$ such that $$\label{FSMeq 3.3}
J(u)\leq 0, \ \ \ \forall u\in \widetilde{E}, \ \|u\|\geq R .$$
Let $\{e_j\} $ is an orthonomormal basis of $E$ and define $ X_j = \mathbb{R}e_j, $ $$\label{FSMeq 3.4}
Y_k=\oplus_{j=1}^kX_j, \ \ \ Z_k=\oplus_{j=k+1}^\infty X_j, \ \ k\in \mathbb{N}.$$
\[FSMeq lem3.3\] Under assumptions $(\mathbb{V}),$ for $2\leq r <2^*_{\alpha},$ we have $$\label{FSMeq 3.5}
\beta_k(r)=\sup _{u\in Z_k,\|u\|=1} \|u\|_r\rightarrow 0, \ \ \ k\rightarrow \infty.$$
Since the embedding from $E$ into $L^r(\mathbb{R}^3)$ is compact, then Lemma \[FSMeq lem3.3\] can be proved by a similar way as Lemma 3.8 in [@WillemM; @1996].
By Lemma \[FSMeq lem3.3\], we can choose an integer $m \geq 1$ such that $$\label{FSMeq 3.6}
\|u\|_2^2\leq \frac{1}{2c_1} \|u\|^2, \ \ \ \|u\|_p^p\leq \frac{p}{4c_2} \|u\|^p, \ \ \ \forall u\in Z_m.$$
\[FSMeq lem3.4\] Suppose that assumptions $(\mathbb{V})$ and $(\mathbb{H}_1)$ are satisfied, there exist constants $\rho,\delta > 0$ such that $J|_{\partial
B_\rho\cap Z_m}\geq \delta >0.$
By $(\mathbb{H}_1),$ we have $$F(x,u)\leq
\frac{c_1}{2}u^2+\frac{c_2}{p}|u|^{p}, \ \forall (x,u)\in \mathbb{R}^3\times \mathbb R.$$ Hence, by and , we have $$\aligned J(u)& =\frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2+\frac{1}{4}K_{\alpha} \int_{\mathbb R^3}\phi(u)u^2\mathrm{d}x -\int_{\mathbb R^3} F(x,u)\mathrm{d} x \\
& \geq \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2 -\int_{\mathbb R^3} F(x,u)\mathrm{d} x
\\
& \geq \frac{1}{2}\|u\|^2-\frac{c_1}{2}\|u\|_2^2-\frac{c_2}{p}|\|u\|_p^p\\
& \geq
\frac{1}{4}(\|u\|^2-\|u\|^p).
\endaligned$$ Hence for any given $0 < \rho < 1 ,$ let $\delta =\frac{1}{4}(\rho^2-\rho ^p),$ then Φ$J|_{\partial
B_\rho\cap Z_m}\geq \delta >0.$ This complete the proof.
\[FSMeq lem3.5\] Let $X$ be an infinite dimensional Banach space, $X = Y \oplus Z,$ where $ Y$ is finite dimensional. If $J\in C^1(X,\mathbb{ R}) $ satisfies $(C)_c$-condition for all $c > 0, $ and\
$(J1)$ $J(0) = 0, J(-u) = J(u)$ for all $u \in X;$\
$(J2)$ there exist constants $\rho,\delta > 0$ such that $J|_{\partial
B_\rho\cap Z_m}\geq \delta >0;$\
$(J3)$ for any finite dimensional subspace $\widetilde{E}\subset E,$ there is $ R = R(\widetilde{E} ) > 0$ such that $ J(u)\leq 0, \ \ \ \forall u\in \widetilde{E}\backslash B_R;$\
then $J$ possesses an unbounded sequence of critical values.
Let $X = E, Y = Y_m $ and $Z = Z_m. $ By Lemmas \[FSMeq lem3.1\], \[FSMeq lem3.4\] and Corollary \[FSMeq cor3.1\], all conditions of Lemma \[FSMeq lem3.5\] are satisfied. Thus, problem and possesses infinitely many nontrivial solutions.
[99]{}
T. D’Aprile, D. Mugnai, Solitary waves for nonlinear Klein-Gordon-Maxwell and Schrödinger-Maxwell equations, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A [**134**]{} (2004), 893–906.
V. Benci, D. Fortunato, An eigenvalue problem for the Schrödinger-Maxwell equations. Topol. Methods Nonl. Anal. [**11**]{} (1998) 283–293.
A. Ambrosetti, D. Ruiz, Multiple bound states for the Schrödinger-Poisson problem. Commun. Contemp. Math. 10 (2008) 391-404. G.M. Coclite, A multiplicity result for the nonlinear SchrödingerMaxwell equations. Commun. Appl. Anal. 7 (2003) 417-423. T. D’Aprile, Non-radially symmetric solution of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation coupled with Maxwell equations. Adv. Nonlinear Stud. 2 (2002) 177-192. H. Kikuchi, On the existence of solution for elliptic system related to the Maxwell-Schrödinger equations. Nonlinear Anal. 27 (2007) 1445-1456. D. Ruiz, The Schrödinger-Possion equation under the effect of a nonlinear local term. J. Funct. Anal. 237 (2006) 655-674.
L. Jeanjean, On the existence of bounded Palais-Smale sequences and application to a Landesman-Lazer type problem set on $\mathbb{R}^N .$ Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 129 (1999) 787-809. L. Zhao, F. Zhao, Positive solutions for Schrödinger-Poisson equations with a critical exponent, Nonlinear Anal. 70 (2009) 2150-2164.
A. Azzollini, A. Pomponio, Ground state solutions for the nonlinear Schrödinge-Maxwell equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 345 (2008) 90-108.
Chen, S .J., Tang, C.-L.: High energy solutions for the superlinear Schrödinger- Maxwell equations. Nonlinear Anal. 71(2009) 4927-4934 .
Li, Q., Su, H., Wei, Z.: Existence of infinitely many large solutions for the nonlinear Schrödinger-Maxwell equations. Nonlinear Anal. 72 (2010) 4264-4270.
Sun, J: Infinitely many solutions for a class of sublinear Schrödinger-Maxwell equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 390 (2012) 514-522. Wen-nian Huang, X.H. Tang, The existence of infinitely many solutions for the nonlinear Schrödinger-Maxwell equations. Results. Math. 65( 2014) 223-234.
Willem, M.: Minimax Theorems. Birkh¨auser, Boston (1996).
Zou, W.: Variant fountain theorems and their applications. Manuscripta Math. 104 (2001) 343-358.
X. Chang, Ground state solutions of asymptotically linear fractional Schröinger equations. J Math Phys. 54 (2013) 061504. P. Felmer, A. Quaas, and J. G. Tan, Positive solutions of nonlinear Schrödinger equation with the fractional Laplacian. Proc. - R. Soc. Edinburgh, Sect. A: Math. 142 (2012) 1237-1262 . Zifei Shen and Fashun Gao, On the Existence of Solutions for the Critical Fractional Laplacian Equation in $\mathbb{R}^N.$ Abstract and Applied Analysis, 2014, Article ID 143741, 10 pages.
Hajaiej H, Yu X, Zhai Z. Fractional Gagliardo-Nirenberg and Hardy inequalities under Lorentz norms. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 396 (2012) 569-577. Elliott H. Lieb, Michael Loss, Analysis, Second edition (Graduate Studies in Mathematics 14)-AMS Bookstore (2001).
Yosida, K.: Functional Analysis, 6th edn. Springer-Verlag, New York (1999).
Bartolo, T., Benci, V., Fortunato, D.: Abstract critical point theorems and applications to some nonlinear problems with strong resonance at infinity. Nonlinear Anal. 7, 241-273 (1983).
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected] (Z.L. Wei).
[^2]: Research supported by the NSF of Shandong Province (ZR2013AM009).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'M. Melosso'
- 'A. Melli'
- 'C. Puzzarini'
- 'C. Codella'
- 'L. Spada'
- 'L. Dore'
- 'C. Degli Esposti'
- 'B. Lefloch'
- 'R. Bachiller'
- 'C. Ceccarelli'
- 'J. Cernicharo'
- 'V. Barone'
bibliography:
- 'cyanomethanimineAA\_Mattia.bib'
title: 'Laboratory measurements and astronomical search for cyanomethanimine [^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Among the goals of astrochemistry, the detection of potential prebiotic molecules in astrophysical environments, and in particular in star forming regions, is fundamental in view of possibly understanding the origin of life. In recent years, several large programs have been devoted to the detection of prebiotic species: Prebiotic Interstellar MOlecular Survey (PRIMOS[^2]) project with the NRAO Green Bank Telescope (GBT), The IRAS16293-2422 Millimeter And Submillimeter Spectral Survey[^3] (TIMASSS) with the IRAM 30-m and JCMT single-dishes, CHESS[^4] (The Herschel Chemical Surveys of Star forming regions), ASAI[^5] (Astronomical Surveys At IRAM) with the IRAM 30-m antenna, and, more recently, SOLIS[^6] (Seeds Of Life In Space) with IRAM NOEMA (NOrthern Extended Millimeter Array), and PILS[^7] (The ALMA Protostellar Interferometric Line Survey). These projects contributed to the census of a large number of new interstellar molecules (containing between six and eleven atoms), see for example the Cologne Database for Molecular Spectroscopy [CDMS, @2005JMoSt.742..215M].
Among the various chemical species, the compounds containing the CN moiety are considered prebiotic molecules as potential precursors of amino acids [see, for example, @balucani2009 and references therein]. The simplest one is HCN, which is ubiquitous in the interstellar medium (ISM). A particular case is represented by cyanomethanimine. Among the HCN dimers, the $Z$- and $E$-C-cyanomethanimine forms (HNCHCN) as well as N-cyanomethanimine (CH$_2$NCN) are isomers more stable than two isolated HCN molecules [@evans1991hcn]. On general grounds, hydrogen cyanide dimers are thought to play a role as intermediates in the prebiotic synthesis of purines and proteins [@ferris1984hcn]. Within this context, cyanomethanimine, and in particular its C-form (C-HNCHCN) can be considered unique in the family of COMs, and its detection around Sun-like protostars would be crucial in understanding the prebiotic chemistry in regions that will form planetary systems.
C-cyanomethanimine has been detected by @zaleski2013detection toward the massive star-forming region. Sagittarius (Sgr) B2(N), placed at 8.5 kpc from the Sun, within the PRIMOS context. To our knowledge, that reported by @zaleski2013detection is the first and so far unique detection of interstellar HNCHCN in our Galaxy. The authors observed emission due to low-excitation ($E_{\rm up}$ up to 7 K) transitions of the $E$ isomer in the $\simeq$ 9.5–48 GHz spectral range.
The detection of HNCHCN toward Sgr B2(N) in the centimeter-wave spectral window calls for further searches at higher frequencies, in the mm-/submm-wave spectral range, in regions forming future Sun-like stars using both single-dishes, like the IRAM 30-m antenna, and interferometers, such as the IRAM NOEMA and Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA). In addition, taking into account the increased sensitivities and new spectral windows offered by these telescopes (ALMA can touch the THz region), it might be interesting to extend the observation of rotational features at far higher frequencies than those of @zaleski2013detection. Laboratory studies for C-cyanomethanimine were indeed limited to the portion of rotational spectra below 100 GHz [@takeo1986microwave; @takano1990microwave; @zaleski2013detection]. Because extrapolations from low-frequency laboratory measurements might provide inaccurate higher frequencies, the extension of the experimental investigation of rotational spectra of $Z$- and $E$-C-cyanomethanimine is therefore warranted. To guide this extension to higher frequency, a preliminary computational investigation of the spectroscopic parameters was carried out [@puzzarini2015isomerism], thus pointing out the effect of the centrifugal distortion terms as well as the limited reliability of the $A$ rotational constant for both isomeric species.
Furthermore, rotational spectra of both isomers show a maximum of intensity at frequencies higher than 100 GHz. As it will be shown later in the manuscript, the $E$ isomer shows strong $a$- and $b$-type spectra [$\mu_a$ = 3.25(5) D, $\mu_b$ = 2.51(2) D; @takano1990microwave] even at low temperatures, whose maxima shift from $\sim$120 and $\sim$450 GHz at T = 10 K to $\sim$410 GHz and $>$1 THz at T = 300 K, respectively. $Z$-C-cyanomethanimine presents a weak $b$-type spectrum [$\mu_b$=0.4(5) D; @takano1990microwave], while more intense (but still weaker than the [*E*]{} one by about one order of magnitude) is the $a$-type one [$\mu_a$=1.35(10) D; @takano1990microwave], whose maximum shifts from $\sim$100 GHz at T = 10 K to $\sim$430 GHz at T = 300 K.
The sensitivity reached in absorption measurements against the strong continuum source SgrB2 by @zaleski2013detection cannot be obtained toward dark clouds because of the strong continuum emission itself, which is more than a factor of ten larger than the kinetic temperature of quiescent clouds. However, mm line emissions are the best tracers for detecting HNCHCN, or to provide significant upper limits to its abundance, in dark clouds. In order to have accurate frequencies in the mm domain, we have performed a new set of measurements in our laboratory (in the 100-420 GHz frequency range) for the $E$ and $Z$ isomers of HNCHCN, which we present in this work, thus improving and enlarging the existing dataset of spectroscopic parameters.
Based on the spectroscopic results of this work, which allow us to provide accurate frequency predictions up to 700 GHz, we have carried out a search for HNCHCN emission toward a sample of 8 nearby (distances less than 250 pc) Sun-like-star forming regions in the earliest phases: from starless to more evolved Class 0 and I objects passing through Barnard 1, considered an hydrostatic core in a stage before the protostellar one (see Sect. 3). To this purpose, we used the ASAI unbiased high-sensitivity spectral surveys at mm-wavelenghts. In summary, the main goal of the manuscript is twofold: (i) to improve the predictions for rotational transitions reaching 700 GHz for both the $Z$ and $E$ isomers, and (ii) to search for HNCHCN (using the new frequencies) for the first time in a large sample of low-mass star-forming regions.
Experiment
==========
Production of C- cyanomethanimine
---------------------------------
C-cyanomethanimine is an unstable molecule that, in the present work, was produced by pyrolysis of dimethylcyanamide, (CH$_3$)$_2$NCN, as described by @takeo1986microwave, by flowing the vapors of the precursor through a quartz tube heated by a 30 cm long tube furnace. The apparatus is the same used to produce other molecules of astrophysical interest, such as methanimine (CH$_2$NH) [@dore2012accurate] and ketenimine (CH$_2$CNH) [@degli2014accurate]. The quartz reactor was connected to the usual gas inlet of the free-space absorption cell of the spectrometer and the pyrolysis products were pumped out continuously, but slowly, in order to provide their continuous flow inside the 3.25 m long, 10 cm diameter, glass cell.
For each isomer, the best working conditions were obtained by monitoring the absorption signal of a previously reported transition below 100 GHz [from @takano1990microwave]. Slightly different optimal conditions were employed for two isomers: highest yields of $Z$-C-cyanomethanimine were obtained by setting the furnace temperature to 1100 C and by flowing the precursor at a pressure of 60 mTorr through the quartz reactor, which corresponds to a pressure of 10 mTorr in the absorption cell. On the other hand, $E$-C-cyanomethanimine was found to have a higher production rate by using a lower pressure (20 mTorr in the quartz reactor) and a higher pyrolysis temperature (1160 C).
Millimeter/submillimeter-wave spectrometer
------------------------------------------
The rotational spectra were recorded in the 100-117 GHz and 240-419 GHz frequency regions by means of a millimeter/submillimeter-wave frequency modulated spectrometer [@degli2017millimeter]. Radiations sources are either a series of Gunn diodes covering the 75-134 GHz range or passive multipliers driven by the Gunn diodes which extend the covered range from 225 GHz to 1.2 THz. The output frequency is stabilized by a phase-lock loop (PLL) system referred to a signal of 75 MHz and frequency modulated at 6 kHz. Phase sensitive detection at twice the modulation frequency is employed, so that the second derivative of the actual absorption profile is recorded. A Schottky barrier Millitech detector was used for recording below 117 GHz, while VDI detectors were employed in the 240-419 GHz region.
According to the experimental conditions, frequency range, and signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), the estimated uncertainties for our measurements range from 20 to 60 kHz. Figure \[figCOMP\] shows a small portion of spectra at 272 GHz. As seen, both isomers are present in the experimental mixture, with an abundance that ensures a very good S/N of the spectrum. Despite the fact that the recording was carried out under the best conditions for producing the $E$ isomer and the lower dipole moment of $Z$-C-cyanomethanimine, the transitions appear to have similar intensity, indicating that the $Z$ isomer is produced in higher yield.
{width="14cm"}
The astronomical sample
=======================
The data presented here are part of the Large Programme ASAI, which has collected unbiased spectral surveys using the Pico Veleta (Spain) 30-m single-dish. Observations and data reduction are reported in details in Lefloch et al. (in preparation). In summary, the observations were carried out in Wobbler Switching Mode, during several runs between 2012 and 2014 using the EMIR receivers at 3mm (72–116 GHz), 2mm (126–173 GHz), and 1.3mm (200–276 GHz). In the present context we searched for C- cyanomethanimine in different objects sampling different stages of the formation process leading to a Sun-like star, namely from starless cores to Class 0 and I objects, and in addition to jet-driven shocks regions. Below, a short description of the targets:
- [**L1544**]{} is one of the best studied starless core located in Taurus at a distance of 140 pc [see @caselli1999co; @caselli2002molecular and references within] . The core is characterized by high molecular depletion given its high density ($\geq$ 2 $\times$ 10$^6$ cm$^{-3}$) and low temperature (down to 7 K). Recently, emission due to the so-defined interstellar complex organic molecules (iCOMs) (e.g., CH$_3$CHO, CH$_3$OCHO, CH$_3$OCH$_3$) have been detected, plausibly coming from the external portion of the clouds due to reactive desorption and/or cosmic-rays irradiation [e.g., @vastel2014origin; @jimenez2016spatial; @vasyunin2017formation and references within].
- [**Barnard B1b**]{} is an active star-forming site [e.g., @bachiller1986relation] located in the Barnard dense core, in Perseus ($d$ = 235 pc). B1b is associated with two companions, B1bN and B1bS: their spectral energy distribution [@pezzuto2012herschel] and their association with compact and slow outflows [@gerin2015nascent] make them among the best candidates for the first hydrostatic stage. In other words, Barnard B1b could be placed in an intermediate stage between starless cores and Class 0 ($\geq$ 10$^4$ yr) protostars. The observed position is associated with a rich molecular spectra containing for example, CH$_3$CHO, CH$_3$OCHO, and CH$_3$O lines [e.g., @cernicharo2012discovery; @daniel2013nitrogen].
- [**IRAS4A**]{} is a binary Class 0 system in the Perseus NGC1333 region, well identified using interferometry [e.g., @looney2000unveiling; @santangelo2015jet; @tobin2016vla and references therein]. The two objects, called A1 and A2, are separated by 1.8$''$ (420 AU) and are associated with different properties: (i) IRAS4-A1 has an internal luminosity of $\sim$ 3 $L_{\rm \sun}$ [@de2017glycolaldehyde] and is more than three times brighter in the mm-flux than its companion; (ii) only IRAS4-A2 is associated with a emission due to iCOMs [e.g., HCOCH$_2$OH among others; see @taquet2015constraining; @coutens2015detection; @de2017glycolaldehyde]. Both sources drive jets, with A1 definitely being the faster and younger of the two [@santangelo2015jet]. The intrinsic different properties of jets and driving sources in NGC1333-IRAS4A indicates different evolutionary stages, with A2 being evolved enough to develop a hot-corino region.
- [**L1157-mm**]{} is a Class 0 source with a bolometric luminosity of $\sim$ 3 $L_{\rm \sun}$ driving a precessing jet [@gueth1996precessing; @gueth1998sio; @podio2016first], which, in turn, has created the prototype of the so-called chemically rich outflows [e.g., @bachiller2001chemically]. The protostar lies in a relatively isolated cloud in Cepheus, at a distance of 250 pc [@looney2000unveiling], and is associated with an elongated molecular envelope possibly associated with a still not detected accretion disk [e.g., @gueth2003dust; @chiang2012apj; @tobin2013resolved; @tobin2013vla and references therein].
- [**L1157-B1**]{} is the brightest shocked region associated with the jet/outflow driven by the L1157-mm protostar. The jet has excavated two main cavities, with apices called B1 and B2 [@gueth1996precessing; @gueth1998sio]. In particular, B1 has a kinematical age $\simeq$ 1100 yr [@podio2016first] and consists of a series of shocks caused by different episodes of ejection impacting against the cavity wall. L1157-B1 has been the target of several studies using single-dish and interferometric arrays revealing rich and intense molecular spectra [e.g., @tafalla1995ammonia; @bachiller2001chemically; @codella2010chess; @lefloch2010chess; @nisini2010water]. Interestingly, high-angular resolution images revealed a chemical differentation indicating an active grain-surface chemistry at work [e.g., @codella2009methyl; @benedettini2007clumpy; @benedettini2012chess; @benedettini2013b1; @busquet2014chess]. Several iCOMs have been revealed, from the first detections reported by @arce2008complex to the @lefloch2017l1157 extensive survey, passing through the first detection of formamide in a shock [@mendoza2014molecules].
- [**L1448 R2**]{} is a shocked region located in the southern molecular outflow driven by a Class 0 protostar with a luminosity of about 7 $L_{\rm \sun}$ [e.g., @bachiller1990high; @de2017glycolaldehyde]. The region is located in Perseus, at the center of the L1448 complex [see @looney2000unveiling; @tobin2016vla and references therein] at a distance of 232 pc [@hirota2011astrometry]. L1448 R2 has been studied in detail down to high-spatial resolutions revealing high-velocity bullets, high-excitation conditions, and a consequently enriched chemistry [e.g., SiO, H$_2$O, NH$_3$, high-J CO lines: @dutrey1997successive; @nisini2010water; @nisini2013mapping; @santangelo2012herschel; @gomez2016diagnosing]. To our knowledge, no evidence of emission due to iCOMs has been found so far.
- [**L1527**]{} is a Class 0 source located in Taurus ($d$ = 140 pc) with a bolometric luminosity of approximately 3 $L_{\rm \sun}$ [@tobin2013vla and references therein]. The source is considered to be the prototypical warm carbon chain chemistry (WCCC) source, and is associated with an almost edge-on envelope/disk system [see e.g., @sakai2010distributions; @sakai2014change; @sakai2014chemical; @oya2015geometric and references therein]. Recent ALMA images revealed the rich chemistry (SO, CH$_3$OH) activated by the slow shocks occurring at the centrifugal barrier of the infalling and rotating envelope [@oya2015geometric; @sakai2017vertical].
- [**SVS13-A**]{} is part of the system SVS13, located in the NGC1333 cloud in Perseus at 235 pc from the Sun. In the mm-spectral range the region is dominated by two protostars identified by interferometric observations [@bachiller1998molecular; @looney2000unveiling; @chen2009iram; @tobin2016vla], called A and B, at 15$\arcsec$ from each other. The internal luminosity of SVS13-A has been estimated to be around 25 L$_\odot$ [@de2017glycolaldehyde]. SVS13-A is associated with: (i) an extended ($>$0.07 pc) outflow, (ii) the HH7-11 chain [@lefloch1998cores and references therein], and (iii) a low L$_{submm}$/L$_{bol}$ ratio ($\sim$ 0.8 $\%$). As a consequence, although SVS13-A is still deeply embedded in a large-scale envelope [$\sim$ 6000 AU; @lefloch1998cores], the protostar is considered a Class I ($\geq$ 10$^5$ yr) source [e.g., @chen2009iram and references therein]. Recently, the occurrence of a hot-corino around SVS13-A has been revealed through HDO and HCOCH$_2$OH measurements [@codella2016hot; @de2017glycolaldehyde].
Results
=======
Spectroscopic parameters
------------------------
![Spectral predictions in the 0 - 1000 GHz frequency range for the [*E*]{}-C-cyanomethanimine at four different temperatures: T = 10 K (upper row), T = 30 K (second row), T = 100 K (third row), and T = 300 K (lower row). $a$-type transitions are depicted in red, $b$-type transitions in green.[]{data-label="figPREV-E"}](previsioni_E.eps){width="9cm"}
A total number of 286 and 311 new line frequencies were measured in the 100-419 GHz range for the $E$ and $Z$ isomers, respectively. Our measurements involved rotational energy levels in the 10 to 46 $J$ interval and ranging in $K_a$ from 0 to 15. Small splittings due to the $^{14}$N-nuclear spin of the two nitrogen atoms were observed for a few $a$- and $b$-type $R$ branch transitions. The transition frequencies obtained in the present study together with those reported by @takeo1986microwave in the 37-50 GHz range, by @takano1990microwave in the 23-100 GHz range, and by @zaleski2013detection in the 9-48 GHz range were analyzed using Pickett’s SPFIT program [@pickett1991fitting], adopting Watson’s S-reduced Hamiltonian in its I$^r$ representation [@watson1977aspects]. Each transition frequency was weighted proportionally to the inverse square of its experimental uncertainty. The hyperfine structure exhibited by many lines of both isomers was accounted for using the following angular momenta coupling scheme between the $^{14}$N-nuclear spins $\hat{I_1}$ (NH group) and $\hat{I_2}$ (CN group) and the rotational angular momentum $\hat{J}$: $\hat{I}$ = $\hat{I_1}$+$\hat{I_2}$, $\hat{F}$ = $\hat{J}$+$\hat{I}$. In this way, a total of 384 distinct transition frequencies were analyzed for each of the two isomers. These global fits led to the determination of 17 independent spectroscopic parameters with a root mean square (RMS) error of 36 and 38 kHz and a dimensionless standard deviation of 0.81 and 0.95 for $Z$- and $E$-C-cyanomethanimine, respectively. The results of the fits, compared to those by @zaleski2013detection, are collected in Table \[t1\], while the list of frequencies is available in the supplementary material, which also contains the set of spectroscopic constants obtained in the SPFIT format (in order to facilitate their inclusion in spectroscopic databases). We note that, in addition to the improvement of the already known spectroscopic parameters, new constants have been determined. In particular, the quartic centrifugal distortion constant $D_K$ and four sextic centrifugal-distortion constants were obtained with good accuracy for both isomers. The $^{14}$N spin-rotation coupling constant $C_{aa}$ (NH) was also fitted. Overall, the accuracy of all spectroscopic constants previously reported has been improved by 1 to 3 order of magnitude. For both isomers, there is a noticeable difference in the newly determined $A$ rotational constant with respect to those of @zaleski2013detection, with differences of $\sim$5 MHz for $E$-C-cyanomethanimine and $\sim$20 MHz for the $Z$ isomer, the respective discrepancies being about 200 and 4 times the statistical errors given in @zaleski2013detection. These large changes are due to the fact that $b$-type transitions have been measured for the first time for $Z$-C-cyanomethanimine, while $b$-type transitions involving rotational levels with $K_a$ > 1 have been included in the fit for the $E$ isomer. Our global fits allowed us to improve the rest frequency determinations in terms of accuracy as well as to extend their availability up to 700 GHz with uncertainty smaller than 200 kHz. By means of a selection of observed transition frequencies together with the corresponding residuals from the fits, Table \[t2\] provides the reader with an example of the quality of the measurements and analysis for both isomeric species.
![Spectral predictions in the 0 - 1000 GHz frequency range for the [*Z*]{}-C-cyanomethanimine at four different temperatures: T = 10 K (upper row), T = 30 K (second row), T = 100 K (third row), and T = 300 K (lower row). $a$-type transitions are depicted in red, $b$-type transitions in green.[]{data-label="figPREV-Z"}](previsioni_Z.eps){width="9cm"}
[p[1.5cm]{}l|D[.]{}[.]{}[10]{}D[.]{}[.]{}[10]{}D[.]{}[.]{}[10]{}D[.]{}[.]{}[10]{}]{} & &\
& & & &\
$ A $ & & 62700.392(22) & 62695.094(24) & 54193.405(32) & 54173.1(50)\
$ B $ & & 4972.04534(22) & 4972.04643(81) & 5073.86584(15) & 5073.86506(86)\
$ C $ & & 4600.29561(23) & 4600.29460(89) & 4632.38905(14) & 4632.39090(74)\
$ D_{J} $ & $\times 10^{3}$ & 1.881477(94) & 1.8704(55) & 2.425671(87) & 2.4737(74)\
$ D_{JK}$ & & -0.1054288(30) & -0.10455(17) & -0.1032838(27) & -0.10331(21)\
$ D_{K} $ & & 5.1408(52) & & 3.5488(59) &\
$ d_{1} $ & $\times 10^{3}$ & -0.33939(13) & -0.3272(57) & -0.48265(10) & -0.4961(82)\
$ d_{2} $ & $\times 10^{3}$ & -0.020511(20) & 0.0221(71) & -0.031338(21) & -0.0321(55)\
$ H_{J} $ & $\times 10^{9}$ & 4.661(33) & & 6.998(35) &\
$ H_{JK} $ & $\times 10^{6}$ & -0.42172(97) & & -0.40281(93) &\
$ H_{KJ} $ & $\times 10^{6}$ & -7.303(11) & & -8.986(15) &\
$ H_{K} $ & $\times 10^{3}$ & 0.906723 & & 0.599872 &\
$ h_{1} $ & $\times 10^{9}$ & 1.823(45) & & 2.555(38) &\
$ h_{2} $ & $\times 10^{9}$ & 0.1571 & & 0.2675 &\
$ h_{3} $ & $\times 10^{9}$ & 0.0450 & & 0.0738 &\
$\chi_{aa}(CN)$ & & -4.1315(20) & -4.1280(67) & -4.0102(51) & -4.012(21)\
$\chi_{bb}(CN)$ & & -0.2006(31) & -0.1972(57) & -0.20845(39) & -0.2146(86)\
$\chi_{aa}(NH)$ & & 0.7447(30) & 0.753(11) & -4.2721(49) & -4.269(21)\
$\chi_{bb}(NH)$ & & -2.0661(51) & -2.0642(89) & -0.81008(50) & -0.8201(82)\
$ C_{aa}(NH) $ & & 0.0173(19) & & 0.0064(22) &\
\# lines & & & & &\
RMS error & & & & &\
$\sigma$ & & & & &\
Figures \[figPREV-E\] and \[figPREV-Z\] provide an overview of the rotational spectra in the 0-1000 GHz frequency range for the $E$ and $Z$ isomers, respectively, at four different temperatures: T = 10 K (upper row), T = 30 K (second row), T = 100 K (third row), and T = 300 K (lower row). For both isomers, it is observed that by increasing the temperature the maximum of intensity moves to higher frequencies. The overall spectra also reflect the dipole moment components of the two species. For $E$-C-cyanomethanimine, both $a$- and $b$-type spectra are intense (see Figure \[figPREV-E\]), as expected by the large dipole moment components. However, the $b$-type is the most intense at all temperatures considered, even if at T = 300 K the $a$-type transitions become nearly as intense as the $b$-type ones (see Figure \[figPREV-E\], lower row). For the $Z$ isomer, the $a$-type spectrum is the more intense independently of the temperature because of the small magnitude of $\mu_b$ (see Figure \[figPREV-Z\]). Despite the fact that the $b$-type spectrum is particularly weak, in this work, for the first time, $b$-type transitions have been measured and the observed intensities tend to confirm qualitatively a value of 0.4 D for $\mu_b$. Overall, the rotational spectrum of $Z$-C-cyanomethanimine is weaker than that of the $E$ isomer by about one order of magnitude. An example is shown in Figure \[figLS\], which allows us to point out the good S/N of our measurements.
{width="14cm"}
Astronomical observations: abundance upper limits
-------------------------------------------------
To obtain the most constraining information on the presence of C-cyanomethanimine in the selected astronomical targets, we used the frequencies (falling in the ASAI spectral ranges) of the $E$ isomer, whose transitions are always brighter than those of the $Z$ one. Based on the predictions showed of Figure \[figPREV-E\], and conservatively homogenising the search for HNCHCN in the present sample, we selected the brightest lines assuming a temperature (and the corresponding partition function) of 10 K for the starless core L1544 and for Barnard 1, while we used a representative temperature of 100 K for the regions around protostars and outflow shocks.
Figure \[figPREV-E\] clearly shows that the most intense lines at 10 K fall in the 3mm spectral window (where the Half Power Beam Width, HPBW, is $\sim$ 26$\arcsec$), while at 100 K they lie at 1.3mm (HPBW $\sim$ 12$\arcsec$). As an example, the 9$_{\rm 0,9}$–8$_{\rm 0,8}$ transition at 85931.777 MHz with $E_{\rm u}$ = 115 K and $S\mu$$^2$ = 233 D$^2$ is expected to be one of the brightest lines at 10 K. On the other hand, a good candidate at 100 K is the 22$_{\rm 0,22}$–21$_{\rm 0,21}$ transition at 207705.762 MHz ($E_{\rm u}$ = 21 K, $S\mu$$^2$ = 190 D$^2$). Unfortunately, no lines due to C-cyanomethanimine were detected. However, thanks to the high-sensitivity of the ASAI dataset, we derived constraining (see below) upper limits on the HNCHCN column density in low-mass star-forming regions. To obtain the best sensitivity, we smoothed the spectral resolution of the L1544 spectra to 0.5 km s$^{-1}$, given the expected linewidth of iCOMs lines is between 0.3 km s$^{-1}$ and 0.8 km s$^{-1}$ [@vastel2014origin]. On the other hand, we smoothed the spectra of Barnard 1, protostars and shocks to 2 km s$^{-1}$ because we expect a linewidth of at least 4 km s$^{-1}$ [e.g., @de2017glycolaldehyde; @lefloch2017l1157; @cernicharo2012discovery]. The 1$\sigma$ level of the integrated area (in main-brightness temperature scale, $T_{\rm MB}$) of the lines are: $\sim$ 10–20 mK km s$^{-1}$ for L1544 and Barnard1, and $\simeq$ 30–90 mK km s$^{-1}$ for the other targets. Using a 3$\sigma$ level criterium, we obtained the following beam averaged (12$\arcsec$ for all the sources but L1544 and Barnard 1, averaged on 26$\arcsec$) upper limits:
- 1 $\times$ 10$^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$ (L1544; 26$\arcsec$)
- 2 $\times$ 10$^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Barnard 1; 26$\arcsec$)
- 1 $\times$ 10$^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ (L1157-B1; 12$\arcsec$)
- 2 $\times$ 10$^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ (L1157-mm, L1448-R2; 12$\arcsec$)
- 3 $\times$ 10$^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ (IRAS4A, L1527, SVS13-A; 12$\arcsec$)
An estimate of the upper limits for the cyanomethanimine abundance, $X_{\rm HNCHCN}$, can be obtained using the H$_2$ column density: namely N(H$_2$) $\simeq$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ for the starless core L1544 [@2005ApJ...619..379C], $\simeq$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ for the L1157-B1 shock [@2012ApJ...757L..25L], and around 10$^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ for the hot-corinos associated with SVS13-A and IRAS4A . For a proper comparison, the beam averaged $N_{\rm HNCHCN}$ upper limits have to be first modified taking into account the expected emitting size, being consequently corrected for the corresponding beam dilution. For hot-corinos, we assumed a typical size of 1$\arcsec$ and then the filling factor[^8] $ff$ = 7 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$; for the L1157-B1 shock, we used 9$\arcsec$ and $ff$ = 0.36 [@2012ApJ...757L..25L]. A filling factor $ff$ = 1 (i.e., no correction) has been assumed instead for L1154 given its extended structure [e.g., @vastel2014origin]. Therefore, by assuming that HNCHCN and H$_2$ are tracing the same material and comparing the corresponding column densities, we derived $X_{\rm HNCHCN}$ $\leq$ 4 $\times$ 10$^{-10}$ for starless and hot-corinos, and $\leq$ 5 $\times$ 10$^{-9}$ for shocks.
Discussion
----------
As stated in the Introduction, the unique detection of cyanomethanimine in the interstellar medium so far has been reported by @zaleski2013detection, who observed emission due to the $E$ isomer toward the B2(N) core of the Sagittarius complex. Sagittarius B2(N) can be considered one of the best places where to search for complex organic molecules . The Sagittarius B2 region is one of the largest molecular clouds in the Galaxy associated with massive star-forming regions, and it is located at about 120 pc from the Galactic Center. @zaleski2013detection derived a $N_{\rm HNCHCN}$ $\simeq$ 10$^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$ using lines observed at 1cm using the Green Bank Telescope (GBT), but no abundance has been calculated. This is plausibly due to the uncertainty on the size of the emitting region, Sgr B2(N) being a source with a substantial structure on spatial scales smaller than the GBT beam (from $\simeq$ 20$\arcsec$ to 80$\arcsec$, depending on the frequency, i.e. $\simeq$ 1–3 pc given the Sgr B2(N) distance). As a consequence, it is not clear which is the H$_2$ column density of the observed features: if compact, $N_{\rm H_2}$ is surely larger than 10$^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$, which in turn means $X_{\rm HNCHCN}$ $\leq$ 10$^{-11}$. However, we cannot exclude that the HNCHCN lines in Sgr B2(N) arise from the external layers of the cloud where $N_{\rm H_2}$ could be lower.
The advantages of the upper limits on $X_{\rm HNCHCN}$ presented here are the following: (i) they refer to regions associated with Sun-like progenitors which are expected to be associated with protoplanetary regions, and (ii) previous observations of the astronomical sample make one confident to give a reasonable assumption on the cyanomethanimine emitting region.
Interestingly, the present upper limits on $X_{\rm HNCHCN}$ can be compared with the abundance of another N-bearing iCOMs, such as formamide (NH$_2$CHO), measured by @mendoza2014molecules and @2015MNRAS.449.2438L toward shocks ($X_{\rm NH_2CHO}$ = 5 $\times$ 10$^{-9}$) and hot-corinos (3 $\times$ 10$^{-11}$ and 2–5 $\times$ 10$^{-10}$ for SVS13-A and IRAS4A, respectively). As a consequence, we have $R$ = $X_{\rm HNCHCN}$/$X_{\rm NH_2CHO}$ $\leq$ 10 (SVS13-A), while for L1157-B1 and IRAS4A we have one order of magnitude less: $R$ $\leq$ 1. Although these measurements do not severely constrain the ratio between cyanomethanimine and formamide around Sun-like-star forming regions, they are in agreement with what we can derive from the column densities reported toward the massive star-forming region Sgr B2(N) by @zaleski2013detection and @2011ApJ...743...60H. With the same caveats reported above on the use of large beams around Sgr B2(N): $N_{\rm HNCHCN}$ = 2 $\times$ 10$^{13}$ cm$^{-2}$, $N_{\rm NH_2CHO}$ = 4 $\times$ 10$^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$, and thus $R$ $\sim$ 0.1.
Conclusions
===========
In the present paper, the investigation of the rotational spectrum of C-cyanomethanimine has been extended to the millimeter-/submillimeter-wave frequency region, thus considering the 100-419 GHz range. New measurements, which also include the first recording of $b$-type transitions for the $Z$ isomer, have allowed us to improve and enlarge the sets of spectroscopic parameters. Overall, the present work is able to provide accurate predictions for rotational transitions up to 700 GHz for both $Z$- and $E$-C-cyanomethanimine. This is an important prebiotic species, whose $E$ form has already been detected in SgB2(N) at frequencies below 48 GHz. The extension to higher frequencies provided by this work opens up the opportunity of also detecting the $Z$ isomer, which has an $a$-type rotational spectrum weaker than that of $E$-C-cyanomethanimine by a factor of six, thus being too weak below 50 GHz to be observed.
Using the frequencies here derived, we performed a search for C-cyanomethanimine emission toward nearby Sun-like-star forming regions using the ASAI IRAM 30-m dataset. We investigated the earliest stages of the star forming process, from starless regions to the more evolved hot-corinos associated with both Class 0 and Class I objects. We sampled spatial scales between 1600 and 2800 AU, depending on the targets, obtaining the following upper limits on the C-cyanomethanimine column density: $\sim$ 10$^{11}$ cm$^{-2}$ for the starless core L1544, and fews 10$^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ for the hydrostatic core Barnard 1, hot-cores, and shocked regions. Using previous knowledge on the H$_2$ column densities of the observed regions, we derived C-cyanomethanimine abundances less than a few 10$^{-10}$ and 10$^{-9}$ for starless and hot-corinos, and shocks, respectively. Finally, the present constraints on the C-cyanomethanimine abundance could be used as instructive limits on the abundances in the gas-phase of prebiotic N-bearing molecules more complex than HNCHCN, such as glycine.
This work has been supported in Bologna by MIUR ‘PRIN 2015’ funds (project “STARS in the CAOS (Simulation Tools for Astrochemical Reactivity and Spectroscopy in the Cyberinfrastructure for Astrochemical Organic Species)” - Grant Number 2015F59J3R) and by the University of Bologna (RFO funds). This work has also been partially supported by the PRIN-INAF 2016 “The Cradle of Life - GENESIS-SKA (General Conditions in Early Planetary Systems for the rise of life with SKA)”. The support of the COST CMTS-Actions CM1405 (MOLIM: MOLecules In Motion) and CM1401 (Our Astro-Chemical History) is acknowledged. CC acknowledges the funding from the European Research Council (ERC), project DOC (contract 741002). JC thanks ERC for funding under ERC-2013-SyG, G.A. 610256 NANOCOSMOS.
[^1]: The complete list of the measured transitions for $Z$- and $E$-C-cyanomethanimine is only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/
[^2]: http://www.cv.nrao.edu/PRIMOS/
[^3]: http://www-laog.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/heberges/timasss
[^4]: http://www-laog.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/heberges/chess
[^5]: http://www.oan.es/asai/
[^6]: http://solis.osug.fr/
[^7]: http://youngstars.nbi.dk/PILS
[^8]: $ff$ = $\theta_{\rm s}$$^2$/($\theta_{\rm s}$$^2$+$\theta_{\rm b}$$^2$), where $\theta_{\rm s}$ and $\theta_{\rm b}$ are the source and the beam sizes, respectively.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We write, for geometric index values, a probabilistic proof of the product formula for spherical Bessel functions. Our proof has the merit to carry over without any further effort to Bessel-type hypergeometric functions of one matrix argument. Moreover, the representative probability distribution involved in the matrix setting is shown to be closely related to matrix-variate normal distributions and to the symmetrization of upper-left corners of Haar-distributed orthogonal matrices. Once we did, we use the latter relation to perform a detailed analysis of this probability distribution. In case it is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure on the space of real symmetric matrices, the product formula for Bessel-type hypergeometric functions of two matrix arguments is obtained from Weyl integration formula.'
address:
- |
Institut Mathématiques de Jussieu\
Université Paris VI\
France
- |
Institut de Recherche en Mathématiques de Rennes\
Université Rennes 1\
France
author:
- 'L. Deleaval'
- 'N. Demni'
title: A probabilistic proof of product formulas for spherical Bessel functions and their matrix analogues
---
Reminder and motivation
=======================
The spherical Bessel function $j_{\nu}$ of index $\nu$ is defined for all complex $z$ and all $\nu > -1$ by ([@Watson]) $$j_{\nu}(z) = \sum_{l=0}^{+\infty} \frac{(-1)^l}{(\nu+1)_l l!} \left(\frac{z}{2}\right)^{2l},$$ where $(\nu+1)_{l}: = \Gamma(\nu+l+1)/\Gamma(\nu+1)$ denotes the usual Pochhammer symbol. It provides a basic example of one-variable special function satisfying a product formula that opened the way to a rich harmonic analysis. More precisely, for $\nu \geq -1/2$ and nonnegative real numbers $x,y,z$, it is well known that $$\label{PF}
j_{\nu}(xy)j_{\nu}(zy) = \int_{\mathbb R_+} j_{\nu}(\xi y) \tau_{x,z}^{\nu}(d\xi),$$ where $\tau_{x,z}^{\nu}$ is a compactly-supported probability distribution. Recall that for $\nu > -1/2$, is a trivial consequence of the addition Theorem for Bessel functions (see for instance Chapter XI in [@Watson]) while it obviously holds for $\nu = -1/2$ since $j_{-1/2}(z) = \cos(z)$. Nevertheless, for integer $p \geq 1$ and for the so-called geometrical index values $\nu = (p/2) -1$, may be derived from the following Poisson-type integral representation $$j_{(p/2)-1}(|v|) = \int_{S^{p-1}} e^{i\langle v, s \rangle}\sigma_1(ds), \quad v\in \mathbb R^p,$$ where $\sigma_1$ is the uniform distribution on the unit sphere $S^{p-1}$ and $\mathopen\langle\cdot,\cdot\mathclose\rangle$, $\mathopen|\cdot\mathclose|$ are respectively the Euclidean inner product and the associated Euclidean norm in $\mathbb{R}^p$. Indeed, if we set $|v| = y$, then $$\begin{aligned}
j_{(p/2)-1}(x|v|) j_{(p/2)-1}(z|v|) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^p} e^{i \langle v, s \rangle} (\sigma_x \star \sigma_z)(ds),\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_x,\sigma_z$ are the uniform distributions on spheres of radii $x,z$ respectively. But according to [@Rag] Corollary 5.2 p.1149, the probability distribution $\sigma_x \star \sigma_z$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure in $\mathbb{R}^p$ and due to its rotational invariance it has a radial density. The use of spherical coordinates yields then . Avoiding techniques from differential geometry like the ones used to prove the absolute continuity of $\sigma_x \star \sigma_z$, we write a probabilistic proof of for geometric index values and supply a probabilistic interpretation of $\tau_{x,z}^{(p/2)-1}$. Our starting point is the elementary fact that the conditional distribution of a standard normal vector $N$ in $\mathbb{R}^p$ given its radius $|N|$ is the uniform distribution on the sphere of radius $|N|$. The product of two spherical Bessel functions turns towards the conditional independence of two independent standard normal vectors $N_1,N_2$ relative to the $\sigma$-field generated by their radii $|N_1|, |N_2|$ ([@Rev]). The representative probability distribution $\tau_{x,z}^{(p/2)-1}$ is then seen to be the conditional distribution of the radial part $|N_1+N_2|$ given $(|N_1| = x, |N_2| = z)$. In fact, $N_1+N_2$ is again distributed as a standard Gaussian vector (up to a constant) and its angular part is independent from both radii $|N_1|$ and $|N_2|$. The reader will easily realize from the ingredients needed in the proof that choosing any multivariate stable distribution in $\mathbb{R}^p$ whose density is a radial function does not alter our proof. But the Fourier transform of a radial function is again radial therefore the choice restricts uniquely to isotropic or rotationally invariant stable distributions (whose Lévy exponents are given up to a constant by $v \mapsto |v|^{\alpha}, \alpha \in (0,2]$, [@Sato] p.86).
Our proof has also the merit to carry over after mild modifications to some matrix analogues of spherical Bessel functions. Those we consider here are known as Bessel-type hypergeometric functions of one and two $m \times m$ real symmetric matrix arguments. The product formulas we obtain are valid for geometrical index values and are those derived in [@Ros] using hypergroup theory, in the particular case of the real division algebra. This is by no means a loss of generality since product formulas over the division algebra $\mathbb{C}$ may be easily derived along the same lines. For functions of one matrix argument, the proof is identical to that written for $j_{(p/2)-1}$. Besides, the representative probability distribution is seen to be the conditional distribution of the radial part of the sum of two independent $p \times m \, (p \geq m)$ standard matrix-variate normal distributions given the radial part of each. We shall prove that this conditional distribution is closely related to the distribution of the $m \times m$ upper-left corner of an orthogonal matrix of size $p$, whence its absolute continuity (with respect to Lebesgue measure) is deduced for $p \geq m+1$. For these values of $p$, one easily derives the product formula for functions of two arguments using Weyl integration formula for the space of real symmetric matrices. As a matter of fact, the corresponding representative probability distribution has an analogous description in terms of singular values rather than matrices. Besides, when $p \geq 2m$, a result due to B. Collins provides a detailed description of the distribution of the upper-left corner of an orthogonal matrix, agreeing with the variable change formula given in Lemma 3.7 p.495 in [@Herz] and reproved in Corollary 3.3 p. 762 in [@Ros]. Note finally that since Bessel-type hypergeometric functions of two matrix arguments we consider here are instances of generalized Bessel functions associated with $B$-type root systems, then our approach resembles the one carried for proving Theorem 5.16 (ii) in [@BBO].
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we consider spherical Bessel functions $j_{(p/2)-1}$ and prove for geometric index values. In section 3, we extend our proof to Bessel-type hypergeometric functions of one real symmetric matrix argument. In the last section, we perform a detailed analysis of the representative probability distribution: it is absolutely continuous for $p \geq m+1$ and its density enjoys a certain averaged bi-invariance property with respect to the orthogonal group. The product formula for functions of two real symmetric matrix arguments follows from Weyl integration formula.
Product formula for spherical Bessel functions
==============================================
All random variables occuring below are defined on some probability space $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, \mathbb{P})$ and we denote $\mathbb{E}$ the corresponding expectation. Furthermore, for the $\sigma$-field $\sigma(X)$ generated by a random variable $X$, we write $$\mathbb{E}[\mathopen \cdot \mathclose|X] \quad \textrm{for} \quad \mathbb{E}[\mathopen \cdot \mathclose|\sigma(X)],$$ and we recall that all equalities involving conditional expectations hold $\mathbb{P}$-almost surely. Let $N$ be a standard normal vector[^1] in $\mathbb{R}^p$ and let $N = R\Theta$ be its polar decomposition ($R > 0$ and $\Theta \in S^{p-1}$). Then, $R$ and $\Theta$ are independent and $\Theta$ is uniformly distributed on $S^{p-1}$. It follows that for any $v \in \mathbb{R}^p$ $$\mathbb{E}\left[e^{i\langle v, N\rangle}|R\right] = \int_{S^{p-1}}e^{i\langle v, Rs\rangle}\sigma_1(ds) = j_{(p/2)-1}(|v|R).$$ In fact, if $X,Y$ are independent random variables valued in some measurable spaces and if $\mathcal{D}_Y$ stands for the distribution of $Y$, then $$\mathbb{E}[f(X,Y)| X] = \int f(X,y) \mathcal{D}_Y(dy)$$ for any bounded Borel function $f$ (see [@Rev] p.108 Exercice 4.27).
Now, let $N_1, N_2$ be two independent standard normal vectors in $\mathbb{R}^p$ with polar decompositions $N_1 = R_1\Theta_1, N_2 = R_2\Theta_2$ respectively, and consider the product $\sigma$-field $\sigma(R_1,R_2)$ generated by $R_1,R_2$. Then, the independence of $N_1$ and $N_2$ implies that ([@Rev]) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[e^{i\langle v, N_1\rangle}|R_1\right] &=& \mathbb{E}\left[e^{i\langle v, N_1\rangle}| R_1,R_2\right]\\
\mathbb{E}\left[e^{i\langle v, N_2\rangle}|R_2\right] &=& \mathbb{E}\left[e^{i\langle v, N_2\rangle}|R_1,R_2\right].\end{aligned}$$ Besides, $N_1,N_2$ are conditionally independent relative to $\sigma(R_1,R_2)$ (see [@Rev] p.109 Exercice 4.32). In fact, one has for any bounded Borel function $f: \mathbb{R}^p \to \mathbb{R}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\Bigl[f(N_2)| N_1, R_1,R_2\Bigr] = \mathbb{E}\Bigl[f(N_2)|R_2\Bigr] = \mathbb{E}\Bigl[f(N_2)|R_1,R_2\Bigr].\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\mathbb{E}\left[e^{i\langle v, N_1\rangle}|R_1\right] \mathbb{E}\left[e^{i\langle v, N_2\rangle}|R_2\right] = \mathbb{E}\left[e^{i\langle v, N_1+N_2\rangle}|R_1,R_2\right].$$ Write $N_1+N_2: = R_3\Theta_3$, then $N_1+N_2$ is (up to a constant factor) a standard normal vector so that $\Theta_3$ is uniformly distributed on $S^{p-1}$ and is independent from $R_3$. We claim that:
\[L1\] $\Theta_3$ is independent from $\sigma(R_1,R_2)$.
Let $f: S^{p-1} \to \mathbb{R}, g: \mathbb{R}_+ \times \mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}$ be bounded Borel functions, then the independence of $N_1,N_2$ yields $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{E}\left[f(\Theta_3)g(R_1,R_2)\right] = \mathbb{E}\left[f\left(\frac{N_1+N_2}{|N_1+N_2|}\right)g(|N_1|,|N_2|)\right] \\
= \int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}F(r_1,r_2)dr_1dr_2\int_{S^{p-1}\times S^{p-1}}f\left(\frac{r_1\theta_1+r_2\theta_2}{|r_1\theta_1+r_2\theta_2|}\right)\sigma_1(d\theta_1)\sigma_1(d\theta_2),\end{gathered}$$ where $$F(r_1,r_2) := (r_1r_2)^{p-1}e^{-(r_1^2+r_2^2)/2}g(r_1,r_2).$$ Let $\nu_{r_1,r_2}(d\theta)$ be the pushforward of $\sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_1$ under the map $$(\theta_1,\theta_2) \mapsto \frac{r_1\theta_1+r_2\theta_2}{|r_1\theta_1+r_2\theta_2|},$$ then $$\int_{S^{p-1}\times S^{p-1}}f\left(\frac{r_1\theta_1+r_2\theta_2}{|r_1\theta_1+r_2\theta_2|}\right)\sigma_1(d\theta_1)\sigma_1(d\theta_2) = \int_{S^{p-1}}f\left(\theta\right)\nu_{r_1,r_2}(d\theta).$$ But $\nu_{r_1,r_2}$ is obviously invariant under the action of $O(p)$, therefore $\nu_{r_1,r_2} = \sigma_1$ since $\sigma_1$ is the unique distribution on $S^{p-1}$ enjoying the rotational invariance property.
We also need the following lemma:
\[L2\] Let $V,X,Y$ be random variables such that $Y$ and $(X,V)$ are independent. Then, for any bounded Borel function $f$ $$\mathbb{E}[f(X,Y)| V] = \int \mathbb{E}[f(X,y)|V] \mathcal{D}_Y(dy).$$
This fact is easily proved for bounded functions $f(x,y) = g(x)h(y)$ and then extended to bounded Borel functions using the monotone class Theorem ([@Rev1] p.5).
Combining the proposition and the lemma, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[e^{i\langle v, N_1+N_2\rangle}|R_1,R_2\right] = \int_{S^{p-1}}\mathbb{E}\left[e^{i\langle v, R_3 s\rangle}|R_1,R_2\right] \sigma_1(ds).
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, let $\mu_{R_3|(R_1,R_2)}$ be a regular version of the conditional distribution of $R_3$ given $(R_1,R_2)$, then Fubini Theorem entails $$j_{(p/2)-1}(|v|R_1) j_{(p/2)-1}(|v|R_2) = \int_{\mathbb{R}_+} j_{(p/2)-1}(|v|\xi) \mu_{R_3|(R_1,R_2)}(d\xi).$$ Thus, is proved and $\tau_{x,z}^{(p/2)-1}$ fits $\mu_{R_3|(R_1,R_2)}$ on the event $\{R_1=x,R_2=z\}$ as explained in the following remark.
Let $\Phi$ be the angle between $\Theta_1, \Theta_2$: $\cos\Phi = \langle \Theta_1,\Theta_2\rangle$. Then $$R_3 = \sqrt{R_1^2 + R_2^2 + 2R_1R_2\cos\Phi}.$$ But the independence of $\Theta_1, \Theta_2$ entails for any real $w$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[e^{iw\cos \Phi}] &= \int_{S^{p-1}}\int_{S^{p-1}} e^{iw \langle s,t\rangle} \sigma_1(ds)\sigma_1(dt)
\\& = \int_{S^{p-1}} j_{(p/2)-1}(w|t|)\sigma_1(dt)
\\& = j_{(p/2)-1}(w) = \frac{\Gamma(p/2)}{\Gamma(1/2)\Gamma((p-1)/2)} \int_{-1}^{1} e^{iw\xi}(1-\xi^2)^{(p-3)/2} d\xi\end{aligned}$$ where we used Lemma 5.4.4 p.195 in [@DX]. Performing the variable change $$u = \sqrt{x^2+z^2 + 2xz\xi}, \quad \xi \in [-1,1],$$ one recovers the density of $\tau_{x,z}^{(p/2)-1}$ derived in Proposition A.5. p. 1153 in [@Rag].
Product formula for Bessel-type hypergeometric functions of one real symmetric matrix argument
==============================================================================================
In this section, we consider matrix-variate normal distributions rather than vectors. Doing so leads to a product formula for Bessel-type hypergeometric functions of one real symmetric matrix argument (see below). To this end, we recall from [@Chikuse] Ch.I. the following needed facts. Let $p\geq m \geq 1$ and let $N$ be a real matrix-variate $p \times m$ standard normal distribution, that is a $p \times m$ matrix whose entries are independent centered normal distributions with unit variance. Then $N$ admits almost surely a unique polar decomposition $N = Z(N^TN)^{1/2} := ZH$. Moreover, $Z$ and $H$ are independent, $H$ is almost surely invertible and $Z$ is uniformly distributed on the real Stiefel manifold $$\Sigma_{p,m}:= \{A \in M_{p,m}(\mathbb{R}), A^TA = {\bf I}_m\},$$ where $M_{p,m}(\mathbb{R})$ is the space of $p \times m$ real matrices. Let $O(p)$ be the orthogonal group, then $\Sigma_{p,m}$ is a homogeneous space $\Sigma_{p,m} \approx O(p)/O(p-m)$. It thereby admits a unique $O(p)$-invariant distribution we shall denote $\sigma_{p,m}$. More precisely, $\sigma_{p,m}$ is the pushforward of the Haar distribution on $O(p)$ under the map $$O \mapsto Oe_{p,m}, \quad e_{p,m}:= {\it I}_m \oplus 0_{p-m,m}.$$ Hence, for any $C \in M_{p,m}(\mathbb{R})$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[e^{i\textrm{tr}(C^T N)}| \, H \right] &= \int_{\Sigma_{p,m}} e^{i\textrm{tr}(C^T sH)}\sigma_{p,m}(ds) = \int_{\Sigma_{p,m}} e^{i\textrm{tr}(HC^T s)}\sigma_{p,m}(ds).\end{aligned}$$ Now, let $N_1,N_2$ be two independent $p\times m$ matrix-variate standard normal distributions with corresponding polar decomposition $N_1=Z_1H_1,N_2=Z_2H_2$. Then, by considering the product $\sigma$-field $\sigma(H_1,H_2)$ generated by $H_1, H_2$ we easily derive $$\label{bes}
\mathbb{E}\left[e^{2i\textrm{tr}(C^T N_1)}|H_1\right] \mathbb{E}\left[e^{2i\textrm{tr}(C^T N_2)}|H_2\right] = \mathbb{E}\left[e^{2i\textrm{tr}(C^T (N_1+N_2))}|H_1,H_2\right].$$ Since $N_1+N_2$ is up to a constant factor a $p\times m$ matrix-variate standard normal distribution, then it admits almost surely a polar decomposition $N_1+N_2 = Z_3H_3$, where $Z_3$ is uniformly distributed on $\Sigma_{p,m}$ and is independent from $H_3$. Similarly to the case $m=1$, one proves that $Z_3$ is independent from $\sigma(H_1,H_2)$ (analogue of proposition \[L1\]) using the following variable change formula ([@FK], Prop. XVI.2.1. p.351): let $dA$ be the Lebesgue measure on $M_{p,m}(\mathbb{R})$, let $S_m^+(\mathbb{R})$ be the set of real positive definite matrices with Lebesgue measure $dr$ and $\gamma=(p/2)-1-[m(m-1)]/2$. Then $$\int_{M_{p,m}(\mathbb{R})} f(A)dA = \int_{\Sigma_{p,m}} \int_{S_m^{+}(\mathbb{R})} f(s\sqrt{r}) [\textrm{det}(r)]^{\gamma} \sigma_{p,m}(ds)dr.$$ Accordingly and with the help of lemma \[L2\], one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[e^{2i\textrm{tr}(C^T Z_3H_3)}|H_1,H_2\right] = \int_{\Sigma_{p,m}}\mathbb{E}\left[e^{2i\textrm{tr}(C^T sH_3)}|H_1,H_2\right] \sigma_{p,m}(ds),\end{aligned}$$ and if $\mu_{H_3|(H_1,H_2)}$ is the conditional distribution of $H_3$ given $(H_1,H_2)$, then Fubini Theorem entails $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{E}\left[e^{2i\textrm{tr}(C^T Z_3H_3)}|H_1,H_2\right] = \int_{S_m^+(\mathbb{R})} \left[\int_{\Sigma_{p,m}} e^{2i\textrm{tr}(C^T s\xi)}\sigma_{p,m}(ds)\right]\mu_{H_3|(H_1,H_2)}(d\xi).\end{gathered}$$ Using [@Herz], (3.5) p.493, one sees that $$\mathbb{E}\left[e^{2i\textrm{tr}(C^T N)}| H \right] = \int_{\Sigma_{p,m}} e^{2i\textrm{tr}(HC^T s)}\sigma_{d,m}(ds) = {}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; -(HC^TCH)\right)$$ where ${}_0F_1$ is the Bessel-type hypergeometric function of one real symmetric argument and of geometrical index value $(p/2)$ (it reduces when $m=1$ to $j_{(p/2)-1}$, [@Muir]). Finally, yields the product formula $$\begin{gathered}
{}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; -H_1C^TCH_1\right){}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; -H_2C^TCH_2\right) \\ = \int_{S_m^+(\mathbb{R})}{}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; -\xi C^TC\xi\right) \mu_{H_3|(H_1,H_2)}(d\xi).\end{gathered}$$
Now, we proceed to
Absolute continuity of $\mu_{H_3|(H_1,H_2)}$ and Product formula for Bessel-type hypergeometric functions of two matrix arguments
=================================================================================================================================
Absolute continuity of $\mu_{H_3|(H_1,H_2)}$
--------------------------------------------
In contrast to the case $m=1$, the absolute-continuity of $\mu_{H_3|(H_1,H_2)}$ is not obvious and needs a careful analysis we perform below:
For any $p \geq m+1$, $\mu_{H_3|(H_2,H_1)}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebsegue measure on $S_m(\mathbb{R})$ and its density, say $f_{(H_1,H_2)}(A)$, satisfies: $$\label{P}
\int_{O(m) \times O(m)} f_{(O_1H_1O_1^T,O_2H_2O_2^T)}(O_3^TAO_3)dO\otimes dO = \int_{O(m) \times O(m)} f_{(O_1H_1O_1^T, O_2H_2O_2^T)}(A)dO \otimes dO$$ almost surely for any $O_3 \in O(m)$, where $dO$ is the Haar distribution on $O(m)$. For $p=m$, it is singular.
Since $$(H_3)^2 = (H_1)^2 + (H_2)^2 + H_1Z_1^TZ_2H_2 + H_2Z_2^TZ_1H_1$$ then $\mu_{H_3|(H_2,H_1)}$ is the pushforward of $\sigma_{p,m} \otimes \sigma_{p,m}$ under the map $$(Z_1,Z_2) \mapsto \sqrt{(H_1)^2 + (H_2)^2 + H_1Z_1^TZ_2H_2 + H_2Z_2^TZ_1H_1}$$ for fixed $H_1,H_2$, where for a positive semi-definite matrix $A$, $\sqrt{A}$ is its square root. But from the very definition of $\sigma_{p,m}$, $\mu_{H_3|(H_1,H_2)}$ is the pushforward of the Haar distribution $dO \otimes dO$ on $O(p) \times O(p)$ under the map $$(O_1,O_2) \mapsto \sqrt{(H_1)^2 + (H_2)^2 + H_1e_{p,m}^TO_1^TO_2e_{p,m}H_2 + H_2e_{p,m}^TO_2^TO_1e_{p,m}H_1}$$ or equivalently $$(O_1,O_2) \mapsto \sqrt{(H_1)^2 + (H_2)^2 + H_1e_{p,m}^TO_1O_2e_{p,m}H_2 + H_2e_{p,m}^TO_2^TO_1^Te_{p,m}H_1}$$ since $dO$ is invariant under $O \mapsto O^T$. Besides, the random variable $O_1O_2 \in O(p)$ is Haar distributed since it is $O(p)$-invariant. As a matter of fact, $\mu_{H_3|(H_1,H_2)}$ is the pushforward of $dO$ under the map $$O \mapsto \sqrt{(H_1)^2 + (H_2)^2+ H_1e_{p,m}^TOe_{p,m}H_2 + H_2e_{p,m}^TO^Te_{p,m}H_1}.$$ Now observe that for fixed $H_1,H_2$, $$O \mapsto (H_1)^2 + (H_2)^2+ H_1e_{p,m}^TOe_{p,m}H_2 + H_2e_{p,m}^TO^Te_{p,m}H_1$$ is a affine map from $O(p)$ into $S_m(\mathbb{R})$, therefore is lipschitzian whose differential map is constant. Moreover $O(p)$ and $S_m(\mathbb{R})$ are real analytic manifolds such that dim $O(p) = p(p-1)/2$, dim $S_m(\mathbb{R}) = m(m+1)/2$. As a matter of fact
- If $p =m+1$, then dim $O(m+1)$ = dim $S_m(\mathbb{R})$ and Theorem 3.2.5 p.244 in [@Fed] implies that the pushforward of the Haar distribution on $O(p)$ under this map is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $S_m(\mathbb{R})$.
- If $p \geq m+2$, then dim $O(p) >$ dim $S_m(\mathbb{R})$ and Theorem 3.2.12 p. 249 in [@Fed] yields the same conclusion.
Now, for any $O_1, O_2, O_3 \in O(m)$, $f_{(O_1H_1O_1^T, O_2H_2O_2^T)}(O_3^TAO_3)$ is the density of the random variable (for fixed $H_1,H_2$) $$\begin{gathered}
O_3O_1 (H_1)^2O_1^TO_3^T + O_3O_2(H_2)^2O_2^TO_3^T + \\ O_3O_1H_1O_1^TZ_1^TZ_2O_2H_2O_2^TO_3^T + O_3O_2H_2O_2^TZ_2^TZ_1O_1H_1O_1^TO_3^T\end{gathered}$$ which can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
(O_3O_1) (H_1)^2(O_1^TO_3^T) + (O_3O_2)(H_2)^2(O_2^TO_3^T) + \\ (O_3O_1)H_1(O_1^TO_3^T) (Z_1O_3^T)^T(Z_2O_3^T)(O_3O_2)H_2(O_2^TO_3^T) \\ + (O_3O_2)H_2(O_2^TO_3^T)(Z_2O_3^T)^T (Z_1O_3^T)(O_3O_1)H_1(O_1^TO_3^T).\end{gathered}$$ But since $\sigma_{p,m}$ is invariant under the right action of $O(m)$ ([@Chikuse] p.28) and since the Haar distribution $dO$ is $O(m)$-bi-invariant, then the $f_{(H_1, H_2)}$ satisfies . Finally, since dim $O(m) <$ dim $S_m(\mathbb{R})$ then Theorem 3.2.5 in [@Fed] shows that for $p=m$, $\mu_{H_3|(H_1,H_2)}$ is singular with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $S_m(\mathbb{R})$.
Note that $$e_{p,m}^TOe_{p,m} = \Lambda_m \oplus 0_{p-m, p-m}$$ where $\Lambda_m$ is the upper-left $m \times m$ corner of the orthogonal matrix $O$. According to [@Col], Remark 2.1. p.118, if $p \geq 2m$ then the distribution of $\Lambda_m$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $M_{m,m}(\mathbb{R})$: its density is given by $$\textrm{det}({\bf I}_m - AA^T)^{(p-2m - 1)/2}{\bf 1}_{\{||A|| < 1\}}$$ where $||\mathopen \cdot \mathclose||$ is the matrix norm induced by the Euclidian norm $|\mathopen \cdot \mathclose|$. This fact should be compared with Lemma 3.7 p.495 in [@Herz].
Product formula for functions of two matrix arguments
-----------------------------------------------------
Let $p \geq m+1$ so that $\mu_{H_3|(H_2,H_1)}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure on $S_m(\mathbb{R})$. Then one derives a product formula for the Bessel-type hypergeometric functions of two real symmetric matrix arguments and of geometrical index values $p/2, p \geq 1$: if $A$ is a real positive semi-definite matrix and $C \in M_{p,m}(\mathbb{R})$, then these functions are related to those of one real symmetric matrix argument by $$\label{Rel}
{}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; A; -C^TC\right) = \int_{O(m)} {}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; -O\sqrt{A}O^T(C^TC)O\sqrt{A}O^T\right) dO$$ where $dO$ is now the Haar distribution on $O(m)$ (Theorem 7.3.3 p. 260 in [@Muir]). Keeping the same notations used in the previous section, one has $${}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; A; -C^TC\right) = \int_{O(m)}\mathbb{E}\left[e^{2i\textrm{tr}(C^T N)}| H = O\sqrt{A}O^T \right] dO$$ which in turn implies that for any positive semi-definite matrices $A,B$ and any $C \in M_{p,m}(\mathbb{R})$ $$\begin{gathered}
{}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; A; -C^TC\right){}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; B; -C^TC\right) = \\ \int_{O(m) \times O(m)} \int_{S_m^+(\mathbb{R})} {}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; -\xi C^TC\xi\right) \mu_{H_3|(O_1\sqrt{A}O_1^T,O_2\sqrt{B}O_2^T)}(d\xi)dO\otimes dO.\end{gathered}$$ Recall now that $f_{(H_1,H_2)}$ denote the density of $\mu_{H_3|(H_1,H_2)}$. Then Weyl integration formula for $S_m(\mathbb{R})$ ([@Faraut] Theorem 10.1.1. p.232), and Fubini Theorem entail $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{O(m) \times O(m)} \int_{S_m^+(\mathbb{R})} {}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; -\xi C^TC\xi\right) f_{(O_1\sqrt{A}O_1^T,O_2\sqrt{B}O_2^T)}(\xi) d\xi \otimes dO \otimes dO = c_m \int_{O(m) \times O(m)}
\\ \int_{O(m) \times \mathbb{R}_+^m} {}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; -ODO^T (C^TC)ODO^T\right) f_{(O_1\sqrt{A}O_1^T,O_2\sqrt{B}O_2^T)}(ODO^T)V(D)dD\otimes dO \otimes dO \otimes dO
\\ = c_m \int_{O(m) \times \mathbb{R}_+^m} {}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; -ODO^T (C^TC)ODO^T\right)
\\ \left\{\int_{O(m) \times O(m)} f_{(O_1\sqrt{A}O_1^T,O_2\sqrt{B}O_2^T)}(D)\,dO \otimes dO\right\} V(D)dD \otimes dO \end{gathered}$$ where $D = \textrm{diag}(\lambda_1 > \lambda_2 > \ldots > \lambda_m )$ is a positive definite diagonal matrix, $$V(D) := \prod_{1 \leq n < j \leq m} (\lambda_n - \lambda_j), \quad dD = \prod_{j=1}^m d\lambda_j,$$ and $c_m$ is a normalizing constant. By the virtue of , one gets $$\begin{gathered}
{}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; A; -C^TC\right){}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; B; - C^TC\right) = \\ c_m\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^m} {}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; D^2; -C^TC\right) \kappa_{A,B}(D)dD \end{gathered}$$ where $$\kappa_{A,B}(D) := V(D) {\bf 1}_{\{\lambda_1 > \cdots > \lambda_m > 0\}}\int_{O(m) \times O(m)} f_{(O_1\sqrt{A}O_1^T, O_2\sqrt{B}O_2^T)}(D)dO \otimes dO.$$ Finally, one performs a change of variable $\lambda_i \mapsto \sqrt{\lambda_i}, 1 \leq i \leq m$ in order to get the product formula: $$\begin{gathered}
{}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; A; -C^TC\right){}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; B; - C^TC\right) = \\ \frac{c_m}{2^m}\int_{\lambda_1 > \cdots > \lambda_m > 0} {}_0F_1\left(\frac{p}{2}; D; -C^TC\right) \frac{\kappa_{A,B}(\sqrt{D})}{\sqrt{\lambda_1\dots\lambda_m}}
\prod_{i=1}^md\lambda_i. \end{gathered}$$
Authors thank P. Graczyk for fruitful discussions held at Angers university and D. St. P. Richards for valuable comments. This work is supported by Agence Nationale de la Recherche grant ANR-09-BLAN-0084-01.
[10]{} P. Biane, P. Bougerol, N. O’ Connell. *Continuous crystal and Duistermaat-Heckman measure for Coxeter groups*, Adv. Maths 221 (2009), 1522-1583. Y. Chikuse. *Statistics on special manifolds*, Lecture Notes in Statistics, 174. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003. O. Chybiryakov, N. Demni, L. Gallardo, M. Rösler, M. Voit, M. Yor. *Harmonic and Stochastic Analysis of Dunkl Processes*, Ed. P. Graczyk, M. Rösler, M. Yor, Collection Travaux en Cours, Hermann, 2008. B. Collins. *Intégrales Matricielles et Probabilités non Commutatives*. Ph. D. dissertation. University of Paris VI, 2003. C. F. Dunkl, Y. Xu. *Orthogonal Polynomials of Several Variables*, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2001. J. Faraut. *Analysis on Lie Groups: an Introduction*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 110. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008. J. Faraut, A. Korányi. *Analysis on Symmetric Cones*, The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994. H. Federer. *Geometric Measure Theory (reprint of the 1969 edition)*, Classics in Mathematics, Springer, 1996. C. S. Herz. *Bessel functions of matrix argument*, Annals of Maths (61), no. 3 (1955), 474-523. R. J. Muirhead. *Aspects of Multivariate Statistical Theory*, Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics, John Wiley $\&$ Sons, Inc., New York, 1982. D. Ragozin. *Rotation invariant measure algebras on Euclidean space*, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 23, no. 12 (1975), 1139-1154. D. Revuz. *Markov Chains*, North-Holland Mathematical Library, Vol. 11, 1975. D. Revuz. *Probabilités*, Editeurs des Sciences et des Arts, Hermann, 1997. M. Rösler. *Bessel convolutions on matrix cones*, Compos. Math. 143 (2007), 749-779. K. Sato. *Lévy Processes and Infinitely Divisible Distributions*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999. G. N. Watson. *A Treatise on the Theory of Bessel functions*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
[^1]: Its coordinates are independent centered normal distributions with unit variance.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper examines free-form modeling of gravitational lenses using Bayesian ensembles of pixelated mass maps. The priors and algorithms from previous work are clarified and significant technical improvements are made. Lens reconstruction and Hubble Time recovery are tested using mock data from simple analytic models and recent galaxy-formation simulations. Finally, using published data, the Hubble Time is inferred through the simultaneous reconstruction of eleven time-delay lenses. The result is [${\ensuremath{H_0^{-1}}}=13.7^{+1.8}_{-1.0} \mathrm{\ Gyr}$]{}([${\ensuremath{H_0}}=71^{+6}_{-8}\ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{km\ s}^{-1}\mathrm{\ Mpc}^{-1}}}$]{}).'
author:
- Jonathan Coles
bibliography:
- 'ms.bib'
- 'apj-jour.bib'
title: A New Estimate of the Hubble Time with Improved Modeling of Gravitational Lenses
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
Gravitational lenses provide a fantastic natural tool for probing many of the large scale properties of the cosmos. Recent applications range from estimating the age of the Universe [@2006ApJ...650L..17S] to studying the dark matter profiles of galaxies [@2007arXiv0704.3267R] to testing alternative theories of gravity [@2007arXiv0709.3189F].
Despite their potential, gravitational lenses (GLs) are difficult to study because of several degeneracies such as the position of the source and the mass distribution of the lensing object. This paper focuses on strong lensing of quasars by galaxies, but the techniques developed can equally be applied to clusters. Many have tried to fit models to GLs by assuming different galaxy structures. [@1981ApJ...244..736Y] were the first to do so with King models and many others have followed using a variety of single isothermal ellipses (SIEs), Sèrsic models, or de Vaucouleurs profiles [for a review see @2004astro.ph..7232K]. But different models can easily give different results .
This kind of modeling is generally called parametric modeling. Each model has a nominal amount of parameters that can be adjusted. But while one model may fit the data, the degeneracies make it difficult to determine how well these models really represent the lens; and as pointed out by [@1999AJ....118...14B] and more recently by [@2007arXiv0704.3267R], in connection with time delays, without extreme care these models can be very sensitive to the assumptions.
In contrast, free-form or non-parametric models reconstruct the lens on a grid or a set of basis functions. No particular form is assumed and the results allow a wider range of solutions than parametric models might. Such modeling is not unique to lensing, though.
[@1979ApJ...232..236S] used non-parametric modeling to show for the first time that it is possible to construct a triaxial stellar system in equilibrium. He showed that there existed a distribution of stars on orbits that fit a given density function $D$. The three-dimensional space of a galaxy was divided into $M$ cells and $D$ was expressed by $D(J) = \sum_{I=1}^M C(I) \cdot B(I,J)$, where $B(I,J)$ is the orbit density for an orbit $I$ in cell $J$, calculated using test particles in a fixed potential. $C(I)$, the number of stars on orbit $I$, was determined numerically by solving a linear program.
In a very similar manner, Schwarzschild’s technique can be applied to lenses. Modeling the lenses on a grid was first introduced by [@1997MNRAS.292..148S] and then later extended to include both weak and strong lensing by [@1998AJ....116.1541A]. Similar methods have also been used by [@2005MNRAS.360..477D] and . But in contrast to Schwarzschild, it is desirable to show the *variety* of solutions rather than just existence. This important feature is incorporated into the work of [@2000AJ....119..439W] and the software [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{}[@2004AJ....127.2604S] (see [Appendix \[AppendixA\]]{}). Related approaches are developed in [@2000ApJ...535..671T] and [@2003ApJ...590...39K]. Given a large ensemble of models, one or several variables are examined while averaging out (marginalizing) the others. The same principle is used in statistical mechanics. However, the use of marginalization is sometimes overlooked, leading to a misunderstanding that pixelated models are “grossly underconstrained” because the number of variables exceeds the number of data points.
Pixelated modeling has the advantage of allowing the form of the lens to vary. It does not presuppose important parameters and can produce models that would otherwise not be possible with parametric modeling. For instance, while parametric models already showed that steepness is an important parameter [@1994AJ....108.1156W], pixelated models showed that shape degeneracies, which are often difficult to capture with parametric models, cannot be ignored [@2006ApJ...653..936S]; twists and nonuniform stretching are also easily found.
In this paper, pixelated lens modeling and the constraints imposed on the models are explicitly defined. The algorithms are improved with several optimization techniques and the enhanced method is tested against lenses from an $N$-body simulation and another fictitious data set. Finally, a system of eleven lenses is used in the same way as [@2006ApJ...650L..17S] to further constrain the Hubble Time.
Creating Models {#sec:Creating Models}
===============
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} generates an ensemble of lens models that fit the input data. In the Bayesian way, the ensemble itself provides estimates and uncertainties. Each model consists of a set of $n$ discrete mass squares with density $\kappa_n$, a source position $\vec\beta$, and optionally, a variable $h$ which is proportional to [$H_0$]{}. If the time delays are unknown, the value of $h$ is fixed. In this paper, where the time delays are known, $h$ varies across the ensemble. The positions of observed images and the redshifts of the source and lens are taken to be given with errors small enough to be ignored. Time delays between images, when available, are similarly assumed to be accurate. Tests from [@2006ApJ...650L..17S] show that adjusting these numbers slightly to simulate errors has much less effect than the model uncertainties.
The mass density in each square, or *pixel*, is the projected mass density on the plane of the sky in units of the critical density.[^1] The pixelated surface is a disc of radius [pixrad]{} pixels. The total number of pixels is then about $\pi\cdot\mathrm{\tt
pixrad}^2$. The extent of the modeled mass, [maprad]{}, defaults to , where $r_\mathrm{min}$ and $r_\mathrm{max}$ are the distances of the innermost and outermost images, respectively. This allows for a buffer zone outside the outermost image when required.
Following [@1986ApJ...310..568B], the arrival time is the light travel time scaled by $$h^{-1}T(z_L, z_S) = (1 + z_L)\frac{D_L D_S}{cD_{LS}}$$ where $z_L$ is the redshift of the lens, and $D_L, D_S$, and $D_{LS}$ are the distances from observer to lens, observer to source, and lens to source, respectively. This removes the dependence on a particular cosmology. The $h^{-1}$ factor comes through the distance factors.
The arrival time at position $\vec\theta$ is given by $$\tau(\vec\theta) = \frac{1}{2}|\vec\theta|^2 - \vec\theta \cdot \vec\beta - \int \ln|\vec\theta - \vec\theta'|\kappa(\vec\theta')d^2\vec\theta'.
\label{eqn:lens}$$ This can be interpreted as a surface, which is modeled with a summation over the pixel densities, $$\begin{array}{ccl}
\tau(\vec\theta) &=& \frac{1}{2}|\vec\theta|^2 - \vec\theta \cdot \vec\beta - \sum_n\kappa_n Q_n(\vec\theta) \\ &+& \gamma_1(\theta_x^2 - \theta_y^2) + 2\gamma_2\theta_x\theta_y.
\end{array}
\label{eqn:lens-discrete}$$ Two additional terms involving $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are added to account for external shear from neighboring galaxies.
The function $Q$ is the integral from (\[eqn:lens\]) evaluated over a square pixel with side length $a$. $Q$ is defined using the same notation as in [@1997MNRAS.292..148S]: Let $x,y$ be the Cartesian components of $\vec\theta$, $r^2 = x^2 + y^2$ and $$\begin{array}{lcl}
\tilde{Q}_n(x,y) = (2\pi)^{-1}[ & & x^2\arctan(y/x) \\
&+& y^2\arctan(x/y) \\
&+& xy(\ln r^2 - 3)]
\end{array}$$ Then $$\begin{array}{lcl}
Q_n(x,y) &=& \tilde{Q}_n(x_+,y_+)
+ \tilde{Q}_n(x_-,y_-) \\
&-& \tilde{Q}_n(x_-,y_+)
- \tilde{Q}_n(x_+,y_-),
\end{array}$$ where $x_{\pm} = x - x_n \pm a/2$ and $y_{\pm} = y - y_n \pm a/2$.
The function $\tau$ is linear in all the unknowns $\vec\beta, \kappa_n,
\gamma_1, \gamma_2$. Constraints are placed on $\tau$ and the unknowns so that the results are physical. The data constraints come directly from lensing theory. The priors, or assumptions, are additional constraints that are physically motivated.
As a side note, the source position can be negative because it is relative to the center, but it must be positive in order to encode it as part of the linear program. This is resolved by adding a constant internally.
Images are observed where the arrival time surface is stationary, (Fermat’s Principle).
$$\begin{array}{l}
\vec\theta_{i,x} - \vec\beta_x - \sum dQ/d\vec\theta_{i,x} = 0, \\
\vec\theta_{i,y} - \vec\beta_y - \sum dQ/d\vec\theta_{i,y} = 0,
\end{array}$$
\[con:grad\]
The time delay between two images $\vec\theta_i$ and $\vec\theta_j$ must be consistent with observations, $$\tau(\vec{\theta_i}) - \tau(\vec{\theta_j}) = h\frac{[\mathrm{obs\ delay}]}{T(z_L, z_S)}.$$ If the time delays are unknown the time ordering can be inferred from the morphology and imposed by $$\tau(\vec{\theta_i}) - \tau(\vec{\theta_j}) \ge 0.$$ \[con:time 1\]
At each $\theta_i$ there are two constraints of the form $$\epsilon\biggl|\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\theta_{x'}^2}\tau(\vec{\theta_i})\biggr|
\le
\biggl|\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\theta_{y'}^2}\tau(\vec{\theta_i})\biggr|$$ where $\theta_{x'}$ and $\theta_{y'}$ are the local radial and tangential directions and $\epsilon = 1/10$ by default.
This ensures that the image elongation is between $\epsilon$ and $1/\epsilon$ when projected along the radial direction. In practice, the default does not place any constraints on the image. If an image is known to be elongated then $\epsilon$ can be changed. In particular, this was used in [@1998AJ....116.1541A].
If a model contains $N$ lenses, they must share the same Hubble Constant. $$h_{\mathrm{lens}_1} = h_{\mathrm{lens}_2} = \dots = h_{\mathrm{lens}_N}$$
When [$H_0$]{} is unspecified then [$H_0$]{} is allowed to vary from model to model but not from lens to lens within a single model.
The following priors are the assumptions made about the lensing systems. All are well-defined and astro-physically justified, as explained below.
The density cannot be negative. \[con:kappa positive\] $$\kappa_n \ge 0$$
This is a quite trivial requirement, but one that can often be difficult to ensure with other techniques. The linear programming algorithm employed here guarantees this prior by design.
Notice the similarity between Schwarzschild’s equation from the introduction on the one hand and [Equation \[eqn:lens-discrete\]]{} and Prior \[con:kappa positive\]. There is a linear function ($D$ or $\tau$) whose value is known, and a summation over a product where one of the product terms is calculated beforehand ($B$ or $Q$). Schwarzschild was limited at the time to what he could say about the unknowns, but negative values were not allowed. The goal was only to show the existence of one solution because no one knew at the time whether a triaxial solution was possible. With lenses much more can be said about the unknowns and lensing is known to occur.
Most lens are assumed to have inversion symmetry, unless the lenses are observed to be interacting or otherwise strongly asymmetric. $$\kappa_{i,j} = \kappa_{-i,-j}.$$
The density gradient should point within $\theta={\ensuremath{45^\circ}}$ of the center. $$\begin{array}{lcc}
[\begin{array}{cc} i & j \end{array}] M \nabla \kappa_{i,j} &\ge& 0, \\
[\begin{array}{cc} i & j \end{array}] M^T \nabla \kappa_{i,j} &\ge& 0, \\
\end{array}$$ where $$M = \bigg[\begin{array}{lr} \cos\theta & -\sin\theta \\
\sin\theta & \cos\theta \end{array} \bigg],$$ $$\nabla\kappa_{i,j} \equiv (2a)^{-1}(\kappa_{i+1,j} - \kappa_{i-1,j} - \kappa_{i,j+1} - \kappa_{i,j-1})$$ and $a$ is the pixel size.
This complicated expression is just saying that if the density gradient of a pixel were pointing at most $\theta$ away from the center then moving the pixel’s position by $\theta$ should align the density gradient so that it points directly at the center. If the gradient is greater than $\theta$ the “$\ge$” condition will not be satisfied.
The density of a pixel must be no more than twice the average density of its neighbors. $$\kappa_n \le 2 \frac{1}{N(n)}\sum_{i\in N(n)}\kappa_i, \qquad n \ne 1$$
This is a weak smoothing criterion. Normally, it is not applied to the central pixel, which can have arbitrary density.
The mass profile must be steeper than $r^{-s}$. Let $R_i$ be the set of all pixels on a discretized “ring” $i$ of radius $r_{R_i}$, one pixel thick. The number of pixels in a ring is $|R_i|$. Let $C_i = r_{R_i}^s / |R_i|$, then $$C_i \sum_{n \in R_i} \kappa_n - C_{i+1} \sum_{n \in R_{i+1}} \kappa_n \ge 0.$$
The default radial mass profile constraint has $s=0.5$. This is intentionally rather shallow, but as explained in [@2004AJ....127.2604S] this is motivated by evidence showing that total density distribution in central regions of ellipticals is roughly isothermal, i.e. $r^{-2}$. Furthermore, the projected gas density in the Milky Way scales as $r^{-1.75}$ [@1991MNRAS.252..210B].
Again, the most important thing to realize from the constraints and the discretized lens equation is that *the constraints are all linear*. They can therefore be solved using any number of linear programming techniques. However, rather than find one solution, the space of all solutions is sampled to understand the distribution.
Bayesian MCMC Sampling {#sec:Monte-Carlo Sampling}
----------------------
The linear equations presented in [Section \[sec:Creating Models\]]{} constrain the solution space to a convex multi-dimensional polyhedron known as a simplex. The interior points of the simplex are solutions to the linear equations.
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} samples the interior points using a Monte-Carlo Markov-Chain (MCMC) technique. The general technique is described in condensed matter texts [@1992Binney] and Bayesian books [@2003Saha]. Each solution is used to reconstruct the arrival time surface, mass density contours, [$H_0^{-1}$]{}, etc.
The sampling method, [Algorithm S]{}, relies on being able to find random vertices of the simplex. The current implementation uses the standard linear programming Simplex Algorithm [@1963Danzig; @Numerical-Recipes-1st-edition; @Introduction-to-Algorithms] to maximize a given *objective function* subject to the linear constraints that form the simplex. The maximum is guaranteed to be at a vertex. For the present purposes, the objective function is chosen randomly after each iteration of [Algorithm S]{}, thereby producing a new vertex each time.
*(Sample interior points)*
1\. Let $\gamma_0$ be a vertex on the simplex and $i=0$ the index of the current iteration.
2\. Let $\alpha_i$ be a new vertex.
3\. Extend a line from $\alpha_i$ through $\gamma_i$ until a constraint is reached. Select an interior point $\gamma_{i+1}$ uniformly from the line.
4\. If another model is desired, increment $i$ and go back to 2, otherwise stop.
Because the simplex is convex by construction of linear hyperplanes, [Algorithm S]{} is guaranteed to return models in the solution space.
In addition to the explicit priors of the previous section, there is also a prior imposed by the sampling strategy itself. Although clearly well-defined, the physical significance of this prior continues to be the subject of study. This is not a point to be lightly dismissed since it influences the derived distribtion of [$H_0$]{}. However, the strategy cannot be arbitrary and there are very strict requirements on the way the volume can be sampled, which are discussed below. Numerous tests, both in this paper and others, have shown that the weighting can be empirically justified. The key point is that many different models must be examined. Other modeling techniques tend to assume the correctness of the model that is fit to the data, rather than letting the data itself reveal the model. To quote [@1997eds..proc...60B]: “We should still aggressively explore all other classes of models that can also fit the observations but yet which produce disjoint estimates for the time delay. The true uncertainty in the Hubble constant is given by the union of all of these models.”
[Algorithm S]{}, in effect, puts a metric on the union. Previous [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} papers implied that the sampling of the simplex was uniform in volume, but this is not correct, nor is it desired. The space does not have a Euclidean metric and while it is still unclear what metric the space *should* have, there are certain properties that an algorithm sampling the space *must* have.
1. The sampling strategy must be insensitive to changes in dimensionality of the space. In other words, increasing the number of variables (e.g. by increasing the pixel resolution, which subdivides pixels) should not change the predicted values of [$H_0$]{}. This is not true if the solution space is uniformly sampled. As an example of the problem, imagine a uniformly sampled right triangle where the legs meet at the origin. The density of points projected onto one axis will be greater towards the origin. In higher dimensions, when the points are projected onto the same axis, the density distribution will be skewed further towards the origin.
2. The sampling strategy must be insensitive to units. The variables that define the solution space do not all have the same units. Some are mass density, some are source positions, one is [$H_0$]{}, etc. By simply scaling any of these units the space is stretched or compressed. This would affect a sampling strategy based on volume when the number of dimensions is greater than two. Whatever the sampling prior is, it *must* be insensitive to this.
Both of these serious problems are solved by [Algorithm S]{}. The first problem is solved because a point is chosen uniformly along the line in step 3 regardless of the number of dimensions. One can see from [Figure \[fig:Converging errors\]]{} that the predicted value of [$H_0$]{} remains quite steady even as the number of variables is increasing. The second problem is solved because the vertices of the space are used to guide the sampling strategy. How the vertices are chosen is completely independent of units. Any scaling would not affect the vertex selection procedure. [Figure \[fig:3dProblem\]]{} shows a three dimensional sampled simplex. The sampling is clearly not uniform but is insensitive to stretching of the axes.
[Algorithm S]{} has changed slightly from older versions of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{}. Previous versions took a fixed number of vertex steps. The new vertex was often very close to the old one and resulted in clumps of correlated models. The new version seeks out vertices further away, which reduces the problem and better samples the interior with fewer samples. The running time increased with this change, but the results are more representative. Within the errors, though, old results are still valid.
Although [Algorithm S]{} does not sample the volume uniformly, in the limit of infinite samples, it does have *some* distribution. But how well is that distribution recovered with only a finite number of samples? To approximate the true distribution ten thousand models of the lens B1115+080 were generated. The “finite” sample consisted of 200 models. [Figure \[fig:Hubble QQplot\]]{} compares the distribution of just the Hubble Time variable. When the two samples are taken from the same distribution, the crosses fall on the dashed line. Even with a small sample, the distribution is well recovered.
Technical Issues {#sec:Technical Issues}
----------------
While [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} is stable, variations on sampling can introduce numerical instability. If a point is not chosen uniformly from the line in step 3 of [Algorithm S]{} a numerical error in the coordinates of sampled points will grow exponentially fast and lead to future points lying *outside* the solution space. Reprojecting a point back into the space is impractical because the exact size and shape of the simplex is unknown and truly incalculable due to the extraordinarily large number of dimensions and vertices. (It is worth noting that if all the vertices could be known in advance, the Simplex Algorithm would be unnecessary. One could simply pick a new vertex from the list.) In the worst case, however, this error is detectable. If such an error is detected the program will issue a message and halt.
The source of the error can be seen in [Figure \[fig:Numerical error\]]{}. The figure has been exaggerated for clarity. Sample points are constrained to lie on the shaded surface. After sampling points $A$ and $B$, point $C$ is the next intended point, but because of the limits of machine accuracy $C'$ is taken instead.
If the problem only occurred once, the error would be below the noise in the system, but each sample introduces more error because the next sample depends on the position of the previous sample.
Using the notation of [Algorithm S]{}, the further $\gamma_{i+1}$ is chosen from $\gamma_i$ the larger the error. This is a simple lever; the error is proportional to $(a/b)$ where $a=\gamma_{i+1} - \alpha_i$ and $b=\gamma_i -
\alpha_i$. Successive errors are compounded over $N$ iterations: $$\label{eqn:eps}\epsilon = \prod_i^N (a_i / b_i).$$ Sampling uniformly along the line suppress the error because points are chosen close to $\gamma_i$ as often as far away. If $a_i \ge b_i$, $\epsilon$ grows without bound. If $\ln\epsilon > 0$ then $\langle a/b \rangle \ge N$, in which case the error is reported and the program halts.
A number of technical improvements were also made to the implementation of the Simplex Algorithm. As mentioned earlier, the Simplex Algorithm is used to find a new vertex in [Algorithm S]{} by maximizing an *objective function* subject to the linear constraints that form the simplex. Each iteration moves to a new vertex that increases the objective function until no further vertex can be found. The linear constraints are stored in a matrix called a *tableau*. The algorithm moves to the next vertex by rewriting the tableau; an operation known as a pivot. For very large problems the pivot is the bottleneck. This work improves the performance by parallelizing the pivot on a shared memory machine. For even larger problems than are faced here it may be necessary to extend this to a distributed-memory cluster of machines.
A further improvement was an optimization of the data structure used to store the tableau. While the tableau is initially sparse, and previous versions of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} stored it as such, the tableau quickly becomes dense after only a few pivots ([Figure \[tableau-graphics\]]{}). Storing the tableau as a dense matrix yields a significant performance boost.
Testing Hubble Time Recovery {#sec:Tests}
============================
How well does [Algorithm S]{} predict the Hubble Time? Two tests were performed.
First, a blind test similar to that in [@2000AJ....119..439W]. Four quad lenses were crafted assuming a particular Hubble Time that was unknown to the author. These were, in fact, the same lenses as in the aforementioned paper, but rescaled to a Hubble Time of $13.9$ Gyr. The time delays were perturbed slightly to simulate errors. The Hubble Time was recovered using [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} and then the simulated Hubble Time revealed. [Figure \[fig:Fake Lenses\]]{} shows the histogram of Hubble Times from two hundred models. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} predicts [${\ensuremath{H_0^{-1}}}=13.7^{+1.5}_{-1.4} \mathrm{\ Gyr}$]{}.
Second, five lenses, three doubles and two quads, were created by ray-tracing a galaxy from the $N$-body plus hydrodynamic simulation with [${\ensuremath{H_0^{-1}}}=14 \mathrm{\ Gyr}$]{} described by [@2006MNRAS.366.1529M]. The galaxy is an E1 or E2 triaxial elliptical with about 80% dark matter. The histogram of Hubble Times from two hundred models is shown on the right in [Figure \[fig:Fake Lenses\]]{}. There is a clear peak with the predicted value at [${\ensuremath{H_0^{-1}}}=13.3^{+1.4}_{-0.6} \mathrm{\ Gyr}$]{} with 68% confidence. Within the errors [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} successfully recovers the simulation Hubble Time. [@2007arXiv0704.3267R] reconstruct the same lenses with a slightly different prior.
New 11-Lens Results {#sec:New 11-Lens Results}
===================
With confidence founded in the results of the last section, an ensemble of lenses was modeled to find the true Hubble Time. [@2006ApJ...650L..17S] used ten lenses[^2] to constrain the Hubble Time to [${\ensuremath{H_0^{-1}}}=13.5^{+2.5}_{-1.3} \mathrm{\ Gyr}$]{}. Subsequently, have reported on a new time delay measurements for J1650+4251. Combining this new lens measurement with the ten lenses used previous, all eleven lens were simultaneously modeled to predict tighter bounds on the Hubble Time. The distribution of Hubble Times is shown in [Figure \[fig:New Hubble Times\]]{}. At 68% confidence, the new predicted value is $${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{H_0^{-1}}}=13.7^{+1.8}_{-1.0} \mathrm{\ Gyr}}}\ ({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{H_0}}=71^{+6}_{-8}\ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{km\ s}^{-1}\mathrm{\ Mpc}^{-1}}}}}).$$ [Figure \[fig:Models of J1650+4251\]]{} shows the ensemble average of the mass and arrival time surface for J1650+4251 as recovered by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{}. Average mass maps for the other lenses are similar to those in [@2006ApJ...650L..17S], Figure 2.
To put this into context, the results of other techniques are listed below. The units are in [$H_0$]{}, which is found more often in the literature than [$H_0^{-1}$]{}. The latter appears more naturally in lensing, though, hence the presentation of the above estimates. The first set of errors are statistical and the second set (when applicable) are systematic. This list is summarized by the plot in [Figure \[fig:All Hubble Times\]]{}.
1. ${\ensuremath{H_0}}= 73\pm3\ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{km\ s}^{-1}\mathrm{\ Mpc}^{-1}}}$ from the cosmic microwave background fluctuation spectrum [@2007ApJS..170..377S]. The Hubble Constant is just one value in a multiparameter fit.
2. ${\ensuremath{H_0}}= 68 \pm 6\pm 8\ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{km\ s}^{-1}\mathrm{\ Mpc}^{-1}}}$ using a different Monte Carlo method to combine lenses [@2007ApJ...660....1O].
3. ${\ensuremath{H_0}}= 62.3\pm1.3\pm5.0$ [@2006ApJ...653..843S] and ${\ensuremath{H_0}}=
73\pm4\pm5$ [@2005ApJ...627..579R] from Cepheid-calibrated luminosity of Type Ia supernovae. This is independent of the global geometry.
4. ${\ensuremath{H_0}}= 66^{+11+9}_{-10-8}\ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{km\ s}^{-1}\mathrm{\ Mpc}^{-1}}}$ from the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect [@2005MNRAS.357..518J]. As with lensing, a global geometry is assumed and the Hubble Time is measured.
5. ${\ensuremath{H_0}}= 72\pm8$ [@2001ApJ...553...47F] using a variety of Cepheid-calibrated indicators. This is again, independent of the global geometry.
In the future, better predictions may be obtained with improved priors and tighter constraints on galaxy structure. Simply adding more lenses will also improve the predictive power of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{}, but may not help in understanding the different sources of degeneracies and developing better priors.
Summary {#sec:Summary}
=======
Pixelated lens reconstruction is an example of free-form modeling. Such modeling has the advantage that one does not have to presuppose what the important parameters might be and can let the generated models be a guide to finding those parameters. Free-form modeling has many applications and was used early by Schwarzschild to show the existence of triaxial stellar systems in equilibrium.
Applied to gravitational lensing, the free-form models are implemented as pixelated models whereby the mass sheet of the lens is discretized into many small square pixels. The mass in each pixel is recovered using an MCMC technique using linear programming to probe the solutions which reconstruct the observed data. The software [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} produces an ensemble of hundreds of such models. The ensemble provides Bayesian statistics about the variety of possible lens reconstructions.
The constraints that define the mass models are explained. The linear constraints form a hyper-dimensional solution space from which the models are drawn. The sampling algorithm has been improved over previous software versions and although it was shown that the algorithm does not uniformly sample the solution space, it is argued that this is undesirable for this problem. The implementation was parallelized for multi-processor, shared memory machines. Future work will include controlling numerical round-off errors that will become significant with larger problems.
The new version of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} was applied to an ensemble of eleven lenses to determine a new value for the Hubble Time: [${\ensuremath{H_0^{-1}}}=13.7^{+1.8}_{-1.0} \mathrm{\ Gyr}$]{} within 68% confidence.
Further research into galaxy and cluster structure is needed to improve the priors. The estimates of galaxy morphology have been conservative but tighter constraints will lead to better results. Furthermore, model ensemble building can be applied to other areas, even to the original problems of Schwarzschild.
Pixelated lens modeling is on the cutting edge of gravitational lens research, promising to provide great insight into the structure of galaxies, the distribution of dark matter, and the fundamental nature of the Universe. But there are still many challenges both scientifically and computationally.
Acknowledgments {#sec:Acknowledgements}
===============
I would like to extend my sincere appreciation for the help I received with many aspects of this paper. In particular, Joachim Stadel for a critical insight concerning the material in [Section \[sec:Technical Issues\]]{}; Peter Englmaier, Tristen Hayfield, and Justin Read for the hours spent considering different sampling techniques; and Prasenjit Saha for patiently answering my many lensing questions and ever so subtly nudging me to finish. I would also like to thank the anonymous referee for useful comments and suggestions on making the paper clearer and more concise.
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} Gravitational Lens Modeling Software {#AppendixA}
===============================================================================================
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} is freely available under the GNU General Purpose License. Source code is naturally included. The program is cross-platform and an I/O limited version even runs in a web browser. The version used in this paper is v1.88. For more information, visit [http://www.qgd.uzh.ch]{}.
Input data to [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PixeLens</span>]{} used in this paper is available with the on-line version.
[^1]: Many have suggested that it would be better to discretize the potential, but the potential is not naturally discrete and doing so would require recovering the mass from Poisson’s equation; guaranteeing that the mass remains positive is difficult and involves a double derivative which produces noisy results.
[^2]: The ten lenses are J0911+055, B1608+656, B1115+080, B0957+561, B1104-181, B1520+530, B2149-274, B1600+434, J0951+263, and B0218+357.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'som.bib'
title: |
AMSOM: Adaptive Moving Self-organizing Map\
for Clustering and Visualization
---
The Self-Organizing Map (SOM) [@kohonen2001self] is an unsupervised neural network model which effectively maps high-dimensional data to a low-dimensional space (usually two-dimensional). The low-dimensional space (also called output space) consists of a grid of neurons connected with each other, according to a specific structure (can be hexagonal, rectangular, etc.). This structure allows the topology preservation of input data (i.e., similar input patterns are expected to be mapped to neighboring neurons in the output grid) [@kohonen1981automatic]. By this way, SOM manages to achieve dimensionality reduction, abstraction, clustering and visualization of the input data and this is the reason that it has been applied successfully to many different domains and datasets like financial data [@deboeck2013visual], speech recognition [@kohonen1988neural], image classification [@lu1990pattern], document clustering [@lagus1999websom], [@spanakis2012doso] .
The SOM algorithm raises some issues and problems: (1) SOM’s architecture is fixed and predefined in terms of number and arrangement of neurons. In case of largely unknown input data, it is difficult to determine apriori the correct structure that provides satisfactory results. There is some work in this area in order to how to add/remove neurons but none of current approaches adjusts neuron positions on the grid according to training progress. (2) Training a SOM comes with a large computation cost, especially in cases of large datasets and/or large maps. Many epochs might be needed in order for the SOM to converge and the map to reach a final state. In this paper we propose an extension of the traditional SOM, which handles both issues described above: First, it allows neurons to change positions during training which provides better visualization and faster training time. Second, number of neurons can be adjusted (neurons can be either added or removed) according to dataset requirements and training progress. Due to this enhanced training scheme, the number of epochs required for training is significantly reduced. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[sect:related\] presents background work on SOM, extensions on the traditional algorithm and their limitations. The proposed method is presented in Section \[sect:soc\] while experimental setup is described in Section \[sect:exp\]. Finally, Section \[sect:concl\] concludes the paper.
{#sect:related}
SOM and Competitive Learning
----------------------------
The Self-Organizing Map (SOM) is a fully connected single-layer linear neural network. The SOM uses a set of neurons, often arranged in a 2-D rectangular or hexagonal grid, to form a discrete topological mapping of an input space, $\mathbf{X} \in R^D$. Input space consists of a set of vectors $\mathbf{x}_{j} \in R^D$:
$$\mathbf{x}_j=[x_{j1},x_{j2},...,x_{jD}]^T$$
$\mathbf{w}_{i}$ is the weight vector associated to neuron $i$ and is a vector of the same dimension ($D$) of the input space, $M$ is the total number of neurons. Obviously, these weights represent the synaptic connections of each neuron $i$ and can be denoted:
$$\mathbf{w}_{i}=[w_{i1},w_{i2},...,w_{iD}]^T
\label{eqn:somw}$$
The fundamental principle of SOM is the soft competition between the nodes in the output layer; not only the node (winner) but also its neighbors are updated [@kohonen2012self].
A SOM architecture can be found in Figure \[fig:somarch\].
![The SOM (fully connected) architecture.[]{data-label="fig:somarch"}](somex1){width="1.0\linewidth"}
All the weights ${\mathbf{w}_{1},\mathbf{w}_{2},...,\mathbf{w}_{M}}$ are initialized to random numbers, in the range of the corresponding input characteristics. We also introduce a discrete time index $t$ such that $\mathbf{x}(t), t=0,1,...$ is presented to network at time $t$ and $\mathbf{w}_{i}(t)$ is the weight vector of neuron $i$ computed at time $t$. The available input vectors are recycled during the training (or learning) process: a single pass over the input data is called an epoch.
### On-line Training of SOM
In the conventional [“on-line”]{} or [“flow-through”]{} method, the weight vectors are updated recursively after the presentation of each input vector. As each input vector is presented, the Euclidean distance between the input vector and each weight vector is computed:
$$d_i(t)=||\mathbf{x}(t)-\mathbf{w}_i(t)||^2$$
Next, the winning or best-matching node (denoted by subscript $c$) is determined by:
$$c = \{i, min_{i}d_{i}(t)\}$$
Note that we suppress the implicit dependence of $c$ on discrete time $t$. The weight vectors are updated using the following rule:
$$\mathbf{w}_{i}(t+1)=\mathbf{w}_{i}(t) + \alpha(t) \cdot h_{ci}(t) \cdot \left [ \mathbf{x}(t)-\mathbf{w}_{i}(t) \right ]
\label{eqn:somupdate}$$
where $\alpha(t)$ is the learning-rate factor and $h_{ci}(t)$ is the neighborhood function. The learning rate factor controls the overall magnitude of the correction to the weight vectors, and is reduced monotonically during the training phase. The neighborhood function controls the extent to which $\mathbf{w}_i(t)$ is allowed to adjust in response to an input most closely resembling $\mathbf{w}_c(t)$ and is typically a decreasing function of the distance on the 2-D lattice between nodes $c$ and $i$. We use the standard Gaussian neighborhood function:
$$h_{ci}(t)=exp \left( -\frac{||\mathbf{r}_i-\mathbf{r}_c||^2}{\sigma(t)^2} \right )
\label{eqn:somhc}$$
where $\mathbf{r}_i$ and $\mathbf{r}_c$ denote the coordinates of nodes $i$ and $c$, respectively, on the output space (usually two-dimensional grid). The width $\sigma(t)$ of the neighborhood function decreases during training, from an initial value comparable to the dimension of the lattice to a final value effectively equal to the width of a single cell. It is this procedure which produces the self-organization and topology preserving capabilities of the SOM: presentation of each input vector adjusts the weight vector of the winning node along with those of its topological neighbors to more closely resemble the input vector. The converged weight vectors approximate the input probability distribution function, and can be viewed as prototypes representing the input data.
### Batch Training of SOM
The SOM update given by Equation (\[eqn:somupdate\]) is [“on-line”]{} in the sense that the weight vectors are updated after the presentation of each input record. In the batch SOM algorithm (proposed in [@kohonen1993things]), the weights are updated only at the end of each epoch according to:
$$\mathbf{w}_{i}(t_f)=\frac{\sum_{t'=t_0}^{t'=t_{f}}\tilde{h}_{ci}(t') \cdot \mathbf{x}(t')}{\sum_{t'=t_0}^{t'=t_{f}}\tilde{h}_{ci}(t')}
\label{som:batch1}$$
where $t_0$ and $t_f$ denote the start and finish of the present epoch, respectively, and $w_{i}(t_f)$ are the weight vectors computed at the end of the present epoch. Hence, the summations are accumulated during one complete pass over the input data. The winning node at each presentation of new input vector is computed using:
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{d}_{i}(t)=||\mathbf{x}(t)-\mathbf{w}_{i}(t_0)||^2\\
c = \{i, min_{i}\tilde{d}_{i}(t)\}
\label{eqn:batchwinner}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{w}_i(t_0)$ are the weight vectors computed at the end of the previous epoch. The neighborhood functions $\tilde{h}_{ci}(t)$ are computed using Equation (\[eqn:somhc\]), but with the winning nodes determined from Equation (\[eqn:batchwinner\]). This procedure for computing the neighborhood function is identical to the Voronoi partinioning. As is in the on-line method, the width of the neighborhood function decreases monotonically over the training phase.
A more concrete explanation of the batch algorithm is given by the following Equation:
$$\mathbf{w}_{i}=\frac{\sum_{j} n_j \cdot h_{ji} \cdot \tilde{x}_{j}}{\sum_{j} n_j \cdot h_{ji}}
\label{som:batch2}$$
where $n_j$ is the number of input items mapped into node $j$ and the index $j$ runs over the nodes in the neighborhood of node $i$. The basic idea is that for every node $j$ in the grid, the average $\tilde{x}_{j}$ of all those input items $x(t)$ is formed that have node $j$ (i.e., vector $\mathbf{w}_{j}$) as the closest node. The above Equation is used for updating the node weight vectors and this is repeated for a few times, always using the same batch of input data items to determine the updated $\tilde{x}_{j}$.
The batch SOM offers several advantages over the conventional on-line SOM method. Since the weight updates are not recursive, there is no dependence upon the order in which the input records are presented. In addition to facilitating the development of data-partitioned parallel methods, this also eliminates concerns [@mulier1994learning] that input records encountered later in the training sequence may overly influence the final results. The learning rate parameter $\alpha(t)$ does not appear in the batch SOM algorithm, thus eliminating a potential source of poor convergence [@ceccarelli1993competitive] if this parameter is not properly specified.
The mathematical theory of the SOM is very complicated and only the one-dimensional case has been analyzed completely [@fort2006som], since the SOM belongs to the ill posed problems in mathematics. The SOM can also be looked at as a nonlinear projection of the probability density function of high-dimensional input data onto the two-dimensional display.
Usually, the input is mapped onto a 1- or 2-dimensional map. Mapping onto higher dimensions is possible as well, but complicates the visualization. The neurons connected to adjacent neurons by a neighborhood relationship define the structure of the map. The two most common 2-dimensional grids are the hexagonal grid and the rectangular grid and are shown in Figure \[fig:somgrid\].
The neighborhood function defines the correlation between neurons. The simplest neighborhood function is called *bubble*; it is constant over the neighborhood of the winner neuron and zero otherwise. The neighborhood of different sizes in rectangular and hexagonal maps can be seen in Figure \[fig:somgrid\]. A more flexible definition is the *gaussian neighborhood function* defined by Equation (\[eqn:somhc\]).
The number of neurons, the dimensions of the map grid, the map lattice and shape must be specified before training. The more neurons the grid has, the more flexible the mapping becomes but the computation complexity of the training phase increases as well. The choice of the map structure and size is both related to the type of problem and the subjective choice of the user.
Flexible Structure in Neural Networks and SOM
---------------------------------------------
The norm in artificial neural nets is that classic techniques involve simple and often fixed network topologies trained via stimulus-based methods such as backpropagation. However, there are cases in which the structural design of the network is strongly influenced by the environment and by utilizing constructive and pruning algorithms. Both these algorithmic categories deliver a network which is gradually adjusted in response to training data. There are many approaches which apply these algorithms in classic neural networks [@islam2009new], [@bortman2009growing], [@han2013structure], [@yang2012evolutionary]. Also, there are many variations of SOM that allow a more flexible structure of the output map which can be divided into two categories: In the first type, we include growing grid (GG) [@fritzke1995gg], incremental GG [@blackmore1993incremental], growing SOM (GSOM) [@alahakoon2000dynamic] all coming with different variants. GG is the only variant which allows growing a new node from the interior of the grid (but this is a whole row or column of nodes). In the rest cases, new nodes are generated by a boundary node, despite the fact that the highest error could have been generated by an internal node. The idea is that the error will be propagated to the exterior to guarantee that growing can only be from the boundaries but this process can lead to a map structure with not perfect topology preservation. Therefore, map size becomes very wide after a limited number of insertions, with some additional nodes, which have no effect. MIGSOM [@ayadi2012migsom] allows a more flexible structure by adding neurons internally and from the boundary but still does not offer the ability to remove neurons if necessary.
In the second type of growing variants, the rectangular grid is replaced with some connected nodes. We denote growing cell structures (GCSs) [@fritzke1994growing], growing neural gas (GNG) [@fritzke1995growing] and growing where required [@marsland2002self]. These works add just the necessary nodes at the same time, to fine-tune the optimal map size. Nevertheless, GCS and GNG are facing many difficulties for visualizing high-dimensional data. Visualization in these cases is guaranteed only with low-dimensional data. Limitations in growing and visualization led to hierarchical variants of the previous model like the Growing Hierarchical SOM (GHSOM) [@rauber2002growing]. With GHSOM you can get an idea of the hierarchical structure of the map, but the growing parameter of the map has to be defined beforehand. Other approaches (like TreeGNG [@doherty2005treegng] or TreeGCS [@hodge2001hierarchical]) use dendrograms for representation but due to this tree structure they lose the topological properties.
Disadvantages of these approaches are: (a) the high computational cost due to the fact that structure starts from a very basic architecture and has to grow in order to reach an acceptable structure for the data and (b) the fact that after adding neurons there is not the possibility of removing a neuron if performance is not improving.
{#sect:soc}
During the classic SOM algorithm neuron positions remain unchanged and the grid is fixed from the beginning till the end of the training. This facilitates the process of learning (since neighborhood structure is known beforehand) but is restricting regarding the final result and ways of visualizing it. We propose a different and more flexible scheme in regard to position vectors $\mathbf{r}_{i}$ of neurons, which allows a more adaptive form of the neuron grid and acts as an extension to the batch learning algorithm.
Starting from an already grown map size, AMSOM can adapt both its size and structure in order to better represent the data at a specific level of detail. After a specific number of steps, neurons are analyzed to see whether the level of representation is sufficient or adjustments are needed: removal and/or addition of neurons. Initially, connections between neurons are determined based on the grid structure but as training advances, these can change and adjust according to the way that neuron positions are also changed during the process. The algorithm flow is described in Figure \[fig:algo\] and more details about the steps are presented in the following subsections.
**1. Initialization Phase** 1.1: Derive initial grid structure and size (number of neurons $M$) of the AMSOM 1.2: Initialize weight vectors ($\mathbf{w}_i$) to random values (according to the value range of features). 1.3: Initialize position vectors ($\mathbf{r}_i$) according to the initial grid structure 1.4: Initialize edge connectivity matrix ($\mathbf{E}$) values according to the grid connections 1.5: Initialize edge age matrix ($\mathbf{A}$) values to zero 1.6: Define growing threshold ($GT$) according to dimension of the data $D$ and a spreading factor ($SF$). **2. Training phase** 2.1: Find winner neuron $N_a$ according to Equation (\[eqn:batchwinner\]) and increase times that neuron $N_a$ is winner by 1 2.2: Find second best matching neuron $N_b$ (using Equation (\[eqn:batchwinner\]) and excluding $N_a$ from the search) 2.3: Age of all edges between $N_a$ and its neighbors increased by one 2.4: Connect $N_a$ with $N_b$ (if they were not already connected) 2.5: Reset age between $N_a$ and $N_b$ to zero 2.6: Use Equations \[eqn:msomtrain\]-\[eqn:msomtrainb\] to update neuron weights. 2.7: Use Equations \[eqn:posupd\]-\[eqn:posupdb\] to update neuron positions. 2.8: add/remove neurons and update accordingly 2.9: end training phase **3. Smoothing phase** 3.1: Fine-tune weights and deliver the AMSOM neuron weight vectors and positions
Phase I: AMSOM Initialization
-----------------------------
### Grid Structure and Size.
The first step of AMSOM algorithm is to define the initial grid structure (as the classic SOM). This process facilitates training time in contrast to starting from a small-size structure and building on that as other approaches do [@vesanto2000som]. It is also in agreement with the neural development which suggests that nearly all neural cells used through human lifetime have been produced in the first months of life [@dowling2007great]. This overproduction of neuron cells is thought to have evolved as a competitive strategy for the establishment of efficient connectivity [@Changeux].
Having this in mind, the initial structure of SOM is determined. Several empirical rules [@Park2006247] suggest that the number of neurons should be $5 \cdot \sqrt{N}$ where $N$ is the number of patterns in the dataset. In this case, the two largest eigenvalues of the training data are first calculated, then the ratio between side lengths of the map grid is set to the ratio between the two maximum eigenvalues. The actual side lengths are finally set so that their product is close to the number of map units determined according to [@vesanto2000som] rule. The eigenvalues ratio shows how well the data is flattened and elongated [@estevez2012advances]. At this point a more precise determination of the number of neurons is not essential, since this number will be fine tuned during the training process. Initially, neurons are connected with their neighbors following the idea of Figure \[fig:somgrid\] using a rectangular or hexagonal grid. For example, if the algorithm suggests that the initial grid of the AMSOM should be 5x4 (let’s suppose rectangular), every neuron has 4 neighbors (except the marginal ones). Figure \[fig:initgrid\] demonstrates two different topologies, a rectangular and a hexagonal one with the corresponding connections between neurons.
![Initial grid example (hexagonal & rectangular).[]{data-label="fig:initgrid"}](initialgrid){width="1.0\linewidth"}
### Vector, Matrix and Parameters Initialization.
For each neuron the following are defined and initialized accordingly:
- Neuron vector (weight vector, $\mathbf{w}_i$): It is the same as the classic SOM (see Equation (\[eqn:somw\])) and shows the representation of the neuron in the feature (input) space. Initialization of neuron vectors is random according to literature standards.
- Neuron position (position vector, $\mathbf{r}_i$): Depending on the output space (mostly it is two-dimensional), it’s a vector that shows the position of the neuron. Initial position vectors are equal to the positions of the neurons in the grid, i.e., in Figure \[fig:initgrid\] one can see the coordinates of neurons according to the structure (hexagonal or rectangular).
Since the structure of the grid is subject to changes during training, we need to keep track of the neighbors of each neuron. There is the possibility that some neurons which where connected in the initial grid become disconnected after some time (or vice versa). In order to keep track of these changes we introduce the orthogonal and symmetrical matrices $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{A}$ (both size $M \times M$) where $E(p,q)$ shows if neurons $p$ and $q$ are connected (0 translates to no connection, 1 translates to connected neurons) and $A(p,q)$ shows the age of edge (as implied by $E(p,q)$) between neurons $p$ and $q$: This will be used in order to determine which neurons had incidental connections to other neurons or strong connections as training moves forward. When $A(p,q)$ is 0 that means that neurons $p$ and $q$ were closest neighbors at current epoch but any other value (i.e., 2) implies that neurons $p$ and $q$ were closest neighbors some epochs before (i.e., 2). An example of matrices $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{A}$ is seen in Figure \[fig:matrices\].
![Example of matrices $A$ and $E$ describing connections between AMSOM neurons.[]{data-label="fig:matrices"}](exampleEA "fig:"){width="0.75\linewidth"} $$A=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 2 & 4 & 0\\
2 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
4 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
,
E=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$$
In this example, neurons number ($M$) is 4 and connectivity matrix $E$ shows how neurons are connected to each other (as implied by the graph). Age matrix $A$ shows how many epochs an edge has survived: Connection between neuron $\#1$ and $\#2$ has age 2 whereas connection between neuron $\#2$ and $\#4$ has age 0. Notice that age 0 can either mean that neurons are not connected, like neurons $\#1$ and $\#4$ or that neurons are connected at this current epoch (so their connection is recent), like neurons $\#2$ and $\#4$.
Also, at this stage the growing threshold $GT$ of the map is defined as a function of data dimension ($D$) and a spread factor ($SF$) defined by the user. Formula used is $GT=-ln(D) \times ln(SF)$ (from [@alahakoon2000dynamic]). Generally, a $SF$ value of $0.5$ always yields good results but its fine tuning is up to the user requirements and the dataset structure.
Phase II: Training
------------------
### Weight and Position Updating
For the weight learning of neurons, the SOM batch algorithm is utilized, as it was given in Equations \[som:batch1\]-\[som:batch2\], which are repeated here for clarity.
$$\mathbf{w}_{i}(t+1)=\frac{\sum_{j} n_j(t) \cdot h_{ji}(t) \cdot \mathbf{\tilde{x}}_{j}(t)}{\sum_{j} n_j(t) \cdot h_{ji}(t)}
\label{eqn:msomtrain}$$
$$h_{ji}(t)=exp \left( -\frac{||\mathbf{r}_j-\mathbf{r}_i||^2}{\sigma(t)^2} \right )
\label{eqn:msomtrainb}$$
where:
- $\mathbf{w}_i(t+1)$ marks neurons $i$ updated weight (at epoch $t+1$),
- $t$ marks current epoch and $t+1$ marks the next epoch,
- $n_j(t)$ marks the number of patterns that are assigned to neuron $j$,
- $h_{ji}(t)$ marks the neighborhood function and is a measure of how close are neuron $j$ and neuron $i$,
- $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_j(t)$ is the mean feature vector of all $x$ that are assigned to neuron $j$ at epoch $t$,
- $\mathbf{r}_j,\mathbf{r}_i$ are the position vectors (in the output space) for neurons $j$ and $i$,
- $\sigma(t)$ is the adaptation factor, decreasing through training
Building on top of this, at the end of each epoch, the neuron position vectors are adjusted in a similar manner to the SOM training algorithm. In more detail, at the end of each epoch and after the neuron weight vectors update is over, the distances between the neuron vectors ($\mathbf{w}_{i}$) are computed. These distances show how close neurons are (in the input space) and can be used as a measure in order to update neuron positions (in the output space). This is achieved through the following Equations:
$$\mathbf{r}_{i}(t+1)=\mathbf{r}_{i}(t)+\alpha(t) \cdot \frac{\sum_{j}n_j(t) \cdot \delta_{ji}(t)(\mathbf{r}_{j}(t)-\mathbf{r}_{i}(t))}{\sum_{j} n_j(t) \cdot \delta_{ji}(t)}
\label{eqn:posupd}$$
$$\delta_{ji}(t)=exp \left( -\frac{||\mathbf{w}_j-\mathbf{w}_i||^2}{\gamma \times \sigma(t)^2} \right )
\label{eqn:posupdb}$$
where:
- $t$, $n_j(t)$ were defined in Equations \[eqn:msomtrain\] and \[eqn:msomtrainb\],
- $\alpha(t)$ denotes the learning rate at epoch $t$ and controls the rate that positions of neurons are moving,
- $\delta_{ji}(t)$ is a neighborhood function denoting how close neurons $j$ and $i$ are (during time $t$ and is based on their distance in the input space (i.e., distance computed based on their vectors $w_i$),
- $\gamma$ is a parameter that controls the neighborhood shrinking as a fraction of $\sigma$ which was used in Equation (\[eqn:msomtrainb\])
Notice the similarity of $\delta_{ji}$ with $h_{ji}$: both are neighborhood functions and are used to determine how close two neurons are but the first one does so using their distances in the feature (input) space while the latter does so using their distances in the output space (map).
Equation (\[eqn:posupd\]) will adjust neuron’s $i$ position vector according to the neurons which proved winners for more patterns in its neighborhood and less (or even none) according to neurons which were winners for few patterns (or none). This process enhances the concept of neighborhood around the neurons that attract more patterns and also allows to cover any empty spaces in the data representation. It is expected to improve the training speed, since position updating will lead to more accurate position vectors that will be used for the next training epoch and leads to more insightful representations of the neurons in the output space.
Learning rate $\alpha(t)$ can also be set to a small value $0.01$ since the neighborhood function controls well the percentage of change in the position vectors. It was selected to update the position vectors with this hybrid on-line-batch SOM rule, due to the fact that output space is much smaller (in most SOM applications) than the input space, so in many cases minor adjustments (than major repositioning of the neurons) are more necessary in order to guarantee satisfactory training but also representation. Also note that the parameter $\gamma$ which controls neighborhood shrinking for position can also control how fast the map will be updated and how neurons are going to affect each other.
### Adding and Removing Neurons
During the weight updating process, for each input (pattern) the best matching neuron is determined ($N_a$) and also the second best matching ($N_b$). At this step the age of all edges between $N_a$ and its neighbors is increased. Afterwards, $N_a$ is connected to $N_b$. If both of the neurons were already connected then their age is reset to zero. This is another step that implements the competitive learning rule, since for each new pattern, a new edge connecting the two closest neurons is drawn. This process is repeated for all patterns as they are presented to the AMSOM. Finally, at the end of the epoch for each incident edge between neurons ($i,j$), if $A(i,j) \geq age_{max}$, then this edge is removed. $age_{max}$ can be set to a value not small enough (so as to avoid many disconnections) but also not big enough (so as to avoid having a fully connected grid). In our experiments this value was 30. If either of the implicated neurons becomes isolated from the remainder of the structure, then it is removed from the grid. The aim here is to remove edges that are no longer useful because they are replaced by younger edges that are created during the AMSOM training. That is the reason that each time two neurons are connected by an edge, then its age is reset to zero. By this process, neurons that were connected incidentally -especially at the beginning of the training when the map is still under forming- are disconnected after some epochs. This process has two distinct advantages: (a) self-organization and competitive learning will allow after some epochs the removal of redundant number of neurons and (b) adjustment of connections between neurons so as to enhance topological properties of the dataset. An example of a removal of a neuron is shown in Figure \[fig:msomrem\] along with the necessary adjustments to matrices $A$ and $E$.
![The process of removing neurons in a part of AMSOM: With $age_{max}$ set to 30, neuron 4 is disconnected from neuron 3 and neuron 1 is disconnected from neuron 2 (notice that matrices $A$ and $E$ are updated accordingly). Neuron 4 is left with no connections so it is removed.[]{data-label="fig:msomrem"}](amsomrem){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Also, there is the possibility that after some epochs ($t_{add}$), new neurons are added. The criterion is based on the training progress and when an addition happens, then new neurons can be added only after a number of epochs ($t_{add}$) in order to allow weight adaptation of the map, before evaluating current structure. First step is to spot the neuron $N_u$ with the largest quantization error. A new neuron will be added, if its quantization error is higher than $GT$, where $GT$ is the growing threshold of the map: A high value for $GT$ will result in less spread out map and a low $GT$ will produce a more spread map. If the quantization error satisfies the above condition then its Voronoi region is considered to be under-represented and therefore a new neuron has to be added to share the load of the high-error-valued neuron.
Regarding the new neuron that will be added, we follow the the biological process of cell division [@odri1993evolutional]. By this way the neuron with the highest quantization error is splitted to two new neurons (instead of just adding one new neuron somewhere at random with no connections at all). Both new neurons preserve the same connectivity (and also they are connected to each other) with the original neuron, thus we achieve a preservation of behavioral link between the parent and the offspring. Regarding the exact position of the two neurons the following process is followed: Neuron with the largest error among $N_u$’s neighbors is spotted (let it be $N_v$). One neuron will preserve $N_u$’s position and the other one will be placed in the middle between $N_u$ and $N_v$. In detail, weights and positions of the two new neurons ($u_1$ and $u_2$) are calculated using the following Equations: $$\mathbf{w}_{u1} = (1+\beta) \times \mathbf{w}_u
\label{eqn:neuronadd1}$$ $$\mathbf{w}_{u2} = -\beta \times \mathbf{w}_u
\label{eqn:neuronadd2}$$ $$\mathbf{r}_{u1} = \mathbf{r}_{u}
\label{eqn:neuronadd3}$$ $$\mathbf{r}_{u2} = \frac{\mathbf{r}_u+\mathbf{r}_v}{2}
\label{eqn:neuronadd4}$$
where $\mathbf{w}_{u}$ refers to the weight vector of neuron $u$ (neuron that is splitted) and $\beta$ is a mutation parameter which can take either a fixed or random value according to a certain distribution rule (following [@odri1993evolutional]). In any case, value of $\beta$ has to be chosen small in order to avoid a large change both in network topology but also in the weight vectors. In this paper, $\beta$ takes a random value according to a Gaussian distribution with a mean of zero and variance of one. New neurons retain the same connectivity to other neurons as the parent neuron but age weights are zeroed. The process of adding a new neuron (along with any changes in matrices $E$ and $A$) is described in Figure \[fig:msomadd\].
![The process of adding new neurons in a part of AMSOM: $N_u$ is highlighted as the neuron with the highest error and $N_v$ is the neuron among its neighbors with the largest error. Neurons $N_1$ and $N_2$ are added instead of $N_u$, matrices $E$ and $A$ are updated accordingly and weight/position vectors are determined by Equations \[eqn:neuronadd1\]-\[eqn:neuronadd4\].[]{data-label="fig:msomadd"}](amsomadd){width="1.0\linewidth"}
It has to be pointed out that there is the possibility that a neuron would be removed from a region of the map and to be added in another region (removing and adding neurons are consecutive processes). This comes to agreement with several theories in neural organization, suggesting that cortical regions can adapt to their input sources and are somewhat interchangeable or reusable by other modalities, especially in vision- or hearing-impaired subjects [@wedeen2012geometric].
### Architecture Adaptation and Termination Criterion
As it is described before, initial structure of AMSOM is adapted through learning and training in order to find what is optimal for the number of neurons, their weights and their connections. The adaptation process starts by training the initial structure of AMSOM. When the criteria of adding or removing neurons are satisfied, then the network is adapted. In order to maintain (as possible) the initial structure (i.e., rectangular or hexagonal or any other lattice selected), after this adaptation process we re-evaluate all connections of all neurons and make sure that each neuron has at most $Q$ neighbors (where $Q$ is decided in the beginning, i.e., in the case of rectangular lattice, $Q=4$): This can be ensured by checking edge matrix $E$ after each epoch and if a neuron is found to have more than $Q$ connections then only the $Q$-recent are kept (utilizing age of edges in matrix $A$). This process is presented in Figure \[fig:msomadapt\].
![Maintaining the structure of AMSOM: With $Q=4$ (i.e., a rectangular grid) neuron 4 is connected to five neurons, so it’s connection with neuron 6 (oldest connection) is removed.[]{data-label="fig:msomadapt"}](amsomadapt){width="1.0\linewidth"}
By this training scheme, AMSOM adapts simultaneously the structure of the map (number of neurons and connections) and the weight vectors. Removing and adding neurons occur when different criteria are met, so they can be applied in any sequence, depending on when the criteria are satisfied. By applying these operations repeatedly, AMSOM is expected to find a near-optimal structure and representation of a given dataset.
Finally, like every SOM algorithm, AMSOM has an upper limit of epochs that training takes place. This number is set to 1000 but there is also a premature termination criterion depending on the mean quantization error change between two consecutive epochs. Thus, if $mqe(t)-mqe(t-1) < \epsilon_1$ where $\epsilon_1$ is a small value (like $1E-06$) then the map has reached the desired size (according to the $GT$ provided) and training is terminated.
Phase III: AMSOM Finalization
-----------------------------
Final phase of AMSOM happens when learning is complete and structure of the network is not any more changing. No neurons are added or removed at this phase and no connections between neurons are added or removed but weight and position vector adaptation is continued with a lower rate. Purpose of this process is to smooth out any quantization error and fine tune weights and positions of the neurons, especially for neurons added at the latter epochs. For this purpose, neighborhood function (both for Equations \[eqn:msomtrain\] and \[eqn:posupd\] is constrained only to the immediate neighborhood and learning rate $\alpha(t)$ in Equation (\[eqn:posupd\]) is set to 0.001 (even smaller than in phase II). Phase III is concluded when there is no significant change in change in mean quantization error (i.e., when $mqe(t) - mqe(t-1) < \epsilon_2$), where $\epsilon_2$ is set to a smaller value than $\epsilon_1$ (like $1E-10$).
{#sect:exp}
AMSOM performance has been tested with several literature datasets in order to evaluate both map quality (in terms of topology preservation) and the number of epochs needed to converge. Quantization Error (QE) and Topographic Error (TE) were used as intrinsic measures of evaluation (for more details readers are encouraged to read [@bauer1999neural]). All datasets were provided by the UCI repository [^1], except the CLUSTER dataset which is a simple and random but large two-dimensional dataset with four groups. All datasets used with their characteristics are presented in Table \[tab:datasets\].
**Dataset name** **Instances** **Features** **Classes**
------------------ --------------- -------------- -------------
CLUSTER 1000 2 4
IRIS 150 4 3
WINE 178 13 7
IONOSPHERE 351 35 2
CANCER 699 9 2
GLASS 214 10 7
: Datasets characteristics.
\[tab:datasets\]
-- ----------- --------- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------
**AMSOM** **SOM** **AMSOM** **SOM** **AMSOM** **SOM**
0.108 0.1090 0.028 0.063 121 154
0.1047 0.3930 0.009 0.013 37 66
1.7394 1.8830 0.008 0.017 42 66
2.5697 2.9418 0.0026 0.0057 78 91
0.7941 0.9456 0.0145 0.0286 103 132
0.9797 1.1178 0.0041 0.0093 43 72
-- ----------- --------- ----------- --------- ----------- ---------
\[tab:results\]
Each dataset in shuffled and split to training, testing and validation set (60%, 20% and 20% respectively). Each experiment was performed 20 times and the results presented here are average over these runs (deviations were small and are not presented here). Results for AMSOM QE and TE (compared to classic SOM) along with the number of neurons used by each model are presented in Table \[tab:results\]. From this Table it is obvious that AMSOM’s performance is much better than classic SOM. AMSOM starts from the same number of neurons as classic SOM but by removing and adding neurons when necessary reaches a number which is suitable to represent the dataset. Both QE and TE are improved using AMSOM algorithm and this improvement is more significant in TE because of the neuron position changing which allows the map to better adjust to the dataset.
Visualization results for three of the datasets are presented in Figures \[fig:cluster\] through \[fig:ionosphere\]. In these figures final positions of the neurons and their final positions are represented. For each neuron a majority vote criterion was used in order to determine the class that this neuron represents. For the simple CLUSTER dataset it is obvious that the four classes are identified and the grid structure can effectively represent their relations. For the IRIS dataset one class is completely identified whereas the other two (which are more similar) are also highlighted. Also notice that neurons that belong to the same class are mostly connected with each other on the grid and only some spontaneous connections between classes exist. Finally, for the more demanding IONOSPHERE dataset (see the relatively higher QE), AMSOM manages to differentiate in a great degree the two classes. Neuron grids in all figures also reveal that the percentage of dead units (neurons that do not represent any pattern) is significantly small, which is an improvement to the classic SOM algorithm (fewer inactive neurons).
Regarding the spread factor ($SF$) which controls the growing threshold ($GT$), a value $0.5$ was chosen for this series of experiments because for all datasets it yielded satisfactory results. In the general case that there is no prior knowledge on the data examined, a low value of $SF$ (0-0.3) will allow highlighting of the most significant clusters. Regarding $\gamma$ parameter of Equation (\[eqn:posupd\]) it was found that it can effectively control the spreading or shrinking of neighborhood during position updating and by this way creating more isolated or more connected clusters. Several experiments were conducted (not presented here due to space limitations) and showed that small values of gamma (1 till 10) produce the best results for all datasets. The higher the $\gamma$, the better topographic preservation (reduced TE) but the quantization error (QE) rises. Also, high values of $\gamma$ tend to increase the number of neurons that remain unused (dead units) whereas values close to 100 tend to approach the classic SOM algorithm (position updating is minimal). Two more parameters that need to be adjusted are $age_{max}$ and $t_{add}$. For both parameters, 30 epochs were found to be optimal, which is sound given the fact that 30 epochs are enough time to see if current structure performs well (reduced QE) or if adjustments needed (adding/removing neurons).
Complexity of the developed algorithm is slightly increased due to the need for updating matrices $A$ and $E$ and also due to the more flexible structure. This overhead is partly counterbalanced by the faster training process (in all experiments there was a decrease in epochs number around 20%) since updating neuron positions clearly improves training time (requires less epochs) but for memory intensive tasks (like big datasets) this might be become a drawback for the algorithm.
{#sect:concl}
In this paper we presented AMSOM, an extension to original SOM algorithm which allows neurons to change positions according to a similar competitive technique used in classic SOM training. Moreover, neurons can be added or removed during this [“double”]{} training process allowing for a more flexible structure grid which is able to represent the dataset more efficiently. Experimental results on different datasets improve performance of AMSOM compared to classic SOM algorithm. AMSOM produces better reference vectors by reducing the quantization error, topology is preserved through the neuron moving by significantly reducing the Topographic Error and the visualization result matches as much as possible the original dataset partitions. Also, AMSOM produces fewer nodes with no significant effect while at the same time it reduces required number of epochs.
Obtained results give new insights on how to utilize the concept of competitive learning and self-organization in neural networks and will be examined in more detail so as to further improve performance and investigate behavior in bigger and real-life datasets (images, text, etc.). For this purpose, drawbacks of the algorithm (the need to tune four parameters and the memory cost) will be addressed in order to further facilitate visualization and clustering (especially in large datasets).
[^1]: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Astrophysical explosions are accompanied by the propagation of a shock wave through an ambient medium. Depending on the mass and energy involved in the explosion, the shock velocity $V$ can be non-relativistic ($V \ll c$, where $c$ is the speed of light), ultra-relativistic ($V \simeq c$), or moderately relativistic ($V \sim few\times 0.1c$). While self-similar, energy-conserving solutions to the fluid equations that describe the shock propagation are known in the non-relativistic (the Sedov-Taylor blastwave) and ultra-relativistic (the Blandford-McKee blastwave) regimes, the finite speed of light violates scale invariance and self-similarity when the flow is only mildly relativistic. By treating relativistic terms as perturbations to the fluid equations, here we derive the $\mathcal{O}(V^2/c^2)$, energy-conserving corrections to the non-relativistic, Sedov-Taylor solution for the propagation of a strong shock. We show that relativistic terms modify the post-shock fluid velocity, density, pressure, and the shock speed itself, the latter being constrained by global energy conservation. We derive these corrections for a range of post-shock adiabatic indices $\gamma$ [(which we set as a fixed number for the post-shock gas)]{} and ambient power-law indices $n$, where the density of the ambient medium $\rho_{\rm a}$ into which the shock advances declines with spherical radius $r$ as $\rho_{\rm a} \propto r^{-n}$. For Sedov-Taylor blastwaves that terminate in a contact discontinuity with diverging density, we find that there is no relativistic correction to the Sedov-Taylor solution that simultaneously satisfies the fluid equations and conserves energy. These solutions have implications for relativistic supernovae, the transition from ultra- to sub-relativistic velocities in gamma-ray bursts, and other high-energy phenomena.'
author:
- 'Eric R. Coughlin'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Energy-conserving, Relativistic Corrections to Strong Shock Propagation'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
A core-collapse supernova is, in the now-classic picture, initiated by the “bounce” of the overpressured, protoneutron star that forms from the collapse of the iron core of a massive star [@colgate66]. From the protoneutron star bounce is launched a shock wave, which propagates through and unbinds the stellar envelope to yield the supernova. If it is sufficiently energetic, the shock promptly plows through the star following the bounce and liberates the gas; alternatively, if it is not energetic enough to overcome the ram pressure of the infalling material and the dissociation of heavy nuclei in the core of the star [@arnett82], the shock “stalls” at small radii but can be revived by some means (e.g., neutrino heating, convective instabilities behind the shock, a dynamic instability of the standing shock, or the magnetorotational amplification of magnetic fields; respectively, e.g., @bethe85 [@burrows95; @blondin03; @mosta15]). If the shock fails to be revived, with sufficient angular momentum an accretion disc forms around the natal black hole that can, through the combination of bipolar outflows and liberated accretion energy, unbind the remaining stellar envelope in the collapsar picture of a long gamma-ray burst [@woosley93; @macfadyen99; @woosley06]. Finally, even in the absence of sufficient angular momentum, a failed supernova generates a secondary, weak shock in the outer layers of the star from the mass lost to neutrinos during the de-leptonization of the core [@nadezhin80; @lovegrove13; @piro13; @coughlin18a; @fernandez18; @coughlin18b].
All of these explosion scenarios involve the formation and expansion of a shock wave into its surroundings, and this shock leaves in its wake a “sea” of post-shock fluid (as, of course, do explosion scenarios not initiated by the collapse of a massive star, such as compact object mergers; e.g., @li98 [@levinson02; @nakar11; @abbott17c]). One of the most useful techniques for describing the spatial and temporal evolution of the post-shock gas and of the shock itself is self-similarity. This mathematical technique exploits the scale invariance of the fluid equations and, in the absence of any temporal or spatial scales of the ambient medium, the necessary scale invariance of the solutions to those equations (e.g., @ostriker88).
Among the best-known examples of a self-similar solution to the fluid equations is the Sedov-Taylor (ST) blastwave (@sedov59 [@taylor50]). The ST blastwave describes the propagation of an energy-conserving, strong (Mach number much greater than one) shock into an ambient medium that possesses a power-law density profile. The conservation of energy implies that there is a unique shock speed $V$ that can be directly related to the initial energy of the explosion, the impulsive injection of which initiated the explosion in the first place. The ST solution is also non-relativistic, in that the shock speed is assumed to be much less than the speed of light and the energy is Newtonian, and hence terms of order $V^2/c^2$ that enter into the relativistic fluid equations are ignored ($c$ being the speed of light). The ST blastwave can be used to describe terrestrial explosions and can also constrain the age of supernova remnants [@chevalier76].
In the other, extreme limit of an ultra-relativistic explosion – where the shock velocity is nearly equal to the speed of light – @blandford76 derived a distinct, energy-conserving, self-similar solution to the relativistic fluid equations. The Blandford-McKee (BMK) solution is the ultra-relativistic analog of the Sedov-Taylor blastwave, in that the conservation of energy implies that there is a unique shock Lorentz factor $\Gamma = (1-V^2/c^2)^{-1/2}$ that is relatable to the explosion energy. The BMK blastwave is ultra-relativistic in the sense that the solution only accounts for terms in the fluid equations to order $\mathcal{O}(1/\Gamma^2)$. While there are at present no (known) terrestrial applications of this solution, gamma-ray bursts should exhibit some phase of shock propagation appropriate to ultra-relativistic speeds, and simulations have found evidence of the transition to a Blandford-McKee-type phase of explosion [@kobayashi00; @duffell13; @xie18].
In this paper we are interested in the behavior of an energy-conserving explosion that is between the limits of Newtonian and ultra-relativistic. The specific question we ask is: when the flow is mildly relativistic, such that the shock speed is $V \sim few\times0.1 c$, how do relativistic effects modify the Sedov-Taylor solution? There are particularly energetic supernovae and lower-luminosity gamma-ray bursts that can produce marginally relativistic shock speeds [@soderberg06; @drout11; @corsi14; @corsi16; @whitesides17]. For these modestly-relativistic flows, how do relativistic corrections modify the shock velocity scaling predicted from the ST blastwave, and how are the post-shock velocity, density, and pressure profiles altered from the self-similar solutions provided by the ST solution?
In this paper, we answer these questions by considering special relativistic terms as perturbations to the non-relativistic fluid equations and, correspondingly, the solutions to those equations. In Section \[sec:general\], we first give some basic considerations of the problem, and we derive order of magnitude estimates for the corrections to the shock velocity that are induced by relativistic motion. In Section \[sec:fluid\] we present a rigorous perturbation analysis of the shock jump conditions and the fluid equations to leading relativistic order, and from those equations we derive relativistic, non-self-similar corrections to the post-shock velocity, density, and pressure that result from the velocity scale established by the finite speed of light. We also demonstrate that there is a unique, relativistic correction to the shock velocity that results from the requirement that the energy – which includes relativistic terms – be exactly conserved behind the shock front. We summarize and conclude in Section \[sec:summary\].
General Considerations and Order of Magnitude Estimates {#sec:general}
=======================================================
We characterize an explosion by the ejection of an amount of mass $M_{\rm ej}$ with a corresponding energy $E_{\rm ej}$, which can be combined to yield a characteristic velocity $V_{\rm ej} = \sqrt{E_{\rm ej}/M_{\rm ej}}$. As this material encounters an ambient medium medium, a forward shock is generated that initially propagates at the same characteristic speed $V_{\rm ej}$. Once the shock entrains sufficient inertia from its surroundings that the initial mass of the explosion is forgotten, the forward shock propagation settles into a self-similar state such that the boundary conditions at the shock (namely the jump conditions; see Section \[sec:jump\]) govern the entire post-shock evolution of the flow, while the characteristic ambient density $\rho_{\rm a}$ and length scale $r_{\rm a}$ and the shock energy $E_{\rm ej}$ dictate the propagation of the shock itself. If the density of the ambient medium falls off as a power-law with radial power-law index $n$, then, during this self-similar phase, energy conservation in the non-relativistic limit implies that the shock velocity $V$ is related to the shock position $R$ via
$$V \simeq \sqrt{\frac{E_{\rm ej}}{\rho_{\rm a}r_{\rm a}^3}}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{\frac{n-3}{2}} \simeq V_{\rm ej}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{\frac{n-3}{2}}. \label{Vsh}$$
The last line in this expression follows from the fact that the self-similar state is only reached once the mass entrained from the ambient medium is comparable to the initial mass of the explosion, i.e., $\rho_{\rm a}r_{\rm a}^3 \simeq M_{\rm ej}$. This expression can be rearranged and integrated to solve for the shock position as a function of time, which yields
$$R \propto t^{\frac{2}{5-n}}. \label{RST}$$
This temporal scaling of the shock position is the well-known, Newtonian-energy-conserving result derived independently by @sedov59 and @taylor50
We see from Equation that when the mass involved in the explosion is small or the energy imparted to that mass is large, both of which are possible in astrophysical contexts, the characteristic ejecta velocity can exceed the speed of light. In this limit the Newtonian approach breaks down, and instead of being constrained by a characteristic velocity, the shock can be parameterized by its Lorentz factor $\Gamma = (1-V^2/c^2)^{-1/2}$. In the ultra-relativistic limit, the post-shock inertia is dominated by the internal energy of the gas, which scales as $\rho_{\rm a}\Gamma^2$, and mass conservation implies that the post-shock gas is swept into a thin shell of width $\sim R/\Gamma^2$ [@blandford76]. To leading order in the shock Lorentz factor, relativistic energy conservation then dictates that the Lorentz factor of the shock satisfies
$$\Gamma \simeq \sqrt{\frac{E_{\rm ej}}{\rho_{\rm a}r_{\rm a}^3c^2}}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{(n-3)/2} \simeq \frac{V_{\rm ej}}{c}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{(n-3)/2}. \label{Gammash}$$
In this expression $R \simeq c \,t$, and it therefore follows that the Lorentz factor of the relativistic, self-similar shock evolves temporally as
$$\Gamma \simeq \frac{V_{\rm ej}}{c}\left(\frac{ct}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{\left(n-3\right)/2}. \label{Gammaoft}$$
In between these two limits – Sedov-Taylor when $\sqrt{E_{\rm ej}/M_{\rm ej}} \ll c$ and Blandford-McKee when $\sqrt{E_{\rm ej}/M_{\rm ej}} \gg c$ – how does the flow behave? In addition to the examples of hyperenergetic supernovae considered in Section \[sec:intro\], it can also be seen from Equation that – even if the blastwave is extremely energetic and begins in the Blandford-McKee regime – the deceleration of the shock Lorentz factor (assuming $n < 3$, above which the Sedov-Taylor solution does not exist; we will always adopt $n < 3$ in this paper, and return to the case of $n > 3$ briefly in the conclusions) implies that the ultra-relativistic approximation only holds for a finite time $\Delta t_{\rm rel}$. Setting $\Gamma = 1$ in Equation and rearranging shows that this timescale is
$$\Delta t_{\rm rel} \simeq \frac{r_{\rm a}}{c}V_{\rm ej}^{\frac{2}{3-n}} \simeq \frac{r_{\rm a}}{c}\left(\frac{E_{\rm ej}}{M_{\rm ej} c^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{3-n}}.$$
For fiducial values of $E_{\rm ej} \simeq 10^{52}$ erg, $M_{\rm ej} \simeq 0.1 M_{\odot}$, $n =0$, and setting $r_{\rm a} \simeq N \times R_{\odot}$, we find $\Delta t_{\rm rel} \simeq 1\times N$ sec. Therefore, even for large values of $r_{\rm a}$ (or correspondingly small values of the ambient density), the ultra-relativistic phase of self-similar shock propagation can be very short lived. Relativistic terms that modify the solution from the non-relativistic, Sedov-Taylor phase – to which the flow eventually asymptotes – will then be present during the transition from ultra- to non-relativistic shock expansion.
At the order of magnitude level, the importance of relativistic corrections to the Sedov-Taylor blastwave can be understood by noting that the leading-order, relativistic modifications to the fluid equations appear as $\propto \mathcal{O}(v^2/c^2)$, where $v$ is the three-velocity of the fluid; we derive these corrections explicitly in Section \[sec:fluid\], but such a scaling is reasonable from the observation that the four-velocity, which differs from the three velocity by a factor of $\Gamma \simeq 1+\mathcal{O}(v^2/c^2)$, transforms in a covariant (i.e., tensor-like) sense and therefore enters manifestly into the relativistic fluid equations. There will therefore be corrections of this same order to the jump conditions at the shock front, and hence the lowest-order, relativistic corrections to the post-shock velocity, density, and pressure will be of the order $V^2/c^2$. There will also be modifications to the conserved energy that enter as $v^2/c^2$ (again, we show this explicitly below, but this feature follows naturally from the covariant nature of the four-velocity over the three-velocity). Therefore, in order to satisfy energy conservation, there must also be relativistic corrections of the order $V^2/c^2$ that modify the propagation of the shock itself. We thus expect that during the marginally-relativistic phase when $V_{\rm ej}/c \lesssim 1$, the shock speed will be characterized by
$$V^2 \simeq V_{\rm ej}^2\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{n-3}\left(1+\sigma\frac{V^2}{c^2}\right), \label{Vapp}$$
where $\sigma$ is an unknown but otherwise pure number. Since the shock is assumed to be only mildly relativistic, it follows that this relativistic term can be approximated as
$$\frac{V^2}{c^2}\simeq \frac{V_{\rm ej}^2}{c^2}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{{n-3}} \propto t^{\frac{2(n-3)}{5-n}},$$
where the last line follows from the expression for $R(t)$ from the Sedov-Taylor solution (Equation \[RST\]). Thus, for $n = 0$, the relativistic corrections fall off as $\propto t^{-6/5}$, and become – as one would anticipate – less important as the shock decelerates owing to the entrainment of mass from the ambient medium. Note, however, that this power-law decline in the importance of relativistic effects is shallower than that predicted from the Blandford-McKee solution alone, being $\Gamma \propto t^{-3/2}$ for $n = 0$ (Equation \[Gammaoft\]); relativistic corrections to non-relativistic shock propagation can therefore be longer lived than might be anticipated by extrapolating the Blandford-McKee solution to the limit of $\Gamma =1$. Furthermore, as the density of the ambient medium falls off more steeply, relativistic effects remain important for longer periods of time (indeed, in the limit that $n \rightarrow 3$, the relativistic corrections are permanent modifications to the shock speed).
While these order of magnitude estimates provide useful diagnostics for probing the importance of relativistic effects and the rate at which they should depreciate in time, they cannot be used, for example, to determine the constant $\sigma$ that enters into the correction for the shock velocity in Equation . Furthermore, while these simple estimates indicate that the corrections to the post-shock fluid variables (the velocity, density, and pressure) enter at the level $V^2/c^2$, they tell us nothing about the *spatial* dependence of these corrections. To understand these aspects of the problem, we now turn to a quantitative analysis of the relativistic fluid equations and treat the leading-order, relativistic corrections in the perturbative limit.
Fluid Equations and Perturbative Approach {#sec:fluid}
=========================================
General continuity equations
----------------------------
The equations of hydrodynamics in covariant and differential form are given by
$$\nabla_{\mu}T^{\mu\nu} = 0, \label{enmom}$$
where $\nabla_{\mu}$ is the covariant derivative and
$$T^{\mu\nu} = \left(\rho'+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'\right)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p'g^{\mu\nu}$$
is the energy-momentum tensor of the fluid; here primes denote quantities measured in the comoving frame (i.e., in the frame where the fluid is instantaneously at rest), $\rho'$ is the fluid density, $p'$ is the gas pressure, $U^{\mu}$ is the fluid four-velocity, and $g^{\mu\nu}$ is the inverse of the metric, and we also adopted an adiabatic equation of state such that the internal energy $e'$ is related to the pressure $p'$ via $e' = p'/(\gamma-1)$. In this equation and for the remainder of this paper we adopt the Einstein summation convention, meaning that repeated upper and lower indices imply summation over the repeated index, and we will also use units where the speed of light is equal to one. The continuity equation, which ensures the conservation of mass, is written in covariant form as
$$\nabla_{\mu}\left[\rho'U^{\mu}\right] = 0, \label{cont}$$
and to maintain the invariance of the line element the contraction of the four velocity with itself must be conserved:
$$U_{\mu}U^{\mu} = -1. \label{contract}$$
Equations – constitute the inviscid conservation laws that govern the evolution of the components of the four velocity, the mass density, and the pressure of the fluid in any arbitrary geometry.
While one can deal directly with the individual components of Equation , two additional, useful equations are obtained by contracting this expression with $U_{\nu}$ and $\Pi^{\beta}_{\,\,\nu} = U^{\beta}U_{\nu}+g^{\beta}_{\,\,\nu}$, which respectively select out the time-like and space-like components of the equations (note that $U_{\beta}\Pi^{\beta}_{\,\,\nu} = 0$). Doing so and performing some simple manipulations gives the entropy equation
$$U^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}s' = 0,$$
where $s' = \ln\left[p'/(\rho')^{\gamma}\right]$ is the entropy, and the momentum equations
$$\rho'U^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}U^{\nu}+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'U^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}U^{\nu}+\Pi^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\mu}p' = 0.$$
Equations in spherical symmetry
-------------------------------
Here we restrict solutions to the fluid equations to be spherically symmetric and irrotational, such that the metric is given by $g_{\mu\nu} = \text{diag}\left\{-1,1,r^2,r^2\sin^2\theta\right\}$, where $r$ is radial distance from the origin and $\theta$ is the standard polar angle in spherical coordinates, and the only non-vanishing components of the four-velocity are $U^{r} \equiv U$ and $U^{t}$. From Equation we can relate the time component of the four-velocity to the radial component via
$$U^{t} = \sqrt{1+U^2},$$
and using this expression the continuity, entropy, and radial momentum equations respectively become
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[\rho'\sqrt{1+U^2}\right]+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left[r^2\rho'U\right] = 0, \label{contr}$$
$$\sqrt{1+U^2}\frac{\partial s'}{\partial t}+U\frac{\partial s'}{\partial r} = 0, \label{entr}$$
$$\sqrt{1+U^2}\frac{\partial U}{\partial t}+U\frac{\partial U}{\partial r}+\frac{p'U}{\rho'}\left\{\sqrt{1+U^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\ln\left(p'U^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}\right)+U\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\ln\left(p'U^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}\right)\right\}+\frac{1}{\rho'}\frac{\partial p'}{\partial r} = 0. \label{bernr}$$
Two other equations that will be useful in the following sections are the total energy and total radial momentum equations, which are given by the $\nu = t$ and $\nu = r$ components of Equation . These respectively read
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[\left(\rho'+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'\right)\left(1+U^2\right)-p'\right]+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left[r^2\left(\rho'+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'\right)U\sqrt{1+U^2}\right]=0, \label{entot}$$
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left[\left(\rho'+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'\right)U\sqrt{1+U^2}\right]+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left[r^2\left(\left(\rho'+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'\right)U^2+p'\right)\right] -\frac{2p'}{r} = 0. \label{rmomtot}$$
Strong shock jump conditions {#sec:jump}
----------------------------
Equations – govern the evolution of the post-shock fluid. Assuming that the shock generates neither mass, energy, nor momentum, the fluxes of these quantities must be conserved across the shock in the comoving frame of the shock itself. From Equations , , and , conserving these fluxes yields the following three jump conditions:
$$\rho'_{\rm 2} U''_{\rm 2} = \rho'_{\rm a}U''_{\rm a}, \label{contsh}$$
$$\left(\rho'_{\rm 2}+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'_{\rm 2}\right)U''_{\rm 2}\sqrt{1+\left(U''_{\rm 2}\right)^2} = \left(\rho'_{\rm a}+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'_{\rm a}\right)U''_{\rm a}\sqrt{1+\left(U''_{\rm a}\right)^2}$$
$$\left(\rho'_{\rm 2}+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'_{\rm 2}\right)\left(U''_{\rm 2}\right)^2+p'_{\rm 2} = \left(\rho'_{\rm a}+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'_{\rm a}\right)\left(U''_{\rm a}\right)^2+p'_{\rm a}. \label{rmomsh}$$
Here $U''$ denotes the radial component of the four-velocity in the comoving frame of the shock, quantities with a subscript 2 are post-shock fluid quantities, and those with a subscript “a” pertain to the ambient medium. We will assume that the shock is sufficiently supersonic that the ambient pressure can be ignored, which is equivalent to stating that the energy behind the blastwave is much greater than the internal energy of the ambient medium. In this case, these three equations can be combined into the following cubic to be solved for $U''_2$ in terms of $U''_{\rm a}$:
$$\gamma^2\left(1+\left(U''_{\rm 2}\right)^2\right)\left(U_{\rm 2}''-U_{\rm a}''\right) +2\gamma U''_{\rm a}\left(1+\left(U''_{\rm 2}\right)^2\right)-U''_{\rm 2}-U''_{\rm a} = 0. \label{cubic}$$
Of the three algebraic solutions to this equation, only one is purely real for all $U_{\rm a}''$ and hence physical. If we denote the radial component of the lab-frame four-velocity of the shock by $U_{\rm s}$, then from Lorentz transformations it follows that $U''_{\rm a} = -U_{\rm s}$, while the radial component of the lab-frame post-shock velocity $U_{\rm 2}$ is given by
$$U_2 = U_{\rm s}\sqrt{1+\left(U''_{\rm 2}\right)^2}+U''_2\sqrt{1+U_{\rm s}^2}. \label{u2}$$
With the solution for the comoving, post-shock fluid velocity in terms of the lab-frame velocity of the shock from Equation , Equation yields the lab-frame post-shock fluid velocity for arbitrary shock speeds. In the nonrelativistic limit where $U_{\rm s} \ll 1$, the full expression reduces to $U_{2}/U_{\rm s} = 2/(\gamma+1)$, while in the ultra-relativistic limit where $1+U_{\rm s}^2 \simeq U_{\rm s}^2$ it becomes $U_{2}/U_{\rm s} = \sqrt{2/\gamma-1}$. Figure \[fig:post\_shock\_velocity\] shows the exact solution for the ratio $U_{2}/U_{\rm s}$ (purple, solid) when $\gamma = 4/3$, the non-relativistic limit of 6/7 (black, dashed), and the ultra-relativistic limit of $1/\sqrt{2}$ (black, dotted).
![Left: The exact solution for the ratio of the post-shock, lab-frame velocity to the lab-frame shock four-velocity (purple), and the exact solution for the comoving pressure normalized by the square of the lab-frame shock velocity (green) as functions of the lab-frame shock four-velocity when $\gamma = 4/3$. The non-relativistic limit of both the velocity and pressure of $6/7 \simeq 0.86$ is shown by the dashed, horizontal line, the ultra-relativistic limit of the velocity of $U_{\rm s}/\sqrt{2} \simeq 0.71$ is given by the dotted, horizontal line, and the ultra-relativistic limit of the pressure of $2U_{\rm s}^2/3$ is shown by the dot-dashed, horizontal line. Right: The exact solution for the comoving density of the fluid normalized by the Lorentz factor of the shock (blue) as a function of the lab-frame shock four-velocity when $\gamma = 4/3$. The non-relativistic limit of 7 is shown by the horizontal, dashed line, and the ultra-relativistic limit of $2\sqrt{2}$ is given by the horizontal, dotted line.[]{data-label="fig:post_shock_velocity"}](post_shock_velocity.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"} ![Left: The exact solution for the ratio of the post-shock, lab-frame velocity to the lab-frame shock four-velocity (purple), and the exact solution for the comoving pressure normalized by the square of the lab-frame shock velocity (green) as functions of the lab-frame shock four-velocity when $\gamma = 4/3$. The non-relativistic limit of both the velocity and pressure of $6/7 \simeq 0.86$ is shown by the dashed, horizontal line, the ultra-relativistic limit of the velocity of $U_{\rm s}/\sqrt{2} \simeq 0.71$ is given by the dotted, horizontal line, and the ultra-relativistic limit of the pressure of $2U_{\rm s}^2/3$ is shown by the dot-dashed, horizontal line. Right: The exact solution for the comoving density of the fluid normalized by the Lorentz factor of the shock (blue) as a function of the lab-frame shock four-velocity when $\gamma = 4/3$. The non-relativistic limit of 7 is shown by the horizontal, dashed line, and the ultra-relativistic limit of $2\sqrt{2}$ is given by the horizontal, dotted line.[]{data-label="fig:post_shock_velocity"}](post_shock_density.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"}
The post-shock comoving density is simply found by inverting Equation
$$\rho'_{2} = -\frac{U_{\rm s}}{U''_{2}}\rho'_{\rm a}, \label{rho2}$$
while the pressure is obtained by rearranging Equation and using Equation to remove the dependence on $\rho'_{2}$:
$$p'_{2} = -\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}\frac{U_{\rm s}}{U''_{2}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1+U^2_{\rm s}}}{\sqrt{1+\left(U''_2\right)^2}}-1\right)\rho'_{\rm a}. \label{p2}$$
As for the post-shock velocity, these jump conditions reduce to the known non-relativistic and ultra-relativistic limits when $U_{\rm s} \ll 1$ and $U_{\rm s} \gg 1$. The solid, green curve in the left panel of Figure \[fig:post\_shock\_velocity\] shows the full solution for the post-shock pressure normalized by $U_{\rm s}^2$, and the horizontal, dot-dashed line gives the ultra-relativistic limit of $2-\gamma = 2/3$ when $\gamma = 4/3$ (the dashed, horizontal line shows the non-relativistic limit of $p'/U_{\rm s}^2= 2/(\gamma+1)= 6/7$). The right panel of Figure \[fig:post\_shock\_velocity\] illustrates the full solution for the comoving density normalized by the Lorentz factor of the shock (solid, blue curve) when $\gamma = 4/3$, the dashed, horizontal line shows the non-relativistic limit of $(\gamma+1)/(\gamma-1) = 7$, and the dotted line depicts the ultra-relativistic limit of $\sqrt{2\gamma-\gamma^2}/(\gamma-1) = 2\sqrt{2}$.
In this paper we are interested in the consequences of mildly relativistic velocities on the propagation of a strong shock and the post-shock fluid, i.e., where $U_{\rm s}/c \lesssim few$ (recall that $U_{\rm s}$ is the radial component of the four-velocity, not the three-velocity). In this case, we can Taylor expand our expressions for the post-shock fluid quantities to the lowest, non-zero order in $U_{\rm s}$ beyond the non-relativistic limit. Doing so, we find that Equations – become
$$U_2(R) =\frac{2}{\gamma+1}\left(1-\frac{\gamma-1}{2}\frac{\gamma^2+1}{\left(\gamma+1\right)^3}U_{\rm s}^2\right)U_{\rm s}, \label{jumpU}$$
$$\rho'_{2}(R) = \frac{\gamma+1}{\gamma-1}\left(1+\frac{2\gamma}{\left(\gamma+1\right)^3}U_{\rm s}^2\right)\rho'_{\rm a}(R),$$
$$p'_{2}(R) = \frac{2}{\gamma+1}\left(1-\frac{\gamma^2\left(\gamma-1\right)}{\left(\gamma+1\right)^3}U_{\rm s}^2\right)\rho'_{\rm a}(R)U_{\rm s}^2, \label{jumpp}$$
where for clarity we included in these relations the fact that they hold at the location of the shock position, $R$. In agreement with our arguments in Section \[sec:general\], these expressions contain modifications to the non-relativistic jump conditions at the order $U_{\rm s}^2/c^2$.
Relativistic, Conserved energy
------------------------------
To initiate the outward motion of the fluid and the formation of the strong shock, there is an assumed-impulsive injection of a large amount of energy $E_{\rm ej}$ (large relative to the ambient internal energy and any gravitational potential energy) into the ambient medium, which for typical supernovae is on the order of $E \simeq 10^{50-52}$ erg (though for failed and very weak supernovae, the shock energy is $E_{\rm ej} \simeq 10^{47-48}$ erg or less). Owing to the fact that the ambient medium is assumed to be pressureless, there is no source of thermal energy as the shock moves out. Therefore, under the assumption that there are no sources or sinks of energy interior to the flow (or that, if there is a compact object such as a black hole or neutron star accreting matter, the binding energy drained by the compact object is small compared to the initial energy), this initial energy must be conserved as the shock propagates outward.
It is tempting to relate this conserved energy to the integral of the energy density over the volume enclosed by the shock, i.e.,
$$E_{\rm tot} = 4\pi \int_{R_{\rm c}}^{R}T^{00}r^2dr = 4\pi\int_{R_{\rm c}}^{R}\left(\left(\rho'+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'\right)\left(1+U^2\right)-p'\right)r^2dr.$$
(The lower bound on this integral, $R_{\rm c}$, can be non-zero for certain combinations of the ambient density profile and the adiabatic index of the post-shock flow, where the solution terminates in a contact discontinuity; see Section \[sec:solutions\] below.) However, this energy is *not conserved*, because the shock sweeps up rest mass energy from the ambient medium as it moves outward. Indeed, this additional source of energy can be seen directly by integrating Equation over the volume enclosed by the shock and rearranging:
$$\frac{\partial E_{\rm tot}}{\partial t} = \rho'_{\rm a}R^2 V. \label{Etotint}$$
The right-hand side is the change in the total energy budget due to the addition of rest mass energy from the ambient medium. Thus, the total energy $E_{\rm tot}$ is not equivalent to the initial, injected energy associated with the explosion. However, we see from integrating the continuity equation from $R_{\rm c}$ to $R(t)$ that
$$\frac{\partial M}{\partial t} = \rho'_{\rm a}R^2 V,$$
where
$$M = 4\pi \int_{R_{\rm c}}^{R}\rho'\sqrt{1+U^2}r^2dr.$$
Using this expression for the right-hand side of Equation and rearranging then gives
$$\frac{\partial E_{\rm ej}}{\partial t} = 0,$$
where
$$E_{\rm ej} = 4\pi \int_{R_{\rm c}}^{R}\left(\left(\rho'+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'\right)\left(1+U^2\right)-p'-\rho'\sqrt{1+U^2}\right)r^2dr.$$
This energy is manifestly conserved as the shock advances into the ambient medium, and is the exact, relativistic analog of the energy behind the blast that is relatable to the initial energy of the explosion.
Including lowest-order, relativistic corrections to this integral for the conserved energy gives
$$E_{\rm ej} = 4\pi \int_{R_{\rm c}}^{R}\left(\frac{1}{2}\rho'U^2+\frac{1}{\gamma-1}p'\right)r^2dr+4\pi\int_{R_{\rm c}}^{R}\left(\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}p'U^2+\frac{1}{8}\rho'U^4\right)r^2dr. \label{eneq}$$
The first term is the familiar, Newtonian expression for the total (kinetic plus internal) energy behind the blastwave, and the Sedov-Taylor solution exactly conserves this quantity. The second term is the lowest-order relativistic correction, and scales as $\propto U^{4}$ (recall that the pressure behind the shock, by virtue of the shock jump conditions, is comparable to the ram pressure of the shock; specifically see Equation \[jumpp\]). These relativistic corrections to the energy imply that, if the energy is to be absolutely conserved, there must also be corrections to the shock velocity that account for these additional terms.
Self-similar equations and perturbed solutions to lowest relativistic order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When $U \ll 1$, Equations – reduce to the well-known Euler equations in spherical symmetry. Here, however, we are interested in the corrections to these equations that are induced by mildly relativistic flow, and hence we need to account explicitly for these corrections. The Sedov-Taylor blastwave also adopts the change of variables
$$r\rightarrow \xi = \frac{r}{R},$$
which removes the time dependence of the boundary conditions at the shock front and yields self-similar solutions of the form
$$U = U_{\rm s}f(\xi), \quad \rho' = \rho'_{\rm a}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{-n}g(\xi), \quad p = \rho_{\rm a}'\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{-n}U_{\rm s}^2 h(\xi).$$
It is also useful to introduce the time-like variable
$$\chi = \ln \left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right),$$
so the temporal and spatial derivatives then transform as
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} = \frac{1}{R}\frac{dR}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \chi}-\xi\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\right) = \frac{1}{R}\frac{U_{\rm s}}{\sqrt{1+U_{\rm s}^2}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \chi}-\xi\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\right), \quad \frac{\partial}{\partial r} = \frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi},$$
where we used the fact that the shock three-velocity is related to the four-velocity via $dR/dt = U_{\rm s}/\sqrt{1+U_{\rm s}^2}$. The continuity, entropy, and radial momentum equations then become
$$\frac{U_{\rm s}}{\sqrt{1+U_{\rm s}^2}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \chi}\left[\rho'\sqrt{1+U^2}\right]-\xi\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\left[\rho'\sqrt{1+U^2}\right]\right)+\frac{1}{\xi^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\left[\xi^2\rho'U\right] = 0, \label{contss}$$
$$U_{\rm s}\frac{\sqrt{1+U^2}}{\sqrt{1+U_{\rm s}^2}}\left(\frac{\partial s'}{\partial \chi}-\xi\frac{\partial s'}{\partial \xi}\right)+U\frac{\partial s'}{\partial \xi} = 0, \label{entss}$$
$$\begin{gathered}
U_{\rm s}\frac{\sqrt{1+U^2}}{\sqrt{1+U_{\rm s}^2}}\left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial \chi}-\xi\frac{\partial U}{\partial \xi}\right)+U\frac{\partial U}{\partial \xi}+\frac{p' U}{\rho'}\left(U_{\rm s}\frac{\sqrt{1+U^2}}{\sqrt{1+U_{\rm s}^2}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \chi}\ln\left(p'U^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}\right)-\xi\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\ln\left(p'U^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}\right)\right)+U\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\ln\left(p'U^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}\right)\right) \\
+\frac{1}{\rho'}\frac{\partial p'}{\partial \xi} = 0. \label{rmomss}\end{gathered}$$
We will now expand these equations to lowest, post-Newtonian order. Before doing so, however, we note that there are exact, self-similar solutions (being the Sedov-Taylor solutions) in the Newtonian case, and hence we expect that the velocity, density, and pressure of the fluid should be approximately given by these solutions but with perturbations that are introduced from the velocity scale set by the speed of light. Moreover, investigating the shock jump conditions – , we see that relativistic terms modify the post-shock fluid quantities at the order $U_{\rm s}^2$. We therefore seek solutions for the velocity, comoving density, and pressure that are of the form
$$U = U_{\rm s}\left\{f_0(\xi)+U_{\rm s}^2f_1(\xi)\right\}, \label{Uss}$$
$$\rho' = \rho'_{\rm a}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{-n}\left\{g_0(\xi)+U_{\rm s}^2g_1(\xi)\right\},$$
$$p' = \rho'_{\rm a}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{-n}U_{\rm s}^2\left(h_0(\xi)+U_{\rm s}^2h_1(\xi)\right\}. \label{pss}$$
From the shock jump conditions, the functions satisfy the following boundary conditions at the shock:
$$f_0(1) = h_0(1) = \frac{2}{\gamma+1}, \quad g_0(1) = \frac{\gamma+1}{\gamma-1},$$
$$f_1(1) = -\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma+1}\frac{\gamma^2+1}{\left(\gamma+1\right)^3}, \quad g_1(1) = \frac{2\gamma}{\left(\gamma-1\right)\left(\gamma+1\right)^2}, \quad h_1(1) = -\frac{2\gamma^2\left(\gamma-1\right)}{\left(\gamma+1\right)^4}. \label{bcs}$$
In addition to satisfying these boundary conditions, energy must also be globally conserved. Returning to Equation and using these forms for the velocity, density, and pressure, the conserved energy is given by
$$\begin{gathered}
E = {4\pi\rho'_{\rm a}r_{\rm a}^3}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{3-n}U_{\rm s}^2\int_{\xi_{\rm c}}^{1}\left(\frac{1}{2}g_0f_0^2+\frac{1}{\gamma-1}h_0\right)\xi^2d\xi+{4\pi\rho'_{\rm a}r_{\rm a}^3}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{n-3}U_{\rm s}^2 \\
\times U_{\rm s}^2\int_{\xi_{\rm c}}^{1}\left(\frac{1}{2}g_1f_0^2+g_0f_0f_1+\frac{1}{\gamma-1}h_1+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}h_0f_0^2+\frac{1}{8}g_0f_0^4\right)\xi^2d\xi.\end{gathered}$$
If the second term in this expression were absent, then the energy would be conserved if
$${4\pi\rho'_{\rm a}r_{\rm a}^3}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{3-n}U_{\rm s}^2 = E_*,$$
where $E_*$ is a constant that scales with the total energy, and this is just the familiar velocity-radius relation for the Sedov-Taylor blastwave. However, because the second, relativistic term modifies the energy, this scaling *cannot hold exactly*, as otherwise the relativistic corrections would violate energy conservation. There must therefore be relativistic corrections to the shock velocity, and energy conservation dictates that these corrections must be of the form
$${4\pi\rho'_{\rm a}r_{\rm a}^3}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{3-n}U_{\rm s}^2 = E_*\left(1+\sigma U_{\rm s}^2\right), \label{sigma}$$
where $\sigma$ is a dimensionless number. Inserting this expression into the above equation for the total energy and requiring that the relativistic terms cancel exactly yields
$$\sigma\int_{\xi_{\rm c}}^{1}\left(\frac{1}{2}g_0f_0^2+\frac{1}{\gamma-1}h_0\right)\xi^2d\xi+\int_{\xi_{\rm c}}^{1}\left(\frac{1}{2}g_1f_0^2+g_0f_0f_1+\frac{1}{\gamma-1}h_1+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}h_0f_0^2+\frac{1}{8}g_0f_0^4\right)\xi^2d\xi = 0. \label{eigenint}$$
For a given $\sigma$, the functions $f_1$, $g_1$, and $h_1$ are completely specified from the fluid equations. This fourth boundary condition, which enforces global energy conservation, will therefore only be satisfied for a certain value of $\sigma$ (for given $n$ and $\gamma$), making $\sigma$ an “eigenvalue” from the standpoint that it is uniquely determined by this additional, integral constraint.
The governing equations for the self-similar functions can now be obtained by inserting Equations – and into Equations – and keeping the lowest-order, surviving terms in $U_{\rm s}$. Doing so and performing some algebra yields the following three equations for the non-relativistic quantities:
$$-ng_0-\xi\frac{dg_0}{d\xi}+\frac{1}{\xi^2}\frac{d}{d \xi}\left(\xi^2g_0f_0\right) = 0, \label{g0eq}$$
$$\frac{1}{2}\left(n-3\right)f_0+\left(f_0-\xi\right)f_0'+\frac{1}{g_0}\frac{dh_0}{d\xi} = 0, \label{f0eq}$$
$$-3+n\gamma+(f_0-\xi)\frac{d}{d\xi}\ln\left(\frac{h_0}{g_0^{\gamma}}\right) = 0. \label{h0eq}$$
These three equations can be integrated three times exactly, with the pressure being analytically related to the velocity and density as
$$h_0 = \frac{\gamma-1}{2}\frac{\xi-f_0}{\gamma f_0-\xi}g_0f_0^2. \label{h0ex}$$
The equations for the perturbed functions are given by
$$-3g_1-\xi \frac{\partial g_1}{\partial \xi}+\frac{1}{\xi^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\left[\xi^2\left(g_0f_1+f_0g_1\right)\right]=\frac{3}{2}g_0f_0^2+\frac{1}{2}\xi\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\left[g_0f_0^2\right]-\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\xi^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\left[\xi^2f_0g_0\right], \label{cont1}$$
$$\left(n-3\right)\left(\frac{h_1}{h_0}-\gamma\frac{g_1}{g_0}\right)+\left(f_0-\xi\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\left[\frac{h_1}{h_0}-\gamma\frac{g_1}{g_0}\right]+f_1 \frac{\partial s_0}{\partial \xi} = -\sigma\left(n-3\right)-\frac{1}{2}f_0\left(1-f_0^2\right)\frac{\partial s_0}{\partial \xi}, \label{ent1}$$
$$\begin{gathered}
\frac{3}{2}\left(n-3\right)f_1-\xi\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial \xi}+\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\left[f_0f_1\right]+\frac{1}{g_0}\left(\frac{\partial h_1}{\partial \xi}-\frac{g_1}{g_0}\frac{\partial h_0}{\partial \xi}\right) \\
= -\frac{\sigma}{2}\left(n-3\right)f_0-\frac{1}{2}\left(f_0^2-1\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(n-3\right)f_0-\xi\frac{\partial f_0}{\partial \xi}\right)-\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}\frac{f_0h_0}{g_0}\left(\frac{1}{2}n-\frac{9}{2}+\frac{3}{\gamma}+\left(f_0-\xi\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi}\ln\left[f_0h_0^{\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}}\right]\right). \label{rmom1}\end{gathered}$$
Equation can be integrated, and using the boundary conditions at the shock front gives the following expression for the relativistic correction to the density:
$$g_1 = \frac{\frac{1}{2}f_0\left(f_0\xi-1\right)-f_1}{f_0-\xi}g_0. \label{g1ex}$$
The integral constraint that determines the eigenvalue, Equation , can also be written as a fourth boundary condition on the functions $f_1$, $g_1$, and $h_1$: subtracting the continuity from the energy equation and integrating from $R_c(t)$ to $R(t)$ gives
$$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial E_{\rm ej}}{\partial t} = R^2U_{\rm s}^3\rho'_{\rm a}\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{-n}U_{\rm s}^2\xi_{\rm c}^2 \\ \times\bigg\{
\left(g_0f_0\left(f_0-\xi_{\rm c}\right)+\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}h_0\right)f_1+\frac{\gamma f_0-\xi_{\rm c}}{\gamma-1}h_1-\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1}{2}g_0f_0^2+1\right)\left(f_0-\xi_{\rm c}\right)g_0f_0^2+\left(\gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}f_0-\xi_{\rm c}\right)f_0^2+\frac{1}{2}\xi_{\rm c}\right)h_0\bigg\}, \label{bc4}\end{gathered}$$
where we used Equation to remove the dependence on $g_1$ and all of the functions are evaluated at $\xi_{\rm c}$. By virtue of Equation , this expression only contains a relativistic correction, and for energy-conserving solutions we therefore require that the term in braces (multiplied by $\xi_{\rm c}^2$) be equal to zero. Either this fourth boundary condition or the integral constraint can be used to determine $\sigma$.
Shock position and unperturbed coordinates
------------------------------------------
Equation can be rearranged and integrated numerically to yield the shock position as a function of time. However, we can also use the assumed-smallness of terms of order $U_{\rm s}^2/c^2$ to decompose the shock position and velocity into their non-relativistic and relativistically-corrected parts; denoting the non-relativistic shock position and three-velocity as $R_0$ and $V_0 = dR_0/dt$ and their relativistically-perturbed counterparts as $R_1$ and $V_1$, we find
$$4\pi \rho'_{\rm a} r_{\rm a}^3\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{3-n}V_0^2\left(1+\left(3-n\right)\frac{R_1}{R_0}\right)\left(1+2\frac{V_1}{V_0}\right)\left(1+\frac{V_0^2}{c^2}\right) = E_*\left(1+\sigma \frac{V_0^2}{c^2}\right),$$
where we introduced factors of $c^2$ for clarity. This expression demonstrates, as expected, that the unperturbed shock velocity and position are related via the standard, energy-conserving prescription for the Sedov-Taylor blastwave:
$$4\pi r_{\rm a}^3\rho_{\rm a}\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{3-n}V_0^2 = E_* \quad \Rightarrow \quad \frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}} = \left(1+\frac{5-n}{2}\frac{V_{\rm i}}{r_{\rm a}}t\right)^{\frac{2}{5-n}}, \label{unpert}$$
where we defined $V_{\rm i}^2 = E_*/(4\pi \rho_{\rm a}r_{\rm a}^3)$ as the unperturbed velocity of the shock when the shock position coincides with $R = r_{\rm a}$, while the relativistic corrections to the shock position and velocity satisfy
$$\frac{V_1}{V_0}+\frac{3-n}{2}\frac{R_1}{R_0} = \frac{\sigma-1}{2}\frac{V_0^2}{c^2}.$$
This equation can be integrated to yield, if $n \neq 1$,
$$\frac{R_1}{R_0}
= \frac{\sigma-1}{n-1}\frac{V_{\rm i}^2}{c^2}\left(\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{n-3}-\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{\frac{n-5}{2}}\right), \label{R1eq}$$
$$\frac{V_1}{V_0}
= \frac{\sigma-1}{n-1}\frac{V_{\rm i}^2}{c^2}\left(\left(n-2\right)\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{n-3}-\frac{n-3}{2}\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{\frac{n-5}{2}}\right),\label{V1eq}$$
while if $n =1$
$$\frac{R_1}{R_0} = \frac{\sigma-1}{2}\frac{V_{\rm i}^2}{c^2}\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{-2}\ln\left[\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right],$$
$$\frac{V_1}{V_0} = \frac{\sigma-1}{2}\frac{V_{\rm i}^2}{c^2}\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{-2}\left(1-\ln\left[\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right]\right).$$
The second term in parentheses in Equations and is a consequence of initial conditions, and arises from the fact that scale invariance allows us to define the relativistic corrections to the shock position to be zero at $t = 0$. Interestingly, if $\sigma \equiv 1$, then the relativistic corrections to the shock velocity and position are exactly zero. This effect arises from a competition between the increase in the four-velocity generated by positive $\sigma$, and time dilation that reduces the three-velocity from the four-velocity – when $\sigma = 1$ these two effects exactly balance to yield no relativistic correction to the shock velocity.
Following @coughlin19, we wrote our solutions for the relativistic corrections to the velocity, density, and pressure of the post-shock fluid in terms of the true shock position and velocity and the total self-similar variable $\xi = r/R(t)$. While formally correct to order $U_{\rm s}^2/c^2$, these expressions (specifically Equations \[Uss\] – \[pss\]) also contain terms that are of a higher order than $U_{\rm s}^2/c^2$. We can remove these additional terms by rewriting the solutions in terms of the “unperturbed” self-similar variable $\xi_0 = r/R_0(t)$ and using Equations and to write the corrections to the shock position and velocity in terms of their non-relativistic counterparts; the resulting expressions, which are identical to Equations – to order $U_{\rm s}^2/c^2$, are
$$U(\xi_0,t) = V_0 \left(f_0(\xi_0)+\left(\frac{V_1}{V_0}+\frac{1}{2}V_0^2\right)f_0(\xi_0)-\xi_0 f_0'(\xi_0)\frac{R_1}{R_0}+V_0^2f_1(\xi_0)\right) \equiv V_0\left\{f_0(\xi_0)+f_1^*(\xi_0,t)\right\},$$
$$\rho'(\xi_0,t) = \rho'_{\rm a}\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{-n}\left(g_0(\xi_0)-\left(ng_0+\xi_0g_0'\right)\frac{R_1}{R_0}+V_0^2g_1(\xi_0)\right) \equiv \rho'_{\rm a}\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{-n}\left\{g_0(\xi_0)+g_1^*(\xi_0,t)\right\},$$
$$\begin{gathered}
p'(\xi_0,t) = \rho'_{\rm a}\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{-n}V_0^2\left(h_0(\xi_0)-\left(nh_0+\xi h_0'\right)\frac{R_1}{R_0}+2\left(\frac{V_1}{V_0}+\frac{1}{2}V_0^2\right)h_0(\xi_0)+V_0^2h_1(\xi_0)\right) \\
\equiv \rho'_{\rm a}\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{-n}V_0^2\left\{h_0(\xi_0)+h_1^*(\xi_0,t)\right\}. \label{presslab}\end{gathered}$$
Finally, the three-velocity of the fluid is
$$v = \frac{U}{\sqrt{1+U^2}}\simeq V_0\left\{f_0(\xi_0)+f_1^*(\xi_0,t)-\frac{1}{2}V_0^2f_0(\xi_0)^3\right\}, \label{threevel}$$
and the lab-frame density is given by
$$\rho = \rho'\sqrt{1+U^2} \simeq \rho'_{\rm a}\left(\frac{R_0}{r_{\rm a}}\right)^{-n}\left\{g_0(\xi_0)+g_1^*(\xi_0,t)+\frac{1}{2}V_0^2f_0(\xi_0)^2g_0(\xi_0)\right\}. \label{labrho}$$
Solutions {#sec:solutions}
=========
Here we present the numerical solutions for the functions $f_1$, $g_1$, $h_1$, and the eigenvalue $\sigma$ that satisfy the differential Equations and , with Equation relating $g_1$ to $f_1$, and the fourth, energy-conserving boundary condition, given either by the integral constraint or Equation . Since the functions $f_1$, $g_1$, and $h_1$ satisfy the boundary conditions at the shock front, given by Equation , we can numerically integrate Equations and from $\xi = 1$ for a given, initial guess for $\sigma$. We then perturb the guess for $\sigma$ and calculate the change in the energy residual, i.e., we determine how well the new value of $\sigma$ satisfies the fourth boundary condition given by Equation or , which motivates the choice for the next $\sigma$ that will better satisfy the fourth boundary condition. In this way, we iteratively determine the eigenvalue $\sigma$ that globally conserves the energy behind the blastwave.
![Left: The Sedov-Taylor, self-similar velocity (blue), which is the four-velocity of the fluid normalized by the shock speed; the density (orange), which is the comoving density normalized by the ambient density; and the pressure (red), which is the gas pressure normalized by the ram pressure of the shock. Here we set $\gamma = 4/3$ and $n = 0$, such that the post-shock gas is radiation-pressure dominated and the ambient medium has a constant density. These fluid variables are plotted as functions of the self-similar variable $\xi$, which is just the spherical radius $r$ normalized by the shock position at a given time. The pressure is almost exactly constant, the velocity is effectively linear, and the density falls off extremely rapidly near the origin. Right: The self-similar, relativistic correction to the fluid four-velocity (dark blue), comoving density (dark orange), and gas pressure (dark red) when $\gamma = 4/3$ and $n = 0$. These solutions satisfy global energy conservation and the jump conditions at the shock, and the eigenvalue that ensures energy conservation is $\sigma \simeq 1.078$. The fact that the density is positive very near the shock but then becomes negative indicates that relativistic effects push more mass toward the shock, and the variation in the the self-similar pressure implies that the total pressure (i.e., including the relativistic terms) is less homogeneous than in the Newtonian, purely self-similar limit (left panel).[]{data-label="fig:f0g0h0_n0_g43"}](f0g0h0_n0_g43.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"} ![Left: The Sedov-Taylor, self-similar velocity (blue), which is the four-velocity of the fluid normalized by the shock speed; the density (orange), which is the comoving density normalized by the ambient density; and the pressure (red), which is the gas pressure normalized by the ram pressure of the shock. Here we set $\gamma = 4/3$ and $n = 0$, such that the post-shock gas is radiation-pressure dominated and the ambient medium has a constant density. These fluid variables are plotted as functions of the self-similar variable $\xi$, which is just the spherical radius $r$ normalized by the shock position at a given time. The pressure is almost exactly constant, the velocity is effectively linear, and the density falls off extremely rapidly near the origin. Right: The self-similar, relativistic correction to the fluid four-velocity (dark blue), comoving density (dark orange), and gas pressure (dark red) when $\gamma = 4/3$ and $n = 0$. These solutions satisfy global energy conservation and the jump conditions at the shock, and the eigenvalue that ensures energy conservation is $\sigma \simeq 1.078$. The fact that the density is positive very near the shock but then becomes negative indicates that relativistic effects push more mass toward the shock, and the variation in the the self-similar pressure implies that the total pressure (i.e., including the relativistic terms) is less homogeneous than in the Newtonian, purely self-similar limit (left panel).[]{data-label="fig:f0g0h0_n0_g43"}](f1g1h1_n0_g43.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"}
![Left: The relativistic correction to the shock position (purple, solid) and the shock velocity (red, dashed), both normalized by their non-relativistic counterparts, for a constant ambient density ($n = 0$) and a post-shock adiabatic index of $\gamma = 4/3$. Here we set the initial velocity of the shock to $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$. Right: The three-velocity of the fluid, normalized by the unperturbed shock velocity, as a function of radius $r$ normalized to the unperturbed shock radius, for $n = 0$ (constant ambient density), $\gamma = 4/3$, and an initial shock velocity of $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$. The different curves are at the times shown in the legend, and the black, dashed curve shows the Sedov-Taylor solution – which would be *the solution* if there were no relativistic terms – to which the relativistic solution asymptotes at late times. The post-shock speed is slightly increased near the shock front, but falls below the Sedov-Taylor solution for smaller radii. The solution near the origin also shows significant deviation from the nearly-linear behavior expected from the Sedov-Taylor solution alone.[]{data-label="fig:R1_V1_n0_g43"}](R1_V1_n0_g43.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"} ![Left: The relativistic correction to the shock position (purple, solid) and the shock velocity (red, dashed), both normalized by their non-relativistic counterparts, for a constant ambient density ($n = 0$) and a post-shock adiabatic index of $\gamma = 4/3$. Here we set the initial velocity of the shock to $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$. Right: The three-velocity of the fluid, normalized by the unperturbed shock velocity, as a function of radius $r$ normalized to the unperturbed shock radius, for $n = 0$ (constant ambient density), $\gamma = 4/3$, and an initial shock velocity of $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$. The different curves are at the times shown in the legend, and the black, dashed curve shows the Sedov-Taylor solution – which would be *the solution* if there were no relativistic terms – to which the relativistic solution asymptotes at late times. The post-shock speed is slightly increased near the shock front, but falls below the Sedov-Taylor solution for smaller radii. The solution near the origin also shows significant deviation from the nearly-linear behavior expected from the Sedov-Taylor solution alone.[]{data-label="fig:R1_V1_n0_g43"}](three_velocity_n0_g43.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"}
The left panel of Figure \[fig:f0g0h0\_n0\_g43\] shows the self-similar velocity, density, and pressure for the Sedov-Taylor blastwave when $\gamma = 4/3$ and $n = 0$, corresponding to a radiation-pressure dominated, post-shock fluid and a constant ambient density. The linear velocity, constant pressure, and approximately zero density near the origin are familiar features of the Sedov-Taylor blastwave. The right panel of this figure gives the relativistic corrections to the velocity, density, and pressure for this combination of $n$ and $\gamma$. The eigenvalue that results in the exact conservation of energy, including the relativistic terms, is $\sigma \simeq 1.078$. The right panel of this figure also shows that, very near the shock front, the perturbation to the density is positive, and this is just a consequence of the jump conditions at the shock. However, the perturbation to the density drops very steeply from the shock front inward, and becomes negative and reaches a relative minimum near $\xi \simeq 0.95$. This qualitative behavior implies that the material behind the shock becomes increasingly confined to a region very near the shock front, and that relativistic effects cause the material to be swept into an even thinner shell than the one predicted by the Sedov-Taylor blastwave alone. We also see that the perturbation to the pressure, while it does asymptote to a constant near the origin, shows much more variability than the unperturbed solution for $\xi \gtrsim 0.1$. This feature demonstrates that the total pressure behind the blast wave shows more spatial variation when relativistic effects are included, which is a familiar property of the ultra-relativistic, Blandford-McKee blastwave.
![Left: The lab-frame density of the post-shock fluid, normalized by the density of the ambient medium at the position of the shock $\rho'_{\rm a}(t) = \rho'_{\rm a}\left(R_0(t)/r_{\rm a}\right)^{-n}$, as a function of spherical radius $r$ normalized to the non-relativistic shock position. As for Figure \[fig:R1\_V1\_n0\_g43\], here we set $n = 0$, corresponding to a constant ambient density, the post-shock adiabatic index to $\gamma = 4/3$, and the initial shock speed is $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$. The colored curves correspond to the times in the legend, and the black, dashed curve is the Sedov-Taylor solution. Note that, for this figure, we restricted the range of $\xi_0$ to be $\xi_0 > 0.7$, as below this range the curves all rapidly approach zero (and show little variation from one another). The density is slightly increased relative to the non-relativistic solution near the shock front, but falls below the Sedov-Taylor prediction at smaller radii, which demonstrates that the mass behind the blastwave becomes further concentrated near the shock front as the solution becomes more relativistic. Right: The pressure behind the shock for the same parameters as in the left panel. We see that relativistic effects reduce the post-shock pressure from the value predicted by the Sedov-Taylor solution near the origin, and the pressure also shows more significant variation than the nearly flat profile predicted in the non-relativistic limit. []{data-label="fig:lab_rho_n0_g43"}](lab_rho_n0_g43.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"} ![Left: The lab-frame density of the post-shock fluid, normalized by the density of the ambient medium at the position of the shock $\rho'_{\rm a}(t) = \rho'_{\rm a}\left(R_0(t)/r_{\rm a}\right)^{-n}$, as a function of spherical radius $r$ normalized to the non-relativistic shock position. As for Figure \[fig:R1\_V1\_n0\_g43\], here we set $n = 0$, corresponding to a constant ambient density, the post-shock adiabatic index to $\gamma = 4/3$, and the initial shock speed is $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$. The colored curves correspond to the times in the legend, and the black, dashed curve is the Sedov-Taylor solution. Note that, for this figure, we restricted the range of $\xi_0$ to be $\xi_0 > 0.7$, as below this range the curves all rapidly approach zero (and show little variation from one another). The density is slightly increased relative to the non-relativistic solution near the shock front, but falls below the Sedov-Taylor prediction at smaller radii, which demonstrates that the mass behind the blastwave becomes further concentrated near the shock front as the solution becomes more relativistic. Right: The pressure behind the shock for the same parameters as in the left panel. We see that relativistic effects reduce the post-shock pressure from the value predicted by the Sedov-Taylor solution near the origin, and the pressure also shows more significant variation than the nearly flat profile predicted in the non-relativistic limit. []{data-label="fig:lab_rho_n0_g43"}](pressure_n0_g43.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"}
The left panel of Figure \[fig:R1\_V1\_n0\_g43\] gives the correction to the shock position (solid, purple) and the correction to the shock speed (dashed, red), each normalized by its non-relativistic counterpart, as functions of time in units of $r_{\rm a}/c$. Here we set $n = 0$, corresponding to a constant ambient density, the post-shock adiabatic index to $\gamma = 4/3$, and the initial shock velocity to $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$. We see that the relativistic correction to the shock velocity is initially positive, corresponding to an increase in the shock position over the non-relativistic value, while at late times the correction to the shock speed changes sign; this behavior is due to the competition between the effects of positive-$\sigma$, which increases the four-velocity (see Equation \[sigma\]), and time dilation, which reduces the three-velocity over the four-velocity. In the asymptotic limit of $t \rightarrow \infty$, both of these corrections decay to zero and the flow settles into the non-relativistic regime.
The right panel of Figure \[fig:R1\_V1\_n0\_g43\] shows the post-shock fluid three-velocity, normalized by the initial shock speed, as a function of normalized radial position behind the shock front (see Equation \[threevel\]). As for the left panel of this figure, here the ambient density is constant ($n = 0$), the adiabatic index is $\gamma = 4/3$, and the initial shock speed is $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$. The different, colored curves correspond to the times shown in the legend, and the black, dashed curve is the Sedov-Taylor solution for this combination of $n$ and $\gamma$ (and is identical to the blue curve in the left panel of Figure \[fig:f0g0h0\_n0\_g43\]). We see that near the shock front the post-shock velocity is slightly increased, which is reasonable given the slight increase in the shock velocity itself, as demonstrated in the left panel of this figure. However, at small radii the velocity falls significantly below the non-relativistic prediction, and also displays more nonlinear behavior near the origin.
The left panel of Figure \[fig:lab\_rho\_n0\_g43\] illustrates the normalized, lab-frame, post-shock density as a function of spherical radius $r$ normalized by the shock radius, while the right panel of this figure gives the post-shock pressure normalized by the shock velocity (see Equations \[labrho\] and \[presslab\] respectively). As for the right panel of Figure \[fig:R1\_V1\_n0\_g43\], the different colored curves correspond to the times in the legend, the black, dashed curves are the Sedov-Taylor prediction, and we set $n = 0$ (constant ambient density), $\gamma = 4/3$, and $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$ (note that the $x$-axis in the left panel is compressed to highlight the behavior near the shock; for $\xi_0 \lesssim 0.7$, all of the functions rapidly approach zero and show little deviation from one another). We see that both the post-shock density and pressure increase above the Sedov-Taylor solution near the shock front, but, as is also true for the post-shock velocity, each of these quantities declines and falls below the non-relativistic prediction at a radius not far behind the shock front. The post-shock pressure also shows significant deviation from the nearly-constant value expected from the Sedov-Taylor blastwave. These findings confirm that relativistic effects tend to compress the fluid into a more confined region immediately behind the shock.
![Left: The self-similar, relativistic correction to the velocity when $n = 0$ – corresponding to a constant-density ambient medium – and the adiabatic index of the gas is given by those in the legend. Each curve shows the same, rough trend, and is negative throughout the entire post-shock flow, reaches a minimum value near $\xi \simeq 0.7$, and approaches zero near the origin; the latter feature ensures that the origin remains fixed for all of these solutions. The magnitude of the relativistic correction to the velocity grows as the adiabatic index decreases, as does the eigenvalue $\sigma$ that ensures that the solutions conserve the energy behind the blastwave (e.g., $\gamma = 1.1$ has $\sigma \simeq 3$, while $\gamma = 1.7$ has $\sigma \simeq 0.7$; see Table \[tab:1\] for a list of eigenvalues over a range of $n$ and $\gamma$). Right: The post-shock, relativistic correction to the density for the same parameters as the left panel. As $\gamma$ approaches 1, the density becomes increasingly positive toward the shock front (note that $g_1(1) \propto (\gamma-1)^{-1}$) but also reaches an increasingly negative value, and the transition to negative values approaches the location of the shock itself. This feature demonstrates that the relativistic effects, which compress the post-shock fluid to a region that is more confined to the location of the shock itself, become more important as $\gamma$ decreases.[]{data-label="fig:f1_n0_of_gamma"}](f1_n0_of_gamma.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"} ![Left: The self-similar, relativistic correction to the velocity when $n = 0$ – corresponding to a constant-density ambient medium – and the adiabatic index of the gas is given by those in the legend. Each curve shows the same, rough trend, and is negative throughout the entire post-shock flow, reaches a minimum value near $\xi \simeq 0.7$, and approaches zero near the origin; the latter feature ensures that the origin remains fixed for all of these solutions. The magnitude of the relativistic correction to the velocity grows as the adiabatic index decreases, as does the eigenvalue $\sigma$ that ensures that the solutions conserve the energy behind the blastwave (e.g., $\gamma = 1.1$ has $\sigma \simeq 3$, while $\gamma = 1.7$ has $\sigma \simeq 0.7$; see Table \[tab:1\] for a list of eigenvalues over a range of $n$ and $\gamma$). Right: The post-shock, relativistic correction to the density for the same parameters as the left panel. As $\gamma$ approaches 1, the density becomes increasingly positive toward the shock front (note that $g_1(1) \propto (\gamma-1)^{-1}$) but also reaches an increasingly negative value, and the transition to negative values approaches the location of the shock itself. This feature demonstrates that the relativistic effects, which compress the post-shock fluid to a region that is more confined to the location of the shock itself, become more important as $\gamma$ decreases.[]{data-label="fig:f1_n0_of_gamma"}](g1_n0_of_gamma.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"}
![Left: The post-shock, relativistic correction to the pressure behind the blastwave for a constant-density ambient medium ($n = 0$) and the range of adiabatic indices shown in the legend. As the adiabatic index decreases, the reduction in the post-shock pressure becomes more drastic near the origin, and the region over which the pressure experiences inflection points becomes more localized to the shock itself. Right: The relativistic correction to the shock velocity, normalized by the non-relativistic shock velocity, for the same parameters as the left panel; here we set the initial, unperturbed shock velocity to $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$. Because the eigenvalue increases as $\gamma$ decreases, the initial correction to the velocity becomes correspondingly larger. Interestingly, however, there is a value of $\gamma$ at which $\sigma$ drops below one, implying that the initial, relativistic correction to the velocity changes sign. This change in sign is due to the fact that the lab-frame speed is affected by time dilation, which can outweigh the increase in the four-velocity (which is the three-velocity in the comoving frame of the non-relativistic shock) imparted by the positive value of $\sigma$. []{data-label="fig:h1_n0_of_gamma"}](h1_n0_of_gamma.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"} ![Left: The post-shock, relativistic correction to the pressure behind the blastwave for a constant-density ambient medium ($n = 0$) and the range of adiabatic indices shown in the legend. As the adiabatic index decreases, the reduction in the post-shock pressure becomes more drastic near the origin, and the region over which the pressure experiences inflection points becomes more localized to the shock itself. Right: The relativistic correction to the shock velocity, normalized by the non-relativistic shock velocity, for the same parameters as the left panel; here we set the initial, unperturbed shock velocity to $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$. Because the eigenvalue increases as $\gamma$ decreases, the initial correction to the velocity becomes correspondingly larger. Interestingly, however, there is a value of $\gamma$ at which $\sigma$ drops below one, implying that the initial, relativistic correction to the velocity changes sign. This change in sign is due to the fact that the lab-frame speed is affected by time dilation, which can outweigh the increase in the four-velocity (which is the three-velocity in the comoving frame of the non-relativistic shock) imparted by the positive value of $\sigma$. []{data-label="fig:h1_n0_of_gamma"}](V1_n0_of_gamma.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"}
The left Panel of Figure \[fig:f1\_n0\_of\_gamma\] gives the post-shock, relativistic correction to the velocity profile of the fluid, the right panel of this figure shows the relativistic correction to the post-shock, comoving density, and the left panel of Figure \[fig:h1\_n0\_of\_gamma\] illustrates the post-shock correction to the pressure, and all of these panels set $n = 0$ (constant density ambient medium). The different curves in each of these figures correspond to the adiabatic indices shown in the legend. We see that, while all of these curves show the same qualitative trends, relativistic effects become amplified as the adiabatic index of the gas decreases: the magnitude of the velocity reduction is more pronounced; the material behind the shock becomes increasingly compressed to the shock itself; and the pressure has increased variation near the shock, possesses more nonlinear behavior, and the decrease near the origin is enhanced. These findings – that relativistic effects become more important for smaller adiabatic indices – are consistent with the fact that the eigenvalue $\sigma$ increases as $\gamma$ decreases (see Table \[tab:1\]).
The right panel of Figure \[fig:h1\_n0\_of\_gamma\] shows the relativistic correction to the shock velocity, normalized by the non-relativistic shock speed, as a function of time in units of $r_{\rm a}/c$. The different curves are appropriate to the adiabatic indices shown in the legend, the ambient density profile is constant ($n = 0$), and we set the initial, non-relativistic shock speed to $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$. We see that, when $\gamma$ is small, the initial velocity increases compared to the non-relativistic one, but becomes negative after a time of $c t/r_{\rm a} \simeq 2.57$ (the exact time at which this occurs can be derived analytically from Equation \[V1eq\]). However, for values of $\gamma \gtrsim 1.4$, this behavior inverts, with the initial correction to the velocity being negative at early times and transitioning to positive after $c t/r_{\rm a} \simeq 2.57$. This inversion occurs mathematically because $\sigma$ crosses $\sigma = 1$ at this location, which is where the relativistic correction to the three-velocity equals zero (this feature can be seen by inserting $\sigma = 1$ into Equation \[sigma\]), and – as we noted above – arises physically because the three-velocity of the fluid is affected by time dilation.
![Left: The relativistic, self-similar correction to the post-shock four-velocity for $\gamma = 4/3$ and the range of $n$ shown in the legend, where $n$ characterizes the power-law falloff of the ambient density with radius (i.e., $\rho'_{\rm a} \propto r^{-n}$). For larger values of $n$, the solution ends at a contact discontinuity at a finite $\xi_{\rm c}$, which is also where the Sedov-Taylor solution terminates. Right: The self-similar, relativistic correction to the pressure of the post-shock fluid. As the density profile steepens from a constant density to $\rho' \propto r^{-2}$, the pressure corrections become less severe, and the reduction of the post-shock pressure immediately behind the shock becomes less pronounced. When $n = 2.5$, the pressure equals zero at a contact discontinuity, and the magnitude of the correction shows a slight increase. []{data-label="fig:f1_g43_of_n"}](f1_g43_of_n.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"} ![Left: The relativistic, self-similar correction to the post-shock four-velocity for $\gamma = 4/3$ and the range of $n$ shown in the legend, where $n$ characterizes the power-law falloff of the ambient density with radius (i.e., $\rho'_{\rm a} \propto r^{-n}$). For larger values of $n$, the solution ends at a contact discontinuity at a finite $\xi_{\rm c}$, which is also where the Sedov-Taylor solution terminates. Right: The self-similar, relativistic correction to the pressure of the post-shock fluid. As the density profile steepens from a constant density to $\rho' \propto r^{-2}$, the pressure corrections become less severe, and the reduction of the post-shock pressure immediately behind the shock becomes less pronounced. When $n = 2.5$, the pressure equals zero at a contact discontinuity, and the magnitude of the correction shows a slight increase. []{data-label="fig:f1_g43_of_n"}](h1_g43_of_n.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"}
![Left: The relativistic, self-similar correction to the comoving density behind the shock for $\gamma = 4/3$ and the range of $n$ shown in the legend, where the density of the ambient medium $\rho'_{\rm a}$ falls off with spherical radius $r$ as $\rho'_{\rm a} \propto r^{-n}$. When the non-relativistic solution extends all the way to the origin, which occurs when $n\le 2$, the relativistic correction to the density approaches zero near $\xi = r = 0$. However, when the solution terminates at a contact discontinuity, which occurs for $n = 2.5$, the correction to the density diverges weakly at that point (which is at the location of the vertical, dashed line). Right: The non-relativistic, self-similar solution for the density behind the shock for the range of $n$ shown in the legend when the post-shock adiabatic index is $\gamma = 4/3$. The vertical, dashed lines indicate the locations of the contact discontinuity. When $n = 2.5$, the density at the contact discontinuity equals zero, while the Sedov-Taylor solution predicts a diverging density at the contact discontinuity for $n = 2.7$. Energy-conserving, relativistic corrections do not exist when the non-relativistic density either remains finite or diverges at the contact discontinuity. []{data-label="fig:g1_g43_of_n"}](g1_g43_of_n.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"} ![Left: The relativistic, self-similar correction to the comoving density behind the shock for $\gamma = 4/3$ and the range of $n$ shown in the legend, where the density of the ambient medium $\rho'_{\rm a}$ falls off with spherical radius $r$ as $\rho'_{\rm a} \propto r^{-n}$. When the non-relativistic solution extends all the way to the origin, which occurs when $n\le 2$, the relativistic correction to the density approaches zero near $\xi = r = 0$. However, when the solution terminates at a contact discontinuity, which occurs for $n = 2.5$, the correction to the density diverges weakly at that point (which is at the location of the vertical, dashed line). Right: The non-relativistic, self-similar solution for the density behind the shock for the range of $n$ shown in the legend when the post-shock adiabatic index is $\gamma = 4/3$. The vertical, dashed lines indicate the locations of the contact discontinuity. When $n = 2.5$, the density at the contact discontinuity equals zero, while the Sedov-Taylor solution predicts a diverging density at the contact discontinuity for $n = 2.7$. Energy-conserving, relativistic corrections do not exist when the non-relativistic density either remains finite or diverges at the contact discontinuity. []{data-label="fig:g1_g43_of_n"}](g0_g43_of_n.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"}
![Left: The relativistic correction to the shock three velocity $V_1$, normalized by the non-relativistic (Sedov-Taylor) solution $V_0$, as a function of time. Here we set $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$, where $V_{\rm i}$ is the velocity that the shock would have at $t = 0$ if relativistic effects were not included. Each curve corresponds to a different radial power-law index of the density of the ambient medium $n$, so the ambient density declines with radius as $\rho'_{\rm a} \propto r^{-n}$, as shown in the legend. As $n$ increases, relativistic effects are longer-lived owing to the fact that the non-relativistic, Sedov-Taylor shock speed falls off as a shallower function of time. Right: The eigenvalue $\sigma$, which relates the shock velocity to the explosion energy and ensures the conservation of that energy, as a function of the adiabatic index $\gamma$. Different curves are appropriate to the value of the power-law index of the density of the ambient medium given in the legend. Positive $\sigma$ implies that the shock speed is increased relative to the non-relativistic value in the comoving frame of the non-relativistic shock, i.e., observers moving with the Sedov-Taylor shock speed see an increase to the shock speed owing to relativistic effects. When $\sigma = 1$, time dilation and the relativistic boost to the shock speed in the comoving frame exactly balance to yield an observer-frame shock velocity that is identical to the Sedov-Taylor solution. For $\sigma < 1$, time dilation results in a three-velocity that is reduced compared to the Sedov-Taylor solution, and this can be seen directly from the left panel of this figure.[]{data-label="fig:V1_g43_of_n"}](V1_g43_of_n.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"} ![Left: The relativistic correction to the shock three velocity $V_1$, normalized by the non-relativistic (Sedov-Taylor) solution $V_0$, as a function of time. Here we set $V_{\rm i}/c = 0.5$, where $V_{\rm i}$ is the velocity that the shock would have at $t = 0$ if relativistic effects were not included. Each curve corresponds to a different radial power-law index of the density of the ambient medium $n$, so the ambient density declines with radius as $\rho'_{\rm a} \propto r^{-n}$, as shown in the legend. As $n$ increases, relativistic effects are longer-lived owing to the fact that the non-relativistic, Sedov-Taylor shock speed falls off as a shallower function of time. Right: The eigenvalue $\sigma$, which relates the shock velocity to the explosion energy and ensures the conservation of that energy, as a function of the adiabatic index $\gamma$. Different curves are appropriate to the value of the power-law index of the density of the ambient medium given in the legend. Positive $\sigma$ implies that the shock speed is increased relative to the non-relativistic value in the comoving frame of the non-relativistic shock, i.e., observers moving with the Sedov-Taylor shock speed see an increase to the shock speed owing to relativistic effects. When $\sigma = 1$, time dilation and the relativistic boost to the shock speed in the comoving frame exactly balance to yield an observer-frame shock velocity that is identical to the Sedov-Taylor solution. For $\sigma < 1$, time dilation results in a three-velocity that is reduced compared to the Sedov-Taylor solution, and this can be seen directly from the left panel of this figure.[]{data-label="fig:V1_g43_of_n"}](sigma_plot.eps "fig:"){width="49.50000%"}
1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 4/3 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 5/3 1.70
----- ----------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
0 $\sigma =$ 6.05 3.08 2.10 1.63 1.35 1.17 [1.08]{} [0.950]{} 0.882 0.831 0.790 0.758 0.724 0.711
0.5 5.04 2.56 1.75 1.36 1.13 0.982 0.910 0.807 0.753 0.712 0.681 0.656 0.631 0.621
1 4.02 2.05 1.40 1.09 0.911 0.796 0.741 0.663 0.623 0.593 0.571 0.554 0.537 0.531
1.5 3.00 1.53 1.05 0.822 0.692 0.610 0.572 0.519 0.493 0.474 0.461 0.452 0.444 0.442
2 1.98 1.01 0.698 0.553 0.474 0.427 0.405 0.378 0.367 0.360 0.357 0.357 0.360 0.363
2.5 0.962 0.492 0.354 0.298 0.272 0.264 0.265 … … … … … … …
2.7 0.559 0.299 0.235 0.224 … … … … … … … … … …
: The eigenvalue $\sigma$ that ensures energy conservation as a function of $n$, which parameterizes the density profile of the ambient medium ($\rho' \propto r^{-n}$), and the post-shock adiabatic index of the gas $\gamma$. Values much greater than one indicate that relativistic effects are more important for less relativistic initial shock speeds, which are achieved for small $n$ and $\gamma$. Cells with an ellipsis correspond to instances where the Sedov-Taylor (non-relativistic) solution possesses a finite or diverging density at the contact discontinuity, for which we find no energy-conserving solution for the relativistic corrections.[]{data-label="tab:1"}
Figure \[fig:f1\_g43\_of\_n\] illustrates the self-similar correction to the post-shock four-velocity for $\gamma = 4/3$ and the range of $n$ shown in the legend (the density profile of the ambient medium falls off with spherical radius $r$ as $\rho' \propto r^{-n}$). We see that, as $n$ increases, the relativistic correction to the velocity decreases in magnitude, and the solution with $n = 2.5$ ends at a contact discontinuity – coinciding with a point in the flow where the non-relativistic velocity profile satisfies $f(\xi_{\rm c}) = \xi_{\rm c}$, such that the fluid elements at these locations are stationary with respect to the shock. The right panel of this figure shows the correction to the pressure profile behind the shock, again with $\gamma = 4/3$. As $n$ increases from $0$ to $2$, the pressure profile exhibits progressively less deviation behind the shock, and the overall magnitude of the correction is reduced. When $n = 2.5$, the post-shock correction to the pressure equals zero at the contact discontinuity, which is also where the non-relativistic pressure equals zero.
The left panel of Figure \[fig:g1\_g43\_of\_n\] gives the correction to the self-similar, comoving density behind the shock for $\gamma = 4/3$ and the power-law indices of the ambient medium, $n$, in the legend. As for the pressure, the relativistic contributions tend to be less pronounced as $n$ increases from $0$ to 2, with less of the variation being confined to the immediate vicinity of the shock and the magnitude of the variation reduced. However, when $n = 2.5$, we see that the magnitude of the correction increases again, and the function $g_1$ actually diverges weakly at the location of the contact discontinuity. The right panel of this figure shows, for reference, the Sedov-Taylor solution for a subset of $n$, with the vertical, dashed lines coinciding with the location of the contact discontinuity. We see that, when $n = 2.5$, the non-relativistic density at the contact discontinuity equals zero, while for $n = 2.7$ the function $g_0$ diverges at the contact discontinuity.
The relativistic correction to the lab-frame, three-velocity of the shock $V_1$, plotted relative to the non-relativistic velocity $V_0$ as a function of time, is shown in the left panel of Figure \[fig:V1\_g43\_of\_n\]; here we set $V_{\rm i} / c = 0.5$, where $V_{\rm i}$ is the Newtonian shock speed at $t = 0$. Different curves correspond to different radial power-law indices of the density of the ambient medium, $n$, such that $\rho'_{\rm a} \propto r^{-n}$. The correction is negative for larger values of $n$, which signifies that time dilation actually reduces the shock speed below the Sedov-Taylor prediction in spite of the fact that the velocity is increased in the comoving frame of the non-relativistic shock. Relativistic effects remain important for longer times as $n$ increases, and this occurs because the Sedov-Taylor velocity – to the square of which, as shown in Equation , the relativistic correction is proportional – declines less slowly as the density profile of the ambient medium steepens (which arises physically from the reduced momentum flux across the shock for larger $n$).
The eigenvalue $\sigma$, which conserves the relativistic energy behind the shock and relates the shock speed to the explosion energy, is shown as a function of $\gamma$ in the right panel of Figure \[fig:V1\_g43\_of\_n\]. Each curve corresponds to the power-law index of the ambient medium, $n$, shown in the legend, and the horizontal, dashed line simply indicates where $\sigma = 1$ for clarity. The fact that $\sigma$ is always positive implies that observers moving with the non-relativistic, Sedov-Taylor shock speed see a relativistically-boosted shock velocity in that frame. However, it is only for $\sigma >1$ that observers in the lab frame (i.e., the frame in which the ambient medium is at rest) also measure a positive, relativistic increase to the shock three-velocity; for $\sigma < 1$ time dilation reduces the velocity below the Sedov-Taylor solution, as can be seen directly in the left panel of this figure. The values of $\sigma(n,\gamma)$ which were used to make this figure are given in Table \[tab:1\].
It can be shown from the integrals of Equations – that the self-similar, Sedov-Taylor density scales as
$$g_0(\xi) \propto \left(1-f_0/\xi\right)^{\frac{6-n-n\gamma}{n+3\gamma-6}},$$
which implies that when the Sedov-Taylor solution ends in a contact discontinuity, the density diverges at that location if $n > 6/(\gamma+1) \simeq 2.57$ for $\gamma = 4/3$ (see also @goodman90). We do not find any solution for $\sigma$ that satisfies global energy conservation for power-law indices that are steeper than this value. Mathematically, solutions in this regime do not exist because we can combine the integral constraint on the energy and Equation to show that, if the relativistic correction to the energy is to remain finite, then we must have[^1] $f_1(\xi_{\rm c}) = \xi_{\rm c}(\xi_{\rm c}^2-1)/2$. However, from Equation and the fact that $h_0(\xi_{\rm c}) = 0$, we see that we must also have $h_1(\xi_{\rm c}) = 0$ to maintain energy conservation. The system is therefore over-constrained when the density diverges at the contact discontinuity, and these two boundary conditions at $\xi_{\rm c}$ will not, in general, be satisfied simultaneously for a single $\sigma$. In particular, we find that the solution for which $f_1(\xi_{\rm c}) = \xi_{\rm c}(\xi_{\rm c}^2-1)$ possesses a finite, but non-zero pressure at the contact discontinuity, meaning that these solutions cannot simultaneously satisfy both the integral constraint and Equation .
It is also not surprising from a physical standpoint that these diverging-density solutions are problematic. For one, it was shown by @goodman90 that such solutions are unstable to aspherical perturbations, as the decelerating nature of the fluid and the density inversion renders the contact discontinuity susceptible to the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. These Sedov-Taylor blastwaves therefore cannot be manifested in any physical (i.e., one with permissible angular deviations from spherical symmetry) scenario. The diverging-density solutions also violate the self-similar hypothesis that the flow is predominantly characterized by the physical conditions at a single point within the flow: for small $n$ and $\gamma$, the vast majority of the mass is contained very near the shock front. However, when the density profile becomes inverted, most of the mass is concentrated near the contact discontinuity, and the causal connectedness of the shocked fluid implies that the shock “knows” this property of the inner flow. It is therefore likely that, for the diverging-density solutions, the physical conditions both at the shock front and near the contact discontinuity remain important for establishing the long-term behavior of the shock, and the solution may be fundamentally non-self-similar.
It is interesting to note that the ultra-relativistic, Blandford-McKee blastwave avoids this issue, as the comoving pressure behind the shock transforms as a higher power of the shock Lorentz factor than the comoving density. The contribution of the kinetic energy to the total energy behind the blastwave is therefore dropped in their solution, and only the internal energy must be conserved. Thus, while the Blandford-McKee solution formally exists in this regime, it is likely that the *integrated* kinetic energy remains important for the dynamics (i.e., by virtue of the boundary conditions at the shock, it is true in the ultra-relativistic limit that the kinetic energy is sub-dominant to the internal energy, but that may not be true deeper within the flow; the non-existence of relativistic corrections to the Sedov-Taylor solutions suggests that this may be the case for, at least, smaller values of the Lorentz factor).
Finally, one could argue that our prescription for the behavior of the relativistic corrections was too restrictive, and that while solutions of the form given by Equations – do not exist in this regime, there may be other, more general solutions that do satisfy energy conservation and the modified boundary conditions at the shock. Instead of writing the expressions for the perturbations as in – , we could have parameterized them as
$$U = U_{\rm s}\left\{f_0(\xi)+U_{\rm s}^2f_1(\xi,\chi)\right\},$$
and similarly for the other variables, and therefore maintained the derivatives with respect to $\chi$ in Equations – ([recall that $\chi = \ln R$ is a time-like variable)]{}. However, it is difficult to see how relativistic effects (to order $V^2/c^2$) could modify the solution in a way *other* than one that scales as $V^2/c^2$, as this is the only physical smallness parameter introduced in the problem. Therefore, any additional time dependence in the expression $f_1(\xi,\chi)$ should, instead, be regarded as a higher-order correction to the self-similar solution; we also note that this is precisely the motivation for expanding the self-similar functions as $f(\xi,\chi) \simeq f_0(\xi)+U_{\rm s}^2f_1(\xi)$ – the second term accounts for the time dependence that is induced by relativistic effects, and that time dependence can only physically be of the form $U_{\rm s}^2$. While we acknowledge that this is not a rigorous proof of the non-existence of more general solutions, we find it suggestive that no such solutions exist.
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:summary}
=======================
When the shockwave from an astrophysical explosion is strong (Mach number much greater than one) and non-relativistic, and therefore characterized by a shock speed $V$ much less than the speed of light $c$, the Sedov-Taylor, energy-conserving blastwave provides an analytic, self-similar solution for the temporal evolution of the shock itself, and the time and space-dependent evolution of the post-shock velocity, density, and pressure. In the other, extreme-relativistic limit where $V \simeq c$, the Blandford-McKee blastwave gives the energy-conserving evolution of the shock Lorentz factor and the post-shock fluid quantities. In between these two extremes, the finite speed of light introduces an additional velocity scale into the problem, which destroys the pure self-similarity of the solutions.
In this paper, we analyzed the leading-order, relativistic corrections to the fluid equations – which enter as $\mathcal{O}(V^2/c^2)$ – to understand the effects that such relativistic terms have on the non-relativistic, Sedov-Taylor solution for strong shock propagation. By treating such terms as perturbations (i.e., ignoring nonlinear terms that enter as higher powers of $V^2/c^2$), we showed that there are relativistic corrections to the Sedov-Taylor solutions for the post-shock fluid quantities that vary (consistent with expectations) as $V^2/c^2$. In particular, we demonstrated that the radial component of the post-shock, fluid four-velocity can be written as $U = U_{\rm s}\left\{f_0(\xi)+U_{\rm s}^2/c^2\times f_1(\xi)\right\}$, where $U_{\rm s}$ is the shock four-velocity, $f_0$ is the Sedov-Taylor solution, $\xi = r/R(t)$ with $R(t)$ the shock position, and $f_1$ is a function that is self-consistently determined from the fluid equations and the relativistic jump conditions at the shock. The function $f_1$, and the analogous functions $g_1$ and $h_1$ for the density and pressure, respectively, induce more nonlinear behavior to the post-shock velocity, further compress the post-shock material to the immediate vicinity of the shock itself, and generate greater variation in the post-shock pressure as compared to the Sedov-Taylor, non-relativistic limit (see Figures \[fig:f0g0h0\_n0\_g43\] – \[fig:lab\_rho\_n0\_g43\]). These are all features of the ultra-relativistic, Blandford-McKee blastwave, where the pressure declines rapidly behind the shock and all of the material is swept into a shell of width $\Delta R = R/U_{\rm s}^2$.
In addition to the post-shock fluid quantities, we also determined the relativistic correction to the velocity of the shock itself. We denoted this additional correction by an “eigenvalue” $\sigma$, such that the relativistically-corrected shock four-velocity is written implicitly as $U_{\rm s}^2R^{3-n} = E\left(1+\sigma U_{\rm s}^2/c^2\right)$. When $\sigma \equiv 0$, one recovers the familiar relationship between the shock velocity and position that guarantees the conservation of the blast energy, $E$. However, owing to the existence of relativistic corrections to the energy, $\sigma$ cannot be exactly zero, and there must therefore be corrections to the shock velocity that maintain total (i.e., including relativistic terms to order $U_{\rm s}^2/c^2$) energy conservation. For all of our solutions, the value of $\sigma$ was found to be positive, implying an increase to the shock four-velocity from relativistic effects; equivalently, observers moving at the non-relativistic shock speed measure a small, slight increase to the shock velocity, and hence the true shock position leads the non-relativistic one in the comoving frame of the non-relativistic shock. Nevertheless, the lab-frame three-velocity is reduced from the four-velocity by time dilation, which counterbalances the relativistically-boosted effect of positive $\sigma$, and if $\sigma \equiv 1$ these two effects exactly offset to yield a shock three-velocity that is identical to the Newtonian, Sedov-Taylor value. Interestingly, for a radiation-pressure dominated, $\gamma = 4/3$ post-shock equation of state and a constant-density ambient medium, the shock three-velocity is slightly increased over the non-relativistic value, while for all declining density profiles with $n > 0.5$ – where the ambient density $\rho'_{\rm a}$ falls off with spherical radius $r$ as $\rho'_{\rm a} \propto r^{-n}$ – the lab-frame velocity is reduced below the non-relativistic value (see Figure \[fig:V1\_g43\_of\_n\] and Table \[tab:1\] for the values of $\sigma$ for a range of $n$ and $\gamma$).
Once the power-law index of the ambient density profile equals or exceeds the critical value $n_{\rm cr}(\gamma) = 6/(\gamma+1)$, the density at the contact discontinuity present in the Sedov-Taylor solution diverges. For Sedov-Taylor blastwaves with $n > n_{\rm cr}$, we do not find any solution for $\sigma$ that maintains a finite and conserved relativistic correction to the energy, which mathematically follows directly from the nature of the solutions for $f_1$, $g_1$, and $h_1$ and the integral that maintains the conservation of energy (see Equations \[eigenint\] and \[bc4\]). It is possible that more general, time-dependent solutions (i.e., those that do not assume the form given by Equations \[Uss\] – \[pss\]) could be found in this regime that do conserve energy. However, based on the argument that additional time dependence from the self-similar, Sedov-Taylor solutions is itself seeded by relativistic effects, it is difficult to see how any extra time dependence would not be in the form of higher-order (than $U_{\rm s}^2/c^2$) terms. We therefore find it unlikely that such generalized solutions exist at the leading relativistic order.
Here we described the leading-order, relativistic corrections to the fluid flow, which enter into the fluid equations and the boundary conditions as $U_{\rm s}^2/c^2$. One can regard our solutions as the first in a series expansion of the fluid equations in $U_{\rm s}^2$, and the next-order solution for (for example) the four-velocity would be $U = U_{\rm s}\left\{f_0(\xi)+U_{\rm s}^2f_1(\xi)+U_{\rm s}^4f_2(\xi)\right\}$; one could then, by expanding the fluid equations to the next order, derive self-consistent equations for $f_2$, $g_2$, and $h_2$, and the boundary conditions at the shock could be found by expanding the general jump conditions to the next-highest order. In principle, one should also be able to construct the next-order solution for the Blandford-McKee solution, and approach the problem from the other, ultrarelativistic direction by finding the next-highest-order correction in $1/\Gamma$.
In this paper we focused on ambient density profiles less steep than $\rho'_{\rm a} \propto r^{-3}$. For steeper density profiles, the shock enters an accelerating regime, and the self-similar solutions for the post-shock fluid quantities are provided by @waxman93 (see also @koo90). In this case, the self-similar flow is constrained to lie between a sonic point within the interior of the flow and the shock front, and energy and mass are drained into a non-self-similar, inner region that is causally disconnected from the fluid near the shock. One could apply all of the formalism developed in this paper to derive the leading-order, relativistic corrections to such accelerating, self-similar flows, and the resulting equations for the functions $f_1$, $g_1$, and $h_1$ would, in fact, appear almost identical to Equations – , with the exception that various factors of $n-3$ – which result from energy conservation – would be replaced by a numerical factor that is determined from the self-similar, accelerating solutions. When the shock accelerates, such corrections actually come to *dominate* the self-similar solution at late times, owing to the increasing nature of $U_{\rm s}^2/c^2$, and one could interpret this result by saying that such self-similar solutions are “unstable” to relativistic corrections.
These solutions for the relativistically-corrected shock speed and post-shock fluid quantities could be used for generating more accurate models for the late-time lightcurves of long gamma-ray bursts as well as the lightcurves of energetic supernovae. In particular, the relativistic beaming induced by the marginally-relativistic velocity, and the prediction for the time over which the shock speed declines to sub-relativistic speeds, would yield correspondingly different break timescales for the lightcurve of the event and peaks in the synchrotron spectrum (e.g., @sari98 [@decolle12]). The event AT2018cow [@prentice18; @rivera18; @ho19; @kuin19; @margutti19; @perley19], tentatively an extreme example of the class of fast-rising transients [@drout14], also provided evidence of a moderately relativistic outflow with speed $\sim 0.1c$; the model presented here could be combined with current multiwavelength data to further constrain properties of the progenitor and surrounding medium.
This work was supported by NASA through the Einstein Fellowship Program, Grant PF6-170170. I thank Brian Metzger, Eliot Quataert, and Jonathan Zrake for useful discussions.
[^1]: Note that this is not required when the density equals zero at the contact discontinuity, as in this situation the density scales as $g_1 \propto (1-\xi_{\rm c})^{-\alpha}$ near $\xi_{\rm c}$ with $\alpha < 1$; thus, while the correction to the comoving density diverges at $\xi_{\rm c}$, it does so in a way that yields a finite, relativistic correction to the energy.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Dimensionality reduction and matrix factorization techniques are important and useful machine-learning techniques in many fields. *Nonnegative matrix factorization* (NMF) is particularly useful for spectral analysis and image processing in astronomy. I present the vectorized update rules and an independent proof of their convergence for NMF with heteroscedastic measurements and missing data. I release a Python implementation of the rules and use an optical spectroscopic dataset of extragalactic sources as an example for demonstration.'
author:
- Guangtun Ben Zhu
title: |
Nonnegative Matrix Factorization (NMF)\
with Heteroscedastic Uncertainties and Missing data
---
Introduction
============
Astronomy has always been at the forefront of intensive data analysis. Among the machine-learning techniques that are commonly used in the field, dimensionality reduction and matrix factorization techniques are particularly useful, as astronomical observations often produce measurements with highly-correlated dimensions. We can extract the most essential physics from the few *intrinsic* dimensions revealed with the techniques. They also provide a powerful tool for extrapolating the data from current observations and making predictions for future experiments.
The most popular dimensionality reduction technique is probably principal component analysis (PCA). Given a dataset, PCA finds the orthogonal dimensions and ranks them according to their contributions to the sample variance. However, a limitation of the standard PCA is that the sample variance includes both intrinsic variance (among true values of instances) and measurement uncertainties (for a given instance) in real-life applications. In astronomy, a few works have improved upon the standard PCA and developed iterative methods to handle the heteroscedasticity of astronomical data, usually based on the Expectation-Maximization optimization [@connolly1999a; @budavari2009a; @bailey2012a].
An alternative method to PCA is nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF), which restricts the dimensions to the nonnegative half-space. It can be particularly useful in astronomy, since the flux of an object does not go negative (in principle). In their seminal paper, @lee2001a introduced simple multiplicative update rules for standard NMF with homoscedastic data. Later, @blanton2007a presented new update rules that can take into account nonuniform uncertainties and missing data. @blondel2008a presented a vectorized version and a proof following the same methodology as @lee2001a for homoscedastic data. I here present an independent study of the vectorized rules and a proof for the convergence of the weighted cost function under these rules, by extending the original proof by @lee2001a. I also provide a summary of the relevant formulas. The vectorized rules are very straightforward to implement in a modern vector language. I here release a Python implementation of the algorithm and use an optical spectroscopic dataset of extragalactic sources as an example for demonstration.
Nonnegative Matrix Factorization {#sec:nmf}
================================
Nonnegative matrix factorization is, for a given *nonnegative* matrix $\bs{X}$, find *nonnegative* matrix factors $\bs{W}$ and $\bs{H}$ such that
$$\bs{X} \approx \bs{W}\bs{H} \,\mathrm{.}$$
We will assume the dimensions of $\bs{X}$, $\bs{W}$ and $\bs{H}$ are $l \times m$, $l \times n$, and $n \times m$, respectively, where $n$ is a free parameter to be determined by the user. When discussing any given row, column, or element, we will use $i$, $j$, and $k$ to indicate the indices in the dimensions specified by $l$, $m$, and $n$, respectively.
In the PCA language, we often interpret one of the two factors as the set of basis components[^1] and the other as the coefficients. In practice, which one is which depends on how one interprets the dimensions of the original data matrix $\bs{X}$. In addition, a trivial transpose operation shows the symmetry between the two factors:
$$\bs{X}^T \approx \bs{H}^T\bs{W}^T \,\mathrm{,}
\label{eq:transpose}$$
and after swapping the rows and columns all the discussions below still apply.
The update rules for homoscedastic data {#sec:homorules}
---------------------------------------
To find the two factors $\bs{W}$ and $\bs{H}$, as PCA, the goal of NMF is to minimize the least squares error (squared Frobenius norm) as the cost function:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\chi}^2 & = & \norm{(\bs{X}-\bs{W}\bs{H})}^2 \label{eq:cost} \\
& = & \sum_{ij} \left(X_{ij} - \sum_k W_{ik}H_{kj} \right)^2 \,\mathrm{,}\end{aligned}$$
assuming homoscedasticity of the data.
@lee2001a showed that this cost function is nonincreasing under the following multiplicative update rules:
$$\bs{H} \leftarrow \bs{H} \circ \frac{\bs{W}^T\bs{X}}{\bs{W}^T\bs{W}\bs{H}} \,\mathrm{,} \label{eq:Hupdate}\\$$
$$\bs{W} \leftarrow \bs{W} \circ \frac{\bs{X}\bs{H}^T}{\bs{W}\bs{H}\bs{H}^T} \,\mathrm{.} \label{eq:Wupdate}$$
where $\circ$ represents the element-wise product (the Hadamard product),[^2] and $\frac{\,(\ )\,}{\,(\ )\,}$ the element-wise division.
It is worth pointing out that the above rules for $\bs{H}$ and $\bs{W}$ are independent of each other, and under each of them (with the other one fixed) the cost function $\chi^2$ is guaranteed to be nonincreasing, as shown in their seminal paper by @lee2001a. This means if we are trying to learn the two factors simultaneously, we need to apply them in sequential order, i.e., once we update $\bs{H}$, we need to use the new updated $\bs{H}$ when updating $\bs{W}$ in the next step, and vice versa, although which one goes first does not matter.[^3] As another consequence, a great advantage of these rules is that, if we have known one of the two factors and are only interested in learning the other, we can just use the corresponding rule as a projection mode while simply ignoring the other.
As many other optimization methods, the update rules above can converge to a local minimum and are not guaranteed to yield the optimal solution. In practice, we can generate many different initializations and select the best solution. On the other hand, we can also increase the free parameter $n$, which is often interpreted as the number of components, and find a better solution that reduces the cost.
The update rules for heteroscedastic data {#sec:rules}
-----------------------------------------
### The update rules {#sec:heterorules}
The cost function and update rules above assume homoscedastic data. In astronomy, we often face the challenge with nonuniform uncertainties and missing data. To account for the heteroscedasticity, we therefore should minimize the weighted cost function:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\chi}^2 & = & \norm{\bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}} \circ \left(\bs{X}-\bs{W}\bs{H}\right)}^2 \label{eq:weightedcost} \\
& = & \sum_{ij} \left(V_{ij}^{\frac{1}{2}}X_{ij} - V_{ij}^{\frac{1}{2}} \sum_k W_{ik}H_{kj} \right)^2 \,\mathrm{,}
% & = & \sum_{ij} V_{ij} \left(X_{ij} - \sum_i W_{ik}H_{kj} \right)^2 \,\mathrm{,} \end{aligned}$$
where the weight $\bs{V}$ has the same dimension as $\bs{X}$ and a common choice is the inverse variance matrix ${1}/{\bs{\sigma}^2}$, and the square and square root apply element-wise. If we have missing data, we can simply use a binary mask matrix $\bs{M}$, in which a 0-valued (`False`) element indicates a missing datum, and use $\bs{V} \circ \bs{M}$ as the new weight.
To minimize the new weighted cost function, @blanton2007a presented new update rules (see A22 and A24 in their appendix), which uses indexed elements explicitly. @blondel2008a presented a vectorized version of the update rules, and also a proof following the same methodology as @lee2001a. I here present an independent study of the vectorized rules and also provide an alternative proof in the next section, built upon the one by @lee2001a.
The vectorized update rules are $$\bs{H} \leftarrow \bs{H} \circ \frac{\bs{W}^T\left(\bs{V} \circ \bs{X}\right)}{\bs{W}^T\left[\bs{V} \circ \left(\bs{W}\bs{H}\right)\right]} \,\mathrm{,}
\label{eq:Hupdate_weighted}$$
$$\bs{W} \leftarrow \bs{W} \circ \frac{\left(\bs{V} \circ \bs{X}\right) \bs{H}^T}{\left[\bs{V} \circ \left(\bs{W}\bs{H}\right)\right]\bs{H}^T} \,\mathrm{.}
\label{eq:Wupdate_weighted}$$
Compared to the original rules (Eq. \[eq:Hupdate\] and Eq. \[eq:Wupdate\]), we have simply replaced $\bs{X}$ (in the numerators) and $\bs{W}\bs{H}$ (in the denominators) with the weighted versions, $\bs{V} \circ \bs{X}$ and $\bs{V} \circ (\bs{W}\bs{H})$. I provide a proof below that under each of these rules the new weighted cost function is nonincreasing.
### A Proof {#sec:proof}
I here provide a proof that under the update rules Eq. \[eq:Hupdate\_weighted\] and Eq. \[eq:Wupdate\_weighted\], the weighted cost function Eq. \[eq:weightedcost\] is nonincreasing, assuming the theorems in @lee2001a hold. I refer the reader to @blondel2008a for a different proof, which includes proving the similar theorems as in @lee2001a. We first take a closer look at the original cost function Eq. \[eq:cost\] and the update rules Eq. \[eq:Hupdate\] and Eq. \[eq:Wupdate\]. First I note that the update rule Eq. \[eq:Hupdate\] applies to each column without interference (between the columns), i.e., the update rule is equivalent to updating every column $j$ in $\bs{H}$ in parallel:[^4]
$$\bs{H}_j \leftarrow \bs{H}_j \circ \frac{\bs{W}^T\bs{X}_j}{\bs{W}^T\bs{W}\bs{H}_j} \,\mathrm{,} \label{eq:Hupdate_j}$$
and the cost function can be written as a sum of contributions from all the columns:
$$\begin{aligned}
%{\chi}^2 & = & \sum_{j} \norm{\bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_j \circ (\bs{X}_j-\bs{W}\bs{H}_j)}^2 \\
{\chi}^2 & = & \sum_{j} \norm{(\bs{X}_j-\bs{W}\bs{H}_j)}^2 \\
& = & \sum_{j} {\chi}^2_j \,\mathrm{.}\end{aligned}$$
This is the strategy used by @lee2001a, who provided the proof for the theorem that, the contribution to the cost function from a given column $j$, $\chi^2_j$, is nonincreasing under the update rule above (Eq. \[eq:Hupdate\_j\]), and therefore the sum of the contributions from all the columns, $\chi^2$, is also nonincreasing. I refer the reader to their paper for its proof and here I will take it as a theorem, and use it to prove that under the following update rule for a given column $j$,
$$\bs{H}_j \leftarrow \bs{H}_j \circ \frac{\bs{W}^T\left(\bs{V}_j \circ \bs{X}_j\right)}{\bs{W}^T\left[\bs{V}_j \circ \left(\bs{W}\bs{H}_j\right)\right]}\,\mathrm{,}
\label{eq:Hupdate_weighted_j}$$
its contribution to the weighted cost function,
$${\chi}^2_j = \norm{\bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_j \circ (\bs{X}_j-\bs{W}\bs{H}_j)}^2 \,\mathrm{,} \\
\label{eq:weightedcost_j}$$
is nonincreasing.
To prove this, note that the update rules for $\bs{H}$ and $\bs{W}$ are independent of each other and are applied with the other one fixed. When updating $\bs{H}_j$, we can define $\bs{\hat{X}}$ and $\bs{\hat{W}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\bs{\hat{X}}_j & \equiv & \bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_j \circ \bs{X}_j \,\mathrm{,}\\
\bs{\hat{W}} & \equiv & [\bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_j]^{\mathrm{diag}}\,\bs{W} \,\mathrm{,}
%\bs{\hat{W}} & \equiv & (\bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_j)^{\mathrm{diag}} \odot_\mathrm{C} \bs{W} \,\mathrm{,}\end{aligned}$$ where $[\bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_j]^{\mathrm{diag}}$ represents a diagonal matrix with $\bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_j$ as the diagonal elements.
We can now re-write Eq. \[eq:weightedcost\_j\] as $${\chi}^2_j = \norm{(\bs{\hat{X}}_j-\bs{\hat{W}}\bs{H_j})}^2 \,\mathrm{.}
\label{eq:cost_hat}$$
And a little algebra shows that the update rule Eq. \[eq:Hupdate\_weighted\_j\] can be re-written as $$\bs{H}_j \leftarrow \bs{H}_j \circ \frac{\bs{\hat{W}}^T\bs{\hat{X}}_j}{\bs{\hat{W}}^T\bs{\hat{W}}\bs{H}_j} \,\mathrm{.}
\label{eq:Hupdate_hat}$$
Now we can apply the original proof by @lee2001a and show that, under the rule Eq. \[eq:Hupdate\_hat\], the cost Eq. \[eq:cost\_hat\] is nonincreasing.
With a simple transpose operation as in Eq. \[eq:transpose\], we can also show that under the update rule Eq. \[eq:Wupdate\_weighted\], the weighted cost function Eq. \[eq:weightedcost\] is nonincreasing. For completeness, alternatively, we can also decompose the cost function into contributions from every row in $\bs{X}$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\chi}^2 & = & \sum_{i} \norm{\bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_i \circ (\bs{X}_i-\bs{W}_i\bs{H})}^2 \\
& = & \sum_{i} {\chi}^2_i \,\mathrm{.}
% & = & \sum_{ij} \left(X_{ij} - \sum_k W_{ik}H_{kj} \right)^2\end{aligned}$$
By defining $$\begin{aligned}
\bs{\hat{X}}_i & \equiv & \bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_i \circ \bs{X}_i \,\mathrm{,}\\
\bs{\hat{H}} & \equiv & \bs{H}\,[\bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_i]^{\mathrm{diag}} \,\mathrm{,}
%\bs{\hat{H}} & \equiv & \bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_i \odot_\mathrm{R} \bs{H} \,\mathrm{,}\end{aligned}$$ where $[\bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_i]^{\mathrm{diag}}$ represents a diagonal matrix with $\bs{V}^{\frac{1}{2}}_i$ as the diagonal elements. we can re-write the update rule Eq. \[eq:Wupdate\_weighted\] for a given row $i$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\bs{W}_i & \leftarrow & \bs{W}_i \circ \frac{\left(\bs{V}_i \circ \bs{X}_i\right) \bs{H}^T}{\left[\bs{V}_i \circ \left(\bs{W}_i\bs{H}\right)\right]\bs{H}^T} \\
& = & \bs{W}_i \circ \frac{\bs{\hat{X}}_i\bs{\hat{H}}^T}{\bs{W}_i\bs{\hat{H}}\bs{\hat{H}}^T} \,\mathrm{,}\end{aligned}$$
under which the contribution to the weighted cost function from row $i$,
$${\chi}^2_i = \norm{(\bs{\hat{X}}_i-\bs{W}_i\bs{\hat{H}})}^2 \,\mathrm{,}$$
is nonincreasing.
\[fig:chi2\]
\[fig:basisset\]
\[fig:basissetmask\]
An example {#sec:example}
==========
It is easy to implement the vectorized algorithm above in any vector language. I here release a Python implementation, taking advantage of the fast NumPy package that has BLAS and LAPACK incorporated. I present a brief introduction of the code in the Appendix. Here I use an optical spectroscopic dataset of extragalactic sources as an example to demonstrate how to apply the technique in practice.
The test dataset
----------------
To further illustrate the algorithm, I use an optical spectroscopic dataset of extragalactic sources as an example. This dataset was also used as a test case in Zhu (2016) for classification purposes and can be downloaded on the Web, as shown in the Appendix. I select the sources and their spectra from the seventh data release [DR7, @abazajian2009a] of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [@york2000a]. More specifically, I select sources at redshift $z\sim0.05$ with high-S/N ($15-30$) spectra. The test dataset includes $2820$ extragalactic sources and I consider the wavelength range between $3700\,$Å and $7000\,$Å. Although a small sample, this dataset spans a variety of astrophysical sources, including quiescent, star-forming galaxies with different metallicities, AGN, etc., and serves well for the testing purposes.
\[fig:chi2comp\]
The basis sets
--------------
I construct basis sets with the number of components $n$ ranging from $2$ to $24$. For comparison purposes, for a given $n$, I initialize the first $n-1$ components with the previous basis set, except for the first basis set with $n=2$, for which I generate random number matrices with values between 0 and 1 as initial guesses. This way we create a roughly ranked list of basis components based on their contributions to the sample variance. *However, I would like to stress that this construction method is devised only for the convenience of comparing the basis sets with different numbers of components*. As discussed earlier, the update rules of NMF are not guaranteed to converge to the global minimum of the cost function. In Figure \[fig:chi2\], I show the progression of the reduced $\chi_{\rm red}^2$, the total cost divided by the data size minus the number of components $n$, as a function of $n$. The cost converges quickly and at $n=10$, it is already less than $5\%$ higher than at $n=24$.
To take a closer look, I show the basis sets for $n=3$ to $n=10$ in Figure \[fig:basisset\]. Note I use the basis set for $n-1$ as the initial set at the construction for $n$, so the first $n-1$ components of each basis set are almost the same as the previous basis set. For $n=7$ to $n=10$, I have skipped the first $5$ components, which are very similar to the basis set for $n=5$. Looking at the first two components (which form the basis set for $n=2$), we see a red template that looks like the spectrum of a quiescent galaxy dominated by old stellar populations [see, @thomas2005a; @zhu2010a] and a blue template that appears to be the spectrum of a star-forming galaxy with strong emission lines [see, @kennicutt1992a; @zhu2015a]. The third component adds a bluer template that appears to be a combination of B, A and F types of stars. The fourth and the seventh components show variations of stellar absorption features, likely to account for the range of stellar age and metallicity covered by the sample.
The rest of the components mostly include emission lines with varying ratios. This is because in different types of systems, different physical mechanisms are responsible for exciting the atoms/ions, resulting in a variety of emission-line properties. These strong emission lines can account for a considerable fraction of the least squares error and therefore require a number of basis components with varying ratios to cover the variance.
The basis set with partial data
-------------------------------
We can handle missing data easily with the algorithm described above, simply by providing a mask $\bs{M}$. It is interesting to explore the effects of missing data on the modeling. To do so, I randomly select $20\%$ of the data[^5] and assume they are corrupted.
Applying the same procedure as above for the full dataset, I construct basis sets as a function of the number of components. Figure \[fig:basissetmask\] presents the basis sets for $n=3$ to $n=10$. Remarkably, they are very similar to those basis sets learned from the full dataset. A careful comparison shows that there are some small differences on a few percent level, but it is reassuring that the algorithm can achieve such robust results.
To take a further look, I take the basis sets built from the partial dataset, and apply them to the full dataset to see how well they can describe the full dataset as a whole. The projection mode (with one factor fixed) of the algorithm makes this a trivial task. In the upper panel of Figure \[fig:chi2comp\], I show the progression of the reduced $\chi_{\rm red}^2$ from this experiment. In the lower panel, I compare the cost to that with the basis sets learned from the *full* sample. The result shows that the basis sets built from the partial dataset, with $20\%$ data masked, can account for the variance in the full dataset up to $98\%$.
Because the algorithm can handle missing data, it can be very useful in extragalactic astronomy. When we observe sources at different redshifts with a given instrument, the fixed observer-frame wavelength coverage translates to a running rest-frame window. If we use standard PCA or the original NMF, then we need to restrict the analysis to a small rest-frame wavelength range in which sources at different redshifts have common coverage. With the NMF technique described here, @zhu2013a modeled quasar spectra over a large redshift and rest-frame wavelength range (e.g., see their Figure 14), and I refer interested readers to that paper for more information about the application.
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
With the amount of data growing exponentially, one of the major challenges in modern astronomy is how to efficiently extract scientific information. I presented a simple vectorized algorithm for nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF) with nonuniform uncertainties and missing data, which can be easily implemented in any modern vector language. I released a Python implementation of the algorithm. Using an optical spectroscopic dataset of extragalactic sources as an example, I showed how the weighted cost progresses and converges as a function of the number of components, the only free parameter in the technique. I have also discussed how to take advantage of the independent, sequential update rules for the two factors.
As a final note, although techniques such as PCA and NMF are powerful tools that can reduce the dimensionality of the data and reveal intrinsic dimensions informative about the underlying correlations and physics, they still have some fundamental limitations. For example, the (linear) combinations of the basis components can occupy a part of the space that is otherwise empty in reality. As another example, these techniques attempt to find the basis components that dominate the variance (so as to minimize the least squares error), and a small number of extreme cases are often not included in the modeling. In astronomy, these cases are often the most interesting ones as they present the best opportunities for groundbreaking discoveries. These limitations could be catastrophic especially when we are facing low S/N data, which has become more and more common in the new era featuring large surveys. To overcome these limitations, we need to resort to other techniques, such as using a set of archetypes to represent all the instances in the dataset [@zhu2016a].
I acknowledge support provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant \#HST-HF2-51351 awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract NAS 5-26555. This article uses the public data from the SDSS survey. Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
The code {#app:code}
========
Install the package
-------------------
I have implemented the algorithm for NMF described in Section \[sec:heterorules\] in Python 3, including options for sparse matrices and projection mode. I share the code, with the name `NonnegMFPy`, on the repository hosting service GitHub. Interested user can fork or clone the repository.[^6] For readers who are only interested in using the package, I have also released the code on Python Package Index (PyPI) and one can install it with:
> pip install NonnegMFPy
We recommend installing it via pip unless the user is keen in helping further develop and maintain the package. The repository webpage also includes documentation and a user guide of the package. The user can provide weight ($\bs{V}$) and mask ($\bs{M}$) matrices to take into account the uncertainties and missing data. In addition, the code also includes projection mode options, `H_only` and `W_only`, to learn only $\bs{H}$ or $\bs{W}$, given $\bs{W}$ or $\bs{H}$.
Test the code
-------------
The test optical spectroscopic dataset I used in the paper is publicly available[^7] in `fits` format[^8]. Assuming we have extracted the spectra matrix `spec` and the inverse variance matrix `ivar` from the dataset. The user can test the code as follows.
> from NonnegMFPy import nmf
> g = nmf.NMF(spec, V=ivar, n_components=5)
> chi2, time_used = g.SolveNMF()
If the user has already learned $\bs{W}$ and wishes to learn $\bs{H}$ only, one can simply set `H_only = True`:
> g = nmf.NMF(spec, V=ivar, W=W_known, n_components=5)
> chi2, time_used = g.SolveNMF(H_only=True)
Note the dimensions need to be compatible.
[^1]: I here do not call NMF components eigen-components or eigen-vectors, since they are not orthogonal to each other because of the nonnegativity constraint. I also do not label them principal components to avoid confusion with components from PCA, though I note that one can still rank the basis components by their contributions to the variance within the dataset.
[^2]: The Hadamard product is commutative, associative and distributive over addition.
[^3]: We can update $\bs{H}$ ($\bs{W}$) many times before updating $\bs{W}$ ($\bs{H}$).
[^4]: This feature can therefore be used to improve the efficiency of NMF with parallel programming.
[^5]: I do not select random objects and exclude their full spectra, but instead I select random elements from the dataset as a whole.
[^6]: `https://github.com/guangtunbenzhu/NonnegMFPy`
[^7]: See README on `https://github.com/guangtunbenzhu/NonnegMFPy`
[^8]: `http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'André H. Hoang'
- Christopher Lepenik
- Moritz Preisser
bibliography:
- './sources.bib'
title: |
On the Light Massive Flavor Dependence of the Large Order Asymptotic Behavior and the Ambiguity\
of the Pole Mass
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The masses of the heavy charm, bottom and top quarks belong to the most important input parameters in precise theoretical predictions of the Standard Model and models of new physics. Due to the effects of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and because quarks are states with color charge, however, the mass of a heavy quark $Q$ is not a physical observable and should, in general, be better thought of as a renormalized and scheme-dependent parameter of the theory. This concept is incorporated most cleanly in the so-called ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass ${\overline{m}}_Q(\mu)$, which is defined through the same renormalization prescription as the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ QCD coupling $\alpha_s(\mu)$. It can be measured from experimental data very precisely, but does not have any kinematic meaning, and it can be thought of incorporating short-distance information on the mass from scales larger than $\mu$. On the other hand, the so-called pole mass $m_Q^{\rm pole}$ is defined as the single particle pole in correlation functions involving the massive quark $Q$ as an external on-shell particle, and it determines the kinematic mass of the quark $Q$ in the context of perturbation theory. It is therefore unavoidable that the pole mass scheme appears in one way or another in higher order QCD calculations involving external massive quarks. For perturbative predictions involving the production of top quarks at hadron colliders, the pole mass scheme is therefore the main top quark mass scheme used in the literature, and switching scheme is cumbersome since these computations are predominantly numerical where the pole scheme provides the most efficient approach for the computations. In Refs. [@Tarrach:1980up; @Gray:1990yh; @Chetyrkin:1999ys; @Chetyrkin:1999qi; @Melnikov:2000qh; @Marquard:2007uj; @Marquard:2015qpa; @Marquard:2016dcn] the relation between the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ and the pole mass has been computed up to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ in the approximation that all quarks lighter than $Q$ are massless. Assuming the values ${\overline{m}}_t\equiv{\overline{m}}_t({\overline{m}}_t)=163$ GeV, ${\overline{m}}_b\equiv{\overline{m}}_b({\overline{m}}_b)=4.2$ GeV and ${\overline{m}}_c\equiv{\overline{m}}_c({\overline{m}}_c)=1.3$ GeV we obtain[^1] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mtpolevalues}
m_t^{\rm pole} &= 163 \,+\, 7.5040 \,+\,1.6005 \,+\,0.4941 \,+\, (0.1944\pm 0.0004)\,\mbox{GeV}\,, \\
\label{eqn:mbpolevalues}
m_b^{\rm pole} &= 4.2 \,+\, 0.3998 \,+\,0.1986 \,+\,0.1443 \,+\, (0.1349\pm 0.0002)\,\mbox{GeV}\,, \\
\label{eqn:mcpolevalues}
m_c^{\rm pole} &= 1.3 \,+\, 0.2108 \,+\,0.1984 \,+\,0.2725 \,+\, (0.4843\pm 0.0005)\,\mbox{GeV}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the terms show the series in powers of the strong coupling $\alpha_s({\overline{m}}_Q)$ in the scheme that includes $Q$ as a dynamical flavor. The fourth order coefficient displays the numerical uncertainties from [@Marquard:2016dcn], which are, however, much smaller than other types of uncertainties considered in this paper.
The pole mass renormalization scheme is infrared-safe and gauge-invariant [@Tarrach:1980up; @Kronfeld:1998di], but suffers from large corrections in the QCD perturbation series. This is because the pole mass scheme involves subtractions of on-shell quark self energy corrections containing virtual gluon and massless quark fluctuations which are linearly sensitive to small momenta. The on-shell approximation of the self energy diagrams entails that this sensitivity increases strongly with the order. The effect this has for the form of the corrections can be seen in Eqs. –, which in the asymptotic large order limit have the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:polemsbarseriesLL}
m_Q^{\rm pole}-{\overline{m}}_Q({\overline{m}}_Q) & \sim \mu\, \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{16}{3}(2\beta_0^{({n_{\ell}})})^{n} \,n!\,
\bigg(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_{\ell}})}(\mu)}{4\pi}\bigg)^{n+1}\,,\end{aligned}$$ in the $\beta_0$/LL approximation, which means that the terms in the QCD $\beta$-function, $$\label{eqn:betafct}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\alpha_s^{({n_{\ell}})}(\mu)}{{\mathrm{d}}\log \mu}=\beta^{({n_{\ell}})}(\alpha_s(\mu))\,=\,-\,2\,\alpha_s^{({n_{\ell}})}(\mu)\sum_{n=0}^\infty\beta_n^{({n_{\ell}})}\bigg(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_{\ell}})}(\mu)}{4\pi}\bigg)^{n+1}\,,$$ beyond the leading logarithmic level (i.e. $\beta_{n>0}$) are neglected. Here ${n_{\ell}}$ is the number of massless quark flavors.
The factorially diverging pattern of the perturbation series and the linear dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu$ of the strong coupling displayed in Eq. are called [*the ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ renormalon*]{} of the pole mass [@Bigi:1994em; @Beneke:1994sw]. The form of the series on the RHS of Eq. implies that at asymptotic large orders, and up to terms suppressed by inverse powers of $n$, the series becomes independent of its intrinsic physical scale $m_Q$. This and the $n$-factorial growth is an artifact of the pole mass scheme itself and not related to any physical effect. Technically this issue entails that for computing differences of series containing ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ renormalon ambiguities using fixed-order perturbation theory one must consistently expand in powers of the strong coupling at the same renormalization scale such that the renormalon can properly cancel.
The ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ renormalon problem of the pole mass has received substantial attention in the literature as it turned out to be not just an issue of pedagogical interest, but one that is relevant phenomenologically [@Beneke:1998ui]. This is because for $\mu={\overline{m}}_Q$ the known coefficients of the series in Eqs. – agree remarkably well with the corresponding large order asymptotic behavior already beyond the terms of ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ (so that the terms of the series are known quite precisely to all orders) and because even for orders where the QCD corrections still decrease with order they can be very large numerically and make phenomenological applications difficult. The pole mass scheme has therefore been abandoned in high precision top, bottom and charm quark mass analyses in favor of quark mass schemes such as ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ or low-scale short distance masses such as the kinetic mass [@Czarnecki:1997sz], the potential-subtracted (PS) mass [@Beneke:1998rk], the 1S mass [@Hoang:1998ng; @Hoang:1998hm; @Hoang:1999ye], the renormalon-subtracted (RS) mass [@Pineda:2001zq], the jet mass [@Jain:2008gb; @Fleming:2007qr] or the MSR mass [@Hoang:2008yj; @Hoang:2017suc]. These mass schemes do not have an ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon and are called short-distance masses. It is commonly agreed from many studies that it is possible to determine short-distance masses with theoretical uncertainties of a few $10$ MeV [@Hoang:2000yr; @Olive:2016xmw], and we therefore neglect any principle ambiguity in their values in this paper.
Using the theory of asymptotic series one can show that the best possible approximation to the LHS of Eq. is to truncate the series on the RHS at the minimal term at order $n_{\rm min}$ which is approximately $n_{\rm min}\approx 2\pi/(\beta_0^{({n_{\ell}})}\alpha_s^{({n_{\ell}})}(\mu))$. The size of the correction of the minimal term is approximately $\Delta(n_{\rm min})\approx(4\pi\alpha_s^{({n_{\ell}})}(\mu)/\beta_0^{({n_{\ell}})})^{1/2}\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{({n_{\ell}})}$, and there is a region in the orders $n$ around $n_{\rm min}$ of width $\Delta n\approx(2\pi^2/(\beta_0^{({n_{\ell}})}\alpha_s^{({n_{\ell}})}(\mu)))^{1/2}$ in which all series terms have a size close to the minimal term. At orders above $n_{\rm min}+\Delta n/2$ the series diverges quickly and the series terms from these orders are useless even if they are known through an elaborate loop calculation. The uncertainty with which the pole mass can be determined [*in principle*]{} given the full information about the perturbative series is called the [*pole mass ambiguity*]{}. It is universal, independent on the choice of the renormalization scale $\mu$ and exists in equivalent size in any context without the possibility to be circumvented. However, the $\mu$-dependence of $n_{\rm min}$, $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ and $\Delta n$ indicates that the way how the renormalon problem appears in practical applications based on perturbative QCD can differ substantially depending on the physical scale of the quantity under consideration and the corresponding choice of the renormalization scale $\mu$. Using the method of Borel resummation the pole mass ambiguity can be estimated to be of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{({n_{\ell}})}$, where the superscript $({n_{\ell}})$ stands for the dependence of the hadronization scale on the number of massless quark flavors. The norm of the ambiguity, which we call $N_{1/2}^{({n_{\ell}})}$ in this paper, and the resulting pattern of the large order asymptotic behavior of the series can be determined very precisely and have been studied in many analyses (see e.g. the recent work of Refs. [@Ayala:2014yxa; @Beneke:2016cbu; @Komijani:2017vep; @Hoang:2017suc]). However, when quoting a concrete numerical size of the ambiguity, criteria common for converging series cannot be applied, and it is instrumental to consider more global aspects of the series and the quantity it describes. An essential aspect of the low-energy quantum corrections in heavy quark masses is [*heavy quark symmetry (HQS)*]{} [@Isgur:1989vq] on which we put particular focus in this work.
An issue that has received less attention in the literature so far is how the masses of the lighter massive quarks affect the large order asymptotic behavior of the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation, where we refer to the effects of quarks with masses that are larger than $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. These corrections come from insertions of virtual quark loops and are known up to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ [@Gray:1990yh; @Bekavac:2007tk] from explicit loop calculations. It is known that the masses of lighter massive quarks provide an infrared cutoff and effectively reduce the number $n_\ell$ of massless flavors governing the large order asymptotic behavior [@Ball:1995ni]. Due to the ${n_{\ell}}$-dependence of the QCD $\beta$-function the finite bottom and charm quark masses lead to an increased infrared sensitivity of the top quark pole mass and a stronger divergence pattern of the series, as can be seen from Eq. . The ambiguity therefore inflates following the ${n_{\ell}}$-dependent increase of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. In Refs. [@Hoang:1999us; @Hoang:2000fm] it was pointed out that the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ virtual quark mass corrections are already dominated by the infrared behavior related to the ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ renormalon. In Ref. [@Ayala:2014yxa] it was further observed that the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ charm mass corrections in the bottom pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation can be rendered small when the series is expressed in terms of $\alpha_s^{({n_{\ell}}=3)}$ rather than $\alpha_s^{({n_{\ell}}=4)}$, i.e. the charm quark effectively decouples. A systematic and precise understanding of the intrinsic structure of the lighter massive quark effects from the point of view of disentangling the different momentum modes and their interplay has, however, not been provided so far in the literature. The task is complicated since apart from being a problem in connection with the behavior of perturbation theory at large orders, it also represents a multi-scale problem with scales given by the quark masses as well as $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and where, for the top quark, logarithms of mass ratios can be large.
It is the main purpose of this paper to present a formalism that can do exactly that. It is based on the concept of the renormalization group (RG) and allows to successively integrate out momentum modes from the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation of a heavy quark $Q$ in order to disentangle the contributions coming from the lighter massive quarks and to systematically sum logarithms of the mass ratios. The approach allows to quantify and formulate precisely the effects the masses of the lighter massive quarks have on the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation and therefore on the pole mass itself and may find interesting applications in other contexts. As the essential new feature the RG formalism entails [*linear scaling with the renormalization scale*]{}. The common logarithmic scaling, as known for the strong coupling, cannot capture the linear momentum dependence of QCD corrections to the heavy quark mass for scales below $m_Q$. The formalism is in particular useful since it fully accounts for all aspects of HQS. It can be used to concretely formulate and study in a transparent way two important properties of the heavy quark pole masses following from HQS: (1) The pole mass ambiguity is independent of the mass of the heavy quark and (2) the ambiguities of all heavy quarks are equal up to power corrections of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/m_Q$.
The essential technical tool to set up the formalism is the MSR mass $m_Q^{\rm MSR}(R)$ [@Hoang:2008yj; @Hoang:2017suc]. Like the perturbative series for the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation, the pole-MSR mass relation is calculated from on-shell heavy quark self energy diagrams, but has also linear dependence on $R$. It is the basis of the RG formalism we propose, allows to precisely capture the QCD corrections from the different quark mass scales and, in particular, to encode and study issue (1) coming from HQS. The renormalization group evolution in the scale $R$ is described by R-evolution [@Hoang:2008yj; @Hoang:2017suc], which is free of the ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ renormalon, and allows to sum large logarithms of ratios of the quark masses in the evolution between the quark mass scales. Using the concepts of the MSR mass and the R-evolution it is then possible to relate the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ masses of the top, bottom and charm quarks to each other. This allows to systematically encode and study issue (2) coming from HQS, and to interpret the small effects of HQS breaking as matching corrections in a renormalization group flow that connects the QCD correction of the top, bottom and charm quarks. The resulting formula can be used to specify the heavy quark pole mass ambiguity in the context of lighter massive quarks and to derive a generalized expression for the large order asymptotic behavior accounting accurately for the light massive flavor dependence. Concerning the accuracy of our description of the virtual quark loop mass effects in the large order asymptotic behavior we reach a precision of a few MeV, which applies equally for top, bottom and charm quarks.
The second main purpose of this paper is to use the RG formalism to specify concretely the ambiguity of the top quark pole mass and also the pole mass of the bottom and charm quarks assuming that their ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ masses are given. We in particular address the question how the outcome depends on different scenarios for treating the bottom and charm quarks as massive or massless, and we explicitly take into account the consistency requirements of HQS. The aim is to provide a concrete numerical specification of the ambiguity of the top quark pole mass beyond the qualitative statement that the ambiguity is “of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{({n_{\ell}})}$” and to make a concrete statement up to which principle precision the top quark pole mass may still be used as a meaningful phenomenological parameter. We stress that in this context we adopt the view that the pole masses have well-defined and unique meaning, so that the pole mass ambiguity acquires the meaning of an intrinsic numerical uncertainty. This differs from the view sometimes used in high-precision analyses, where the pole mass is employed as an intrinsic order-dependent parameter to effectively parameterize the use of a short-distance mass scheme.
Apart from specifying the ambiguity of the pole masses we are also interested in studying the dependence of their value on the different scenarios for treating the bottom and charm quarks as massive or massless. The issue is of particular interest for the top quark pole mass which is still widely used for theoretical predictions and phenomenological studies in top quark physics. The top quark pole mass is, due to its linear sensitivity to small momenta, also linearly sensitive to the masses of the lighter massive quarks. Since many short-distance observables used for top quark pole mass determinations are at most quadratically sensitive to small momenta, the dominant effects of the bottom and charm masses may well come from the top quark pole definition itself. A large dependence of the top quark pole mass value on whether the bottom and charm quarks are treated as massive or massless would therefore affect the ambiguity estimate if one considers the top quark pole mass as a globally defined mass scheme (valid for any scenario for the bottom and charm quark masses). We can address this question precisely because the RG-formalism we use allows for very accurate numerical calculations of the lighter quark mass effects. Within the size of the ambiguity, we do not find any such dependence. The outcome of our analysis is that the top quark pole mass ambiguity, and the ambiguity of the bottom and charm quark pole masses, is around $250$ MeV.
Prior to this work the best estimate and the ambiguity of the top quark pole mass were studied in Ref. [@Beneke:2016cbu]. They analyzed the top quark pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass series of Eq. for $\mu={\overline{m}}_t$ and massless bottom and charm quarks and in an extended analysis also for massive bottom and charm quarks. They argued that the ambiguity of the top, bottom and charm quark pole masses amounts to $110$ MeV. We believe that their ambiguity estimate of $110$ MeV is too optimistic, and we explain this in detail from the requirements of HQS. They also quantified the bottom and charm mass effects coming from beyond the known corrections at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ by using a heuristic prescription based on an order-dependent reduction of the flavor number. This does not represent a systematic calculation, but we find it to be an adequate approximation for the task of estimating the top quark pole mass renormalon ambiguity.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[sec:prelim\] we review the explicitly calculated corrections up to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ for the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ and the pole-MSR mass relations for the case that all quarks lighter than quark $Q$ are massless and we explain our notation for parameterizing the virtual quark mass corrections due to the light massive quarks. This notation is essential for our setup of the flavor number dependent RG evolution of the MSR mass, which we also review to the extend needed for our studies in the subsequent sections. We also review known basic issues about the large order asymptotic behavior and the renormalon ambiguity of the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ and the pole-MSR mass relations, including their dependence on the number of massless quarks. In Sec. \[sec:hardmodes\] we explain details about the matching procedures that allow to integrate out the virtual corrections coming from the heavy quark $Q$ and the lighter massive quarks, and to relate the pole-MSR mass relation of quark $Q$ to the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation of the next lighter massive quark, which is based on heavy quark symmetry. These considerations and the numerical analysis of the latter matching corrections allow us to derive a prediction for the yet uncalculated ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ virtual quark mass corrections and to discuss the large order asymptotic form of the virtual quark mass corrections. As an application of the RG formalism devised in our work we compute the difference of the pole masses of the top, bottom and charm quarks. Since their differences are short-distance quantities we can compute them with a precision of around $20$ MeV. We also analyze the validity of the effective flavor decoupling at large orders in the context of the top quark pole mass. In Sec. \[sec:topmass\] we finally discuss in detail the best possible estimate of the top quark pole mass and in particular its ambiguity in the context of three different scenarios for the bottom and charm quark masses. We discuss these three scenarios separately because the pole mass concept, strictly speaking, depends on the setup for the lighter quark masses, and we also discuss our results in the context of adopting the view that the top quark pole mass is a general concept. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\] we conclude. In App. \[app:Delta\] we provide explicit results for the virtual quark mass corrections at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ in our notation, using the results from Ref. [@Bekavac:2007tk], and we complete them concerning the corrections coming from the insertion of two quark loops involving quarks with two arbitrary masses.
Preliminaries and Notation {#sec:prelim}
==========================
MS-bar Mass {#sec:MSbarmass}
-----------
The perturbative series of the difference between the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass ${\overline{m}}_Q(\mu)$ at the scale $\mu={\overline{m}}_Q({\overline{m}}_Q)$ and the pole mass ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_Q$ of a heavy quark $Q$ is the basic relation from which we start our analysis of the renormalon ambiguity of the pole mass. To be more specific we consider $$\begin{aligned}
\label{msbardefine}
{\overline{m}}_Q \equiv {\overline{m}}_Q^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q^{({n_Q}+1)})\,,\end{aligned}$$ which is the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass defined for $({n_Q}+1)$ active dynamical flavors, where $$\begin{aligned}
{n_Q}\, \equiv \,\mbox{number of flavors lighter than quark $Q$}\,.\end{aligned}$$ [*In this work we use these two definitions for all massive quarks, and depending on the context we also use the lower case letter $q$ for massive quarks.*]{} We also define $$\begin{aligned}
{n_{\ell}}\, \equiv \,\mbox{number of flavors lighter than $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which we strictly treat in the massless approximation.
Assuming that $q_1,\dots,q_n$ are the massive quarks lighter than $Q$ [*in the order of decreasing mass*]{} (i.e. $m_Q > m_{q_1} > \ldots > m_{q_n}> {\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}$ with $n < n_Q$ and ${n_{\ell}}={n_Q}-n$), the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation for the heavy quark $Q$ can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mpoleMSbar}
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_Q &= {\overline{m}}_Q + {\overline{m}}_Q\,\sum_{n=1}^\infty\,a_n({n_Q}+1,0)\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^n \\[2mm]
&+{\overline{m}}_Q\left[{\overline{\delta}}_Q^{(Q,q_1,\dots,q_n)}(1,r_{q_1Q},\dots,r_{q_nQ}) + {\overline{\delta}}_Q^{(q_1,\dots,q_n)}(r_{q_1Q},\dots,r_{q_nQ}) + \dots + {\overline{\delta}}_Q^{(q_n)}(r_{q_nQ})\right]\nonumber\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:coeffanmsbar}
a_1({n_Q},n_h) &= {\textstyle \frac{16}{3}}\,,\\
a_2({n_Q},n_h) &= 213.437 + 1.65707\, n_h - 16.6619\, {n_Q}\,,\nonumber\\
a_3({n_Q},n_h) &= 12075. + 118.986\, n_h + 4.10115\, n_h^2 - 1707.35\, {n_Q}+ 1.42358\, n_h\, {n_Q}+ 41.7722\, {n_Q}^2\,,\nonumber\\
a_4({n_Q},n_h) &= (911588.\pm 417.) + (1781.61\pm 30.72)\,n_h - (60.1637\pm 0.6912)\,n_h^2 \nonumber\\ &\quad- (231.201\pm 0.102)\,n_h\,{n_Q}- (190683.\pm10.)\,{n_Q}+ 9.25995\,n_h^2\,{n_Q}\nonumber\\&\quad + 6.35819\,n_h^3 + 4.40363\,n_h\,{n_Q}^2 + 11105.\,{n_Q}^2 -
173.604\,{n_Q}^3\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_s^{({n_Q}+1)}$ is the strong coupling that evolves with $({n_Q}+1)$ active dynamical flavors, see Eq. .
The coefficients $a_n({n_Q},n_h)$ encode the QCD corrections to ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_Q - {\overline{m}}_Q$ for the case that the ${n_Q}$ quarks lighter than $Q$ are assumed to be massless, and $n_h=1$ is just an identifier for the corrections coming from virtual loops of the quark $Q$. The coefficients $a_{1,2,3}$ are known analytically from Refs. [@Tarrach:1980up; @Gray:1990yh; @Chetyrkin:1999ys; @Chetyrkin:1999qi; @Melnikov:2000qh; @Marquard:2007uj], and $a_4$ was determined numerically in Refs. [@Marquard:2015qpa; @Marquard:2016dcn], where the quoted numerical uncertainties have been taken from Ref. [@Marquard:2016dcn]. In Ref. [@Kataev:2015gvt] an approach was suggested to further reduce the uncertainties of the ${n_Q}$-dependent terms. The numerical uncertainties of the coefficient $a_4$ are, however, tiny and irrelevant for the analysis carried out in this work. We quote them just for completeness throughout this work.
The terms ${\overline{\delta}}_Q^{(q,q^\prime,\dots)}(r_{qQ},r_{q^\prime Q},\dots)$ contain the mass corrections coming from the quark $Q$ on-shell self-energy Feynman diagrams with insertions of virtual massive quark loops. We remind the reader that the quarks with mass below the hadronization scale are taken as massless and do not contribute. The superscript $(q,q^\prime,\dots)$ indicates that [*each diagram contains at least one insertion of the massive quark $q$*]{} and in addition all possible insertions of the (lighter) massive quarks $q^\prime,\dots$ as well as of massless quark and gluonic loops. From each diagram the corresponding diagram with all the quark loops in the massless limit is subtracted in the scheme compatible with the flavor number scheme for the strong coupling $\alpha_s$. The fraction $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rdefine}
r_{qq^\prime} \,\equiv \,\frac{{\overline{m}}_q}{{\overline{m}}_{q^\prime}} \,,\end{aligned}$$ stands for the ratio of ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ masses for massive quarks $q$ and $q^\prime$ as defined in Eq. . In the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation for the heavy quark $Q$ only mass ratios with respect to the heavy quark mass ${\overline{m}}_Q$ arise. By construction, the sum of all virtual quark mass corrections contained in the functions ${\overline{\delta}}_Q^{(q,q^\prime,\dots)}(r_{qQ},r_{q^\prime Q},\dots)$ are RG-invariant and do not contain effects from quarks heavier than the external quark $Q$. The effects on the mass of the quark $Q$ related to quarks heavier than $Q$ are accounted for in the renormalization group evolution of the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass ${\overline{m}}_Q(\mu)$ for scales $\mu>m_Q$ and are not considered here. The virtual quark mass corrections satisfy the following two relations to all orders of perturbation theory $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline{\delta}}_Q^{(q_1,q_2,\dots,q_n)}(0,0,\dots,0) &= 0 \, ,\label{eqn:Delta1}\\
{\overline{\delta}}_Q^{(Q,q_1,\dots,q_n)}(1,0,\dots,0) &= \sum_{n=2}^\infty\,\left[\,a_n({n_Q},1) - a_n({n_Q}+1,0)\,\right]\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^n \label{eqn:Delta2} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Due to Eq. the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation of Eq. can be rewritten in the alternative form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mpoleMSbarv2}
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_Q &= {\overline{m}}_Q + {\overline{m}}_Q\,\sum_{n=1}^\infty\,a_n({n_Q},1)\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^n \nonumber\\
&\qquad+{\overline{m}}_Q\left[{\overline{\delta}}_Q^{(Q,q_1,\dots,q_n)}(1,r_{q_1Q},\dots,r_{q_nQ}) - {\overline{\delta}}_Q^{(Q,q_1,\dots,q_n)}(1,0,\dots,0) \right.\\[2mm]
&\hspace{2.5cm}\left.+\; {\overline{\delta}}_Q^{(q_1,\dots,q_n)}(r_{q_1Q},\dots,r_{q_nQ}) + \dots + {\overline{\delta}}_Q^{(q_n)}(r_{q_nQ})\right]\nonumber\,.\end{aligned}$$ In the limit that all quarks lighter than $Q$ are massless, all ${\overline{\delta}}$ terms cancel or vanish in Eq. , and only the first line involving the $a_n$ coefficients remains.
The perturbative expansion of the virtual quark mass corrections in the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation of Eq. and can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Deltadef}
{\overline{\delta}}_Q^{(q,q^\prime,\dots)}(r_{qQ},r_{q^\prime Q},\dots) &=
\delta_2(r_{qQ})\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^2\, \nonumber\\ &\qquad+\, \sum_{n=3}^\infty\,\delta_{Q,n}^{(q,q^\prime,\dots)}(r_{qQ},r_{q^\prime Q},\dots)\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^n\,,\end{aligned}$$ which together with Eq. implies that $$\begin{aligned}
& \delta_2(1) = a_2({n_Q},1) - a_2({n_Q}+1,0)= 18.3189 \,, \nonumber\\
& \delta_{Q,n}^{(Q,q,q^\prime,\dots)}(1,0,0,\dots) = a_n({n_Q},1) - a_n({n_Q}+1,0)\,.
\label{eqn:Delta2an}\end{aligned}$$ The ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ correction comes from the on-shell self energy diagram of quark $Q$ with the insertion of a loop of the massive quark $q$. The result was determined analytically in Ref. [@Gray:1990yh]. At ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$, in Ref. [@Bekavac:2007tk], the virtual quark mass corrections were determined in a semi-analytic form for arbitrary quark masses for insertions of loops of the quark $Q$ and one other massive quark $q$. The expressions for these virtual quark mass corrections are for convenience collected in App. \[app:Delta\] after adapting the results of Ref. [@Bekavac:2007tk] to our notation. We also provide the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ result for insertions of loops with two arbitrary massive quarks, which were not given in Ref. [@Bekavac:2007tk]. The ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ virtual quark mass corrections have not been determined through an explicit loop calculation.
One can interpret the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass ${\overline{m}}_Q= {\overline{m}}_Q^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q^{({n_Q}+1)})$ as the pole mass [*minus*]{} all self-energy corrections coming from scales [*at and below ${\overline{m}}_Q$*]{}. So ${\overline{m}}_Q$ only contains mass contributions from momentum fluctuations from above ${\overline{m}}_Q$, which illustrates that it is a short-distance mass that is strictly insensitive to issues related to low momentum fluctuations at the hadronization scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. See Fig. \[fig:massschemes\] for illustration.
![Graphical illustration of the physical contributions contained in the pole, MSR and ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass schemes coming from the different momentum scales for the case of the top quark. The quark loops stand for the contributions of the virtual massive quark loops contained in the masses. \[fig:massschemes\] ](figs/schematic_a.pdf)
MSR Mass and R-Evolution {#sec:MSRmass}
------------------------
In order to integrate out high momentum contributions and formulate the renormalization group flow of momentum contributions in the heavy quark masses we use the MSR mass ${m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R)$ introduced in Ref. [@Hoang:2017suc][^2], extending its definition to account for the mass effects of the lighter massive quarks.
The MSR mass for the heavy quark $Q$ is derived from on-shell self-energy diagrams just like the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation of Eq. , but it does not include any diagrams involving virtual loops of the heavy quark $Q$, i.e. the contributions from heavy quark $Q$ virtual loops are integrated out. Like the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass, the MSR mass is a short-distance mass, and since the corrections from the heavy quark $Q$ are short-distance effects, its relation to the pole mass fully contains the pole mass ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ renormalon (just as the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation of Eqs. and ). Furthermore the MSR mass depends on the arbitrary scale $R\lesssim m_Q$ to describe contributions in the mass from the momenta below the scale $m_Q$, and therefore represents the natural extension of the concept of the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass for scales below $m_Q$.
Assuming that $q_1,\dots,q_n$ are the massive quarks lighter than $Q$ in the order of decreasing mass (i.e. $m_Q > m_{q_1} > \ldots > m_{q_n}> {\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}$ with $n < n_Q$ and ${n_{\ell}}={n_Q}-n$), the MSR mass ${m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R)$ is *defined* by the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mpoleMSR}
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_Q &= {m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R) + R\,\sum_{n=1}^\infty\,a_n({n_Q},0)\left(\frac{\alpha^{({n_Q})}_s(R)}{4\pi}\right)^n \nonumber\\
&\qquad+ {\overline{m}}_Q\,\left[\delta_Q^{(q_1,\dots,q_n)}(r_{q_1Q},\dots,r_{q_nQ}) + \dots + \delta_Q^{(q_n)}(r_{q_nQ})\right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients $a_n$ are given in Eqs. and the perturbative expansion is in powers of the strong coupling in the $n_Q$-flavor scheme since the quark $Q$ is integrated out. The $R$-dependence of the strong coupling entails that the scale $R$ has to be chosen sufficiently larger than $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ to stay away from the Landau pole. The definition generalizes the one already provided in Ref. [@Hoang:2017suc], which only considered ${n_Q}$ massless quarks.
The notation used for the virtual quark mass corrections involving the functions $\delta_{Q}^{(q,q^\prime,\dots)}(r_{qQ},r_{q^\prime Q},\dots)$ is the same as the one for the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass described above, and their sum is by construction RG-invariant. Their perturbative expansion has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Deltadef2}
\delta_Q^{(q,q^\prime,\dots)}(r_{qQ},r_{q^\prime Q},\dots) &=
\delta_2(r_{qQ})\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^2 \nonumber\\ &\qquad+ \sum_{n=3}^\infty\,\delta_{Q,n}^{(q,q^\prime,\dots)}(r_{qQ},r_{q^\prime Q},\dots)\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^n\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficient functions $\delta_{Q,n}^{(q,q^\prime,\dots)}(r_{qQ},r_{q^\prime Q},\dots)$ are identical to the ones appearing in Eq. .
In our definition of the MSR mass, the virtual quark mass corrections are independent of $R$. This entails that the renormalization group evolution of the MSR mass in $R$ does not depend on the masses of the $n_Q$ lighter quarks. So ${m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R)$ is defined in close analogy to the $\mu$-dependent ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ strong coupling and the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ masses, whose renormalization group evolution only depends on the number of active dynamical quarks (which is typically the number of quarks lighter than $\mu$) and where mass effects are implemented by threshold corrections when $\mu$ crosses a flavor threshold. Moreover, because the ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity of the series proportional to $R$ is independent of $R$ and because the corrections from the virtual loops of the heavy quark $Q$ are short-distance effects, the series of the pole-MSR mass relation in Eq. suffers from the same ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity as the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation of Eqs. and . It can therefore also be used to study and quantify the ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon of the pole mass $m_Q^{\rm pole}$.
As explained below Eq. , in order to expand the difference of MSR masses at two scales $R$ and $R^\prime$ in the fixed-order expansion in powers of $\alpha_s^{({n_Q})}$ it is necessary to do that at a common renormalization scale $\mu$ so that the renormalon in the $R$-dependent corrections of Eq. cancels order by order. This unavoidably leads to large logarithms if the scale separation is large, similarly to when considering the fixed-order expansion of the difference of the strong coupling at widely separated scales. To sum the logarithms in the difference of MSR masses we use its RG-evolution equation in $R$, which reads $$\label{eqn:revolvdef}
R\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}R}m_Q^{{\mathrm{MSR}}}(R)=-\,R\,\gamma^{R,(n_Q)}(\alpha^{({n_Q})}_s(R))
=-\,R\sum_{n=0}^\infty\gamma_n^{R,(n_Q)}\bigg(\frac{\alpha^{({n_Q})}_s(R)}{4\pi}\bigg)^{\!\!n+1}\;,$$ where the coefficients are known up to four loops and given by [@Hoang:2008yj; @Hoang:2017suc] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:gammadef}
\gamma_0^{R,(n_Q)} & = {\textstyle \frac{16}{3}}\,,\\
\gamma_1^{R,(n_Q)} & = 96.1039 - 9.55076\, {n_Q}\,,\nonumber\\
\gamma_2^{R,(n_Q)} & = 1595.75 - 269.953\, {n_Q}- 2.65945\, {n_Q}^2\,,\nonumber\\
\gamma_3^{R,(n_Q)} & = (12319.\pm417.) - (9103.\pm10.)\, {n_Q}+ 610.264\, {n_Q}^2 - 6.515\, {n_Q}^3\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The difference of MSR masses at two scales $R^\prime$ and $R$ can then be computed from solving the evolution equation $$\label{eqn:rrge}
\Delta m^{(n_Q)}(R,R^\prime) = {m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R^\prime) - {m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \,\gamma_n^{R,(n_Q)} \int_{R^\prime}^R {\mathrm{d}}R\,\left(\frac{\alpha^{({n_Q})}_s(R)}{4\pi}\right)^{n+1}\,,$$ which accounts for the RG-evolution in the presence of ${n_Q}$ active dynamical quark flavors.
The RG-equation of the MSR mass has a linear as well as logarithmic dependence on $R$ and thus differs from the usual logarithmic RG-equations for $\alpha_s$ and the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass. Since its linear dependence on $R$ allows to systematically probe linear sensitivity to small momenta it can be used to systematically study the ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon behavior of perturbative series [@Hoang:2008yj; @Hoang:2017suc]. Since this is impossible for usual logarithmic RG-evolution equations, Eq. was called the [*R-evolution equation*]{} in Refs. [@Hoang:2008yj; @Hoang:2017suc]. Continuing on the thoughts made at the end of Sec. \[sec:MSbarmass\] we note that one can interpret the MSR mass ${m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R)$ as the pole mass [*minus*]{} all self-energy contributions coming from scales [*below*]{} $R$ and all virtual quark mass corrections from quarks lighter than $Q$, see Fig. \[fig:massschemes\]. This also illustrates that the MSR mass ${m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R)$ is a short-distance mass. The negative overall sign on the RHS of Eq. expresses that self-energy contributions are added to the MSR mass when $R$ is evolved to smaller scales, and that $\Delta m^{(n_Q)}(R,R^\prime)$ for $R>R^\prime$ is positive and represents the self-energy contributions to the mass in the presence of $n_Q$ active dynamical flavors coming from the scales between $R^\prime$ and $R$. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:matchrun\].
![Graphical illustration for pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass differences, the MSR-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass matching corrections and MSR mass differences for different $R$ scales. They constitute the major contributions in the RG analysis of the heavy quark pole masses. \[fig:matchrun\] ](figs/schematic_b.pdf)
In the context of the analyses in this work the essential property is that the ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity in the series on the RHS of Eq. is $R$-independent. This entails that the R-evolution equation is free of the ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon, and solving the R-evolution equation in Eq. allows to relate MSR masses at different scales in a way that is renormalon free and, in addition, systematically sums logarithms $\ln(R/R^\prime)$ to all orders in a way free of the ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon. So the R-evolution equation resolves the problem of the large logarithms that arise when computing MSR mass differences in the fixed-order expansion. The integral of Eq. can be readily computed numerically, and an analytic solution has been discussed in detail in [@Hoang:2017suc]. The analytic solution also allows to derive the large-order asymptotic form of the perturbative coefficients $a_n$. To implement renormalization scale variation in Eq. one expands $\alpha_s^{({n_Q})}(R)$ as a series in $\alpha_s^{({n_Q})}(\lambda R)$, and by varying $\lambda$ in some interval around unity. We note that in our analysis we consider the top, bottom and charm mass scales, and using the R-evolution equation is instrumental for our discussion of the top quark pole mass.
In Tab. \[tab:DeltaMRRprime\] we show numerical results for various MSR mass differences $\Delta m^{(n_Q)}$ relevant in our examinations below for ${n_Q}=3,4,5$. We display the results obtained from using the R-evolution equation at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^n)$ for $n=1,2,3,4$. The uncertainties are from $\lambda$ variations in the interval $[0.5,2]$ for the cases where scales above the charm mass scale $1.3$ GeV are considered, and in the interval $[0.6,2.5]$ for cases which involve the charm mass scale. We see an excellent convergence and stability of the results and a significant reduction of scale variation with the order, illustrating that the mass differences $\Delta m^{(n_Q)}(R,R^\prime)$ are free of an ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ renormalon ambiguity. For our analyses below we use the most precise ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ results shown in the respective lowest lines.
[|A|B|B|B|]{} ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^n)$ & $\Delta m^{(5)}(163,20)$ & $\Delta m^{(5)}(163,4.2)$ & $\Delta m^{(5)}(163,1.3)$\
$n=1$ & $7.358 \pm 0.811$ & $8.536 \pm 1.008$ & $8.864 \pm 1.047$\
$n=2$ & $8.007 \pm 0.168$ & $9.336 \pm 0.225$ & $9.728 \pm 0.311$\
$n=3$ & $8.031 \pm 0.024$ & $9.368 \pm 0.035$ & $9.764 \pm 0.066$\
$n=4$ & $8.006 \pm 0.009$ & $9.331 \pm 0.016$ & $9.716 \pm 0.023$\
${\cal O}(\alpha_s^n)$ & $\Delta m^{(4)}(163,4.2)$ & $\Delta m^{(4)}(20,4.2)$ & $\Delta m^{(4)}(4.2,1.3)$\
$n=1$ & $8.181 \pm 1.026$ & $1.153 \pm 0.211$ & $0.337 \pm 0.098$\
$n=2$ & $9.064 \pm 0.270$ & $1.326 \pm 0.073$ & $0.419 \pm 0.063$\
$n=3$ & $9.139 \pm 0.054$ & $1.346 \pm 0.018$ & $0.434 \pm 0.026$\
$n=4$ & $9.114 \pm 0.014$ & $1.337 \pm 0.007$ & $0.423 \pm 0.017$\
${\cal O}(\alpha_s^n)$ & $\Delta m^{(3)}(163,1.3)$ & $\Delta m^{(3)}(20,1.3)$ & $\Delta m^{(3)}(4.2,1.3)$\
$n=1$ & $8.009 \pm 1.044$ & $1.419 \pm 0.296$ & $0.328 \pm 0.106$\
$n=2$ & $9.008 \pm 0.404$ & $1.691 \pm 0.166$ & $0.418 \pm 0.078$\
$n=3$ & $9.130 \pm 0.126$ & $1.741 \pm 0.067$ & $0.440 \pm 0.037$\
$n=4$ & $9.111 \pm 0.032$ & $1.729 \pm 0.023$ & $0.434 \pm 0.020$\
Asymptotic High Order Behavior and Borel Transform for Massless Lighter Quarks {#sec:asym}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we review a number of known results relevant for the analyses in the subsequent parts of the paper. The results are already known since Refs. [@Bigi:1994em; @Beneke:1994sw; @Beneke:1998ui]. We adapt them according to our notation and present updated numerical results accounting for the recent perturbative calculations of the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation and the QCD $\beta$-function.
The Borel transform of an $\alpha_s$ power series $$f(\alpha_s(R)) =
R\,\sum_{n=0}^\infty\,a_{n+1}\left(\frac{\alpha_s(R)}{4\pi}\right)^{n+1}\,,$$ is defined as $$\label{eqn:borel1}
B[f](u) = R\,\sum_{n=0}^\infty\,a_{n+1} \,\frac{u^n}{n!\, \beta_0^{n+1}} \,,$$ where $\beta_0$ is the one-loop $\beta$-function coefficient in the flavor number scheme of $\alpha_s$. For the approximation that all quarks lighter than the heavy quark $Q$ are massless (i.e. ${n_{\ell}}={n_Q}$) the Borel transform of the series for the pole-MSR mass reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:borel2}
B&\left[{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_Q-{m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R)\right](u) \,= \nonumber\\
&\qquad N_{1/2}^{({n_{\ell}})} \;R\,\frac{4\pi}{{\beta_0^{({n_{\ell}})}}}\,\sum_{k=0}^\infty\,g_k^{({n_{\ell}})}\frac{\Gamma(1+\hat{b}_1^{({n_{\ell}})}-k)}{\Gamma(1+\hat{b}_1^{({n_{\ell}})})}\,(1-2\,u)^{-1-\hat{b}_1^{({n_{\ell}})}+k} + \dots \,,\end{aligned}$$ where the non-analytic (and singular) terms multiplied by the normalization factor $N_{1/2}^{({n_{\ell}})}$ single out the ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon behavior of the pole-MSR mass series and the ellipses stand for contributions not affected by an ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon. Their form is unambiguously determined by the coefficients $\beta_n^{({n_{\ell}})}$ of the QCD $\beta$-function in Eq. , and the sum over $k$ parametrizes the subleading effects due to the higher order coefficients of the QCD $\beta$-function. The coefficients $g^{({n_{\ell}})}_k$ can be determined from the recursion formulae [@Hoang:2017suc] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat b_{n+1} &= 2\sum_{i\,=\,0}^n\, \frac{\hat b_{n-i}\,\beta_{i+1}}{(-2\beta_0)^{i+2}}\,,\nonumber \\
g_{n+1} &= \frac{1}{1+n}\sum_{i=0}^n\,(-1)^i\,\hat b_{i+2}\,g_{n-i}\end{aligned}$$ with $\hat b_{0}=g_0=1$, where we dropped the superscript $({n_{\ell}})$ for simplicity. Currently, coefficients $g^{({n_{\ell}})}_k$ are known up to $k=3$. The factor $N_{1/2}^{({n_{\ell}})}$ precisely quantifies the overall normalization of the ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon behavior and can be determined quite precisely from the coefficients $a_n({n_{\ell}},0)$ known from explicit computations. Accounting for the coefficients up to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ the normalization was determined with very small errors for the relevant flavor numbers ${n_{\ell}}= 3,4,5$ in Refs. [@Ayala:2014yxa; @Beneke:2016cbu; @Hoang:2017suc], all of which are in agreement. We use the results from Ref. [@Hoang:2017suc]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:N12msr}
N_{1/2}^{({n_{\ell}}=3)} = 0.526\pm0.012 \,,\nonumber\\
N_{1/2}^{({n_{\ell}}=4)} = 0.492\pm0.016 \,,\\
N_{1/2}^{({n_{\ell}}=5)} = 0.446\pm0.024 \,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The uncertainties are not essential for the outcome of our analysis and quoted for completeness. Their small size reflects that the large-order asymptotic behavior of the series is known very precisely.
The inverse Borel transform $$\int_0^\infty\mathrm du\, B[f](u)\;\mathrm e^{-\frac{4\pi u}{\beta_0\alpha_s(R)}}\, ,$$ has the same $\alpha_s$ power series as the original series $f(\alpha_s(R))$ and provides the exact result if it can be calculated unambiguously from the Borel transform $B[f](u)$. However, for the case of Eq. , due to the singularity at $u=1/2$ and the cut along the positive real axis for $u>1/2$, the integral cannot be computed without further prescription and an ambiguity remains. Using an $i\epsilon$ prescription $(1-2u)^\alpha\to(1-2u-i\epsilon)^\alpha$ to shift the cut to the lower complex half plane, the resulting imaginary part of the integral is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:borelambiguity}
\Delta m_\mathrm{Borel}^{({n_{\ell}})}&\equiv \left|\mathrm{Im}\int_0^\infty\mathrm du\,\exp\left(-\frac{4\pi u}{\beta_0^{({n_{\ell}})}\alpha_s^{({n_{\ell}})}(R)}\right) \right . \nonumber\\ & \hspace{2.3cm}\left . \times \left[N_{1/2}^{({n_{\ell}})}\, R\, \frac{4\pi}{\beta_0^{({n_{\ell}})}}\sum_{k=0}^\infty g_k^{({n_{\ell}})}\frac{\Gamma(1+\hat b_1^{({n_{\ell}})}-k)}{\Gamma(1+\hat b_1^{({n_{\ell}})})}\,(1-2u)^{-1-\hat b_1^{({n_{\ell}})}+k}\right] \right|\nonumber\\
&=N_{1/2}^{({n_{\ell}})}\,\frac{2\pi^2}{\beta_0^{({n_{\ell}})}\Gamma(1+\hat b_1^{({n_{\ell}})})}\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}^{({n_{\ell}})}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and represents a quantification of the ambiguity of the pole mass, where $\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}^{({n_{\ell}})}$ is given by the expression ($t_R=-2\pi/\beta_0^{({n_{\ell}})}\alpha_s^{({n_{\ell}})}(R)$) $$\label{eqn:lambda}
\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}^{({n_{\ell}})}=R\,\exp\left(t_R+\hat b_1^{({n_{\ell}})}\log(-t_R)-\sum_{k=2}^\infty\frac{\hat b_k^{({n_{\ell}})}}{(k-1)t_R^{k-1}}\right).$$ In this work we use this expression as the definition of $\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}$ for ${n_{\ell}}$ massless flavors. The RHS is $R$-independent, and truncating at $k=4$ provides the results $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{({n_{\ell}}=3)}&=253\text{ MeV}\,,\nonumber \\
\label{eqn:lambdanum}
\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{({n_{\ell}}=4)}&=225\text{ MeV}\,,\\
\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{({n_{\ell}}=5)}&=166\text{ MeV}\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with uncertainties below $0.5$ MeV. $\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}^{({n_{\ell}})}$ increases for smaller flavor numbers ${n_{\ell}}$ since the scale-dependence of $\alpha_s$, and thus also the infrared sensitivity of QCD quantities, increases with ${n_{\ell}}$. The expressions for $\Delta m_\mathrm{Borel}^{({n_{\ell}})}$ for the size of the imaginary part of the inverse Borel transform in Eq. provide a parametric estimate for the ambiguity of the pole mass. Using Eqs. and they give $ \Delta m_\mathrm{Borel}^{(3,4,5)}=(329\pm 8,295\pm 10,213\pm 11)$ MeV which are around a factor $1.3$ larger than the corresponding values for $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{({n_{\ell}})}$.
From the expression for the Borel transform given in Eq. one can derive the large order asymptotic form of the perturbative coefficients $a_n$ of the pole-MSR mass series (which describe the case that all quarks lighter than $Q$ are massless, i.e. ${n_Q}={n_{\ell}}$): $$\label{eqn:asy1}
a_n^\mathrm{asy}({n_{\ell}},n_h)= a_n^\mathrm{asy}({n_{\ell}},0)=4\pi N_{1/2}^{({n_{\ell}})}(2\beta_0^{({n_{\ell}})})^{n-1}\sum_{k=0}^\infty g_k^{({n_{\ell}})}\frac{\Gamma(n+\hat b_1^{({n_{\ell}})}-k)}{\Gamma(1+\hat b_1^{({n_{\ell}})})}\,,$$ where the value of $n_h$ is insignificant because the virtual effects of quark $Q$ do not affect the large order asymptotic behavior. The sum in $k$ is convergent, and truncating at $k=3$ one can use the results for $n>4$ as an approximation for the yet uncalculated series coefficients. The results up to $n=12$ for ${n_{\ell}}=3, 4, 5$ using the values for the $N_{1/2}^{({n_{\ell}})}$ from Eq. are displayed in Tab. \[tab:aasy\].
With the normalization factors $N_{1/2}^{({n_{\ell}})}$, which are known to a precision of a few percent and which also entails the same precision for $\Delta m_\mathrm{Borel}^{({n_{\ell}})}$ and the asymptotic coefficients $a_n^{\rm asy}$, the series for the pole-MSR and also for the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation are essentially known to all orders for the case of ${n_{\ell}}={n_Q}$. The task to determine the ambiguity of the pole mass involves to specify how this precisely known pattern limits the principle capability to determine the pole mass numerically, see the discussion in Sec. \[sec:method\]. In other words, the ambiguity of the pole mass is known to be proportional to $\Delta m_\mathrm{Borel}^{({n_{\ell}})}$ or $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{({n_{\ell}})}$, but the factor of proportionality has to be determined from an additional dedicated analysis.
[|A|B|B|B|]{} $n$ & $a^\mathrm{asy}_n({n_{\ell}}=3,0)$ & $a^\mathrm{asy}_n({n_{\ell}}=4,0)$ & $a^\mathrm{asy}_n({n_{\ell}}=5,0)$\
$5$ & $(3.394\pm 0.077)\times 10^{7\phantom{0}}$ & $(2.249\pm 0.075)\times 10^{7\phantom{0}}$ & $(1.379\pm 0.074)\times 10^{7\phantom{0}}$\
$6$ & $(3.309 \pm 0.075)\times 10^{9\phantom{0}}$ & $(2.019 \pm 0.067)\times 10^{9\phantom{0}}$ & $(1.128 \pm 0.060)\times 10^{9\phantom{0}}$\
$7$ & $(3.819 \pm 0.087)\times 10^{11}$ & $(2.147 \pm 0.071)\times 10^{11}$ & $(1.095 \pm 0.059)\times 10^{11}$\
$8$ & $(5.093 \pm 0.115)\times 10^{13}$ & $(2.641 \pm 0.088)\times 10^{13}$ & $(1.231 \pm 0.066)\times 10^{13}$\
$9$ & $(7.706 \pm 0.175)\times 10^{15}$ & $(3.687 \pm 0.123)\times 10^{15}$ & $(1.572 \pm 0.084)\times 10^{15}$\
$10$ & $(1.305 \pm 0.030)\times 10^{18}$ & $(5.762 \pm 0.192)\times 10^{17}$ & $(2.250 \pm 0.120)\times 10^{17}$\
$11$ & $(2.443 \pm 0.055)\times 10^{20}$ & $(9.964 \pm 0.332)\times 10^{19}$ & $(3.563 \pm 0.191)\times 10^{19}$\
$12$ & $(5.014 \pm 0.114)\times 10^{22}$ & $(1.889 \pm 0.063)\times 10^{22}$ & $(6.190 \pm 0.331)\times 10^{21}$\
Integrating Out Hard Modes from the Heavy Quark Pole Mass {#sec:hardmodes}
=========================================================
MSR-MS-bar Mass Matching {#sec:Qintout}
------------------------
Using the MSR mass we can successively separate off, i.e. integrate out, hard momentum contributions from the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass difference, ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_Q - {\overline{m}}_Q$. We start with the matching relation between the MSR and the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ masses at the common scale $\mu=R={\overline{m}}_Q$, which can be obtained by eliminating the pole mass from Eqs. and . The matching relation accounts for the virtual top quark loop contributions and can be written in the form $$\label{eqn:MSRMSbmatch}
{m^{\rm MSR}}_Q({\overline{m}}_Q) - {\overline{m}}_Q = \Delta m_Q^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q) + \delta m_{Q,q_1,\dots,q_n}^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q) \,.$$ The term $\Delta m_Q^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)$ contains the virtual top quark loop contributions in the approximation that all $n_Q$ quarks lighter than quark $Q$ are massless and has the form [@Hoang:2017suc] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:MSRMSbmatch2}
\Delta& m_Q^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q) = \\ &\qquad {\overline{m}}_Q\left\{1.65707\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^2 + [110.05 + 1.424\,{n_Q}]\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^3 \right. \nonumber\\ & \left. \hspace{1.6cm} + \left[352.\pm31. - (111.59\pm0.10)\,{n_Q}+ 4.40\,{n_Q}^2\right]\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^4 + \dots \right\} \,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we expressed the series in powers of the strong coupling in the $({n_Q}+1)$ flavor scheme. The series only contains the hard corrections coming from the virtual heavy quark $Q$ and therefore does not have any ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ ambiguity, see Fig. \[fig:matchrun\] for illustration.
In Tab. \[tab:MSRMSbmatch\] the numerical values for $\Delta m_Q^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)$ are shown at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^{2,3,4})$ for the top, bottom, and charm quarks for (${\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c$) = ($163,4.2,1.3$) GeV. Also shown is the variation due to changes in the renormalization scale in the range $0.5\,{\overline{m}}_Q\leq\mu\leq2\,{\overline{m}}_Q$, for the top and bottom quark and $0.65\,{\overline{m}}_c\leq\mu\leq2.5\,{\overline{m}}_c$ for the charm quark. The ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ corrections are quite sizable compared to the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ contributions, but the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ corrections are small indicating that the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ result and the uncertainty estimate based on the scale variations can be considered reliable. Overall, the matching corrections amount to $32,4$ and $5$ MeV for the top, bottom and charm quarks, respectively with an uncertainty at the level of $1$ to $2$ MeV. The numerical uncertainties of the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ coefficients displayed in Eq. are smaller than $0.1$ MeV for all cases and therefore irrelevant for practical purposes.
[|A|B|B|B|]{} ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^n)$ & $\Delta m_t^{(6\rightarrow 5)} ({\overline{m}}_t)$ & $\Delta m_b^{(5\rightarrow 4)} ({\overline{m}}_b)$ & $\Delta m_c^{(4\rightarrow 3)} ({\overline{m}}_c)$\
$2$ & $ 0.021\pm 0.004$ & $ 0.003 \pm 0.001$ & $0.002 \pm 0.002$\
$3$ & $ 0.033\pm 0.003$ & $ 0.006 \pm 0.002$ & $0.008 \pm 0.005$\
$4$ & $ 0.032\pm 0.001$ & $ 0.004 \pm 0.001$ & $0.005 \pm 0.002$\
The term $\delta m_{Q,q_1,\dots,q_n}^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)$ represents the virtual top quark loop contributions arising from the finite masses of the lighter massive quarks $q_1,\dots,q_n$. Since at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ only the loop of quark $Q$ can be inserted, the series for $\delta m_{Q,q_1,\dots,q_n}^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)$ starts at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$, where only self energy diagrams with one insertion of a loop of quark $Q$ and one insertion of a loop of one of the lighter massive quarks $q_1,\dots,q_n$ can contribute. At ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ $\delta m_{Q,q_1,\dots,q_n}^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)$ has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:MSRMSbmatch3}
\delta &m_{Q,q_1,\dots,q_n}^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q) = {\overline{m}}_Q\,\Bigg\{\bigg[\delta_{Q,3}^{(Q,q_1,\dots,q_n)}(1,r_{q_1 Q},\dots,r_{q_n Q}) \nonumber\\ &\hspace{5.5cm} -\, \delta_{Q,3}^{(Q,q_1,\dots,q_n)}(1,0,\dots,0)\bigg]\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^3 + \dots \Bigg\} \nonumber\\
&\qquad= {\overline{m}}_Q\,\left\{\sum_{i=1}^n\bigg[
14.2222 \,r_{q_i Q}^2
- 18.7157 \,r_{q_i Q}^3 +
\bigg(7.3689
-11.1477 \ln(r_{q_i Q})\bigg)\, r_{q_i Q}^4 \right .\nonumber\\ & \hspace{3cm} + \left . \dots \bigg]\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^3 + \dots \right\} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{q Q} = {\overline{m}}_q/{\overline{m}}_Q$, and for simplicity we suppress the masses of the quarks $q_1,\dots,q_n$ in the argument of $\delta m_{Q,q_1,\dots,q_n}^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}$. Starting at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ the finite quark mass corrections in $\delta m_{Q,q_1,\dots,q_n}^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)$ become also dependent on the flavor threshold corrections relating $\alpha_s^{({n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)$ and $\alpha_s^{({n_Q}+1)}({\overline{m}}_Q)$. In Eq. we have also displayed the first terms of the expansions in the mass ratios $r_{q_i Q}$. They start quadratically in the $r_{q_i Q}$ indicating that the corrections are governed by the scale ${\overline{m}}_Q$ just like the matching term $\Delta m_Q^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)$ and do not have any linear sensitivity to small momenta and the lighter quark masses, in particular. This feature is realized at any order of perturbation theory.
Because the finite mass corrections $\delta m_{Q,q_1,\dots,q_n}^{{n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q}}({\overline{m}}_Q)$ start at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ and are quadratic in the mass ratios $r_{q_i Q}$ they are extremely small and never exceed $0.01$ MeV for the top quark (due to the finite bottom or charm masses) and the bottom quark (due to the finite charm mass). We can expect that this is also exhibited at higher orders, so that $\delta m_{Q,q_1,\dots,q_n}^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)$ can be neglected for all practical purposes and will not be considered and discussed any further in this work.
Top-Bottom and Bottom-Charm Mass Matching {#sec:MSRMSbmatch}
-----------------------------------------
Comparing the pole-${\mathrm{MSR}}$ mass relation for the heavy quark $Q$ to the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation for the next lighter massive quark $q$, one immediately notices that for $R={\overline{m}}_q$ the corrections are identical in the approximation that in the *virtual* quark loops all ${n_Q}$ lighter quarks (i.e. including the quark $q$) are treated as massless. This identity is a consequence of *heavy quark symmetry* which states that the low-energy QCD corrections to the heavy quark masses coming from massless partons are flavor-independent.
For the top MSR and the bottom ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ masses (i.e. for $Q=t$ and $q=b$) the resulting matching relation reads $$\label{eqn:tbmatch}
\left[{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t-{m^{\rm MSR}}_t({\overline{m}}_b)\right] - \left[{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b-{\overline{m}}_b\right] = \delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c) \,,$$ where $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ encodes the heavy quark symmetry breaking corrections coming from the finite virtual charm and bottom quark masses. Their form can be extracted directly from Eqs. and and written in the form ($r_{q q^\prime}={\overline{m}}_q/{\overline{m}}_{q^\prime}$) $$\label{eqn:tbmatch2}
\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c) = {\overline{m}}_t \left[ \delta_t^{(b,c)}(r_{bt},r_{ct}) + \delta_t^{(c)}(r_{ct})\right] - {\overline{m}}_b \left[ \overline{\delta}_b^{(b,c)}(1,r_{cb}) + \bar{\delta}_b^{(c)}(r_{cb})\right] \,,$$ where the first term on the RHS (multiplied by ${\overline{m}}_t$) represents the virtual bottom and charm mass effects from the top quark self energy and the second term (multiplied by ${\overline{m}}_b$) represents the virtual bottom and charm mass effects from the bottom quark self energy. Their explicit form up to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:tbmatcht}
{\overline{m}}_t & \left[\delta_t^{(b,c)}(r_{bt}, r_{ct}) + \, \delta_t^{(c)}(r_{ct})\right] = {\overline{m}}_t \left[\,\delta_2(r_{bt}) + \delta_2(r_{ct}) \,\right] \left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(5)}(\mu)}{4\pi}\right)^2 \\\nonumber
&+ {\overline{m}}_t \left[\,\delta_{t,3}^{(b,c)}(r_{bt},r_{ct}) + \delta_{t,3}^{(c)}(r_{ct}) + 4 \beta_0^{(5)} \ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_t}\right)\left[\,\delta_2(r_{bt}) + \delta_2(r_{ct})\right] \right] \left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(5)}(\mu)}{4\pi}\right)^3 + \dots \,,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:tbmatchb}
{\overline{m}}_b & \left[\overline{\delta}_b^{(b,c)}(1, r_{cb}) + \, \overline{\delta}_b^{(c)}(r_{cb})\right] = {\overline{m}}_b \left[\,\delta_2(1) + \delta_2(r_{cb}) \,\right] \left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(5)}(\mu)}{4\pi}\right)^2 \\\nonumber
&+ {\overline{m}}_b \left[\,\delta_{b,3}^{(b,c)}(1,r_{cb}) + \delta_{b,3}^{(c)}(r_{cb}) + 4 \beta_0^{(5)} \ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_b}\right)\left[\,\delta_2(1) + \delta_2(r_{cb})\right] \right] \left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(5)}(\mu)}{4\pi}\right)^3 + \dots \,.\end{aligned}$$ It is important that the quark mass corrections in are expressed coherently in powers of $\alpha_s$ at the common scale $\mu$ because the individual $\delta_n$ terms carry contributions that modify the infrared sensitivity and therefore each contain ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguities. In Eq. these renormalon ambiguities mutually cancel. We also note that $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ also depends on the top quark mass ${\overline{m}}_t$. We have suppressed ${\overline{m}}_t$ in the argument since $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ encodes symmetry breaking corrections due to the finite bottom and charm quark masses.
For the bottom MSR and the charm ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ masses the corresponding matching relation reads $$\label{eqn:bcmatch}
\left[{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b - {m^{\rm MSR}}_b({\overline{m}}_c)\right] - \left[{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c - {\overline{m}}_c\right] = \delta m_c^{(b\rightarrow c)}({\overline{m}}_c) \;,$$ with $$\label{eqn:bcmatch2}
\delta m_c^{(b\rightarrow c)} ({\overline{m}}_c) = {\overline{m}}_b \delta_b^{(c)}(r_{cb}) - {\overline{m}}_c \overline{\delta}_c^{(c)}(1) \,,$$ where the first term on the RHS (multiplied by ${\overline{m}}_b$) represents the virtual charm mass effects from the bottom quark self energy and the second term (multiplied by ${\overline{m}}_c$) represent the virtual charm mass effects from the charm quark self energy. Their explicit form up to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:bcmatchb}
{\overline{m}}_b\,\delta_b^{(c)}(r_{cb}) &= {\overline{m}}_b \,\delta_2(r_{cb}) \left( \frac{\alpha_s^{(4)}(\mu)}{4\pi}\right)^2 \nonumber\\ &\qquad + {\overline{m}}_b \left[ \delta_{b,3}^{(c)}(r_{cb}) + 4\beta_0^{(4)} \delta_2(r_{cb})\ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_b}\right)\right]\left( \frac{\alpha_s^{(4)}(\mu)}{4\pi}\right)^3 + \dots \,,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:bcmatchc}
{\overline{m}}_c\,\overline{\delta}_c^{(c)}(1) &= {\overline{m}}_c \,\delta_2(1) \left( \frac{\alpha_s^{(4)}(\mu)}{4\pi}\right)^2 \nonumber\\ &\qquad+ {\overline{m}}_c \left[ \delta_{c,3}^{(c)}(1) + 4\beta_0^{(4)} \delta_2(1)\ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_c}\right)\right]\left( \frac{\alpha_s^{(4)}(\mu)}{4\pi}\right)^3 + \dots \,,\end{aligned}$$ where again we expanded both terms consistently for a common renormalization scale $\mu$ in the strong coupling.
[|A|B|B|B|]{} ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^n)$ & $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)} ({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ & $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)} ({\overline{m}}_b,0)$ & $\delta m_{c}^{(b\rightarrow c)} ({\overline{m}}_c)$\
$2$ & $ 0.007\pm 0.004$ & $ 0.006 \pm 0.004$ & $0.004 \pm 0.002$\
$3$ & $ 0.006\pm 0.001$ & $ 0.005 \pm 0.001$ & $0.004 \pm 0.001$\
In Fig. \[fig:HQbreakinga\] the top-MSR bottom-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass matching correction $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ of Eq. is displayed as a function of the renormalization scale $\mu$ at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ (red dashed line) and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ (red solid line) for (${\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c$) = ($163,4.2,1.3$) GeV. The matching correction at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ amounts to $6$ MeV and has a scale variation of only $1$ MeV for ${\overline{m}}_b\leq\mu\leq{\overline{m}}_t$. Compared to the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ result we see a strong reduction of the scale-dependence at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$. The final numerical results at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ are shown in the second column of Tab. \[tab:HQbreaking\] where the uncertainties are obtained from variations of the renormalization scale in the range ${\overline{m}}_b\leq\mu\leq{\overline{m}}_t$ and the central values are the respective mean of the largest and smallest values obtained in the scale variation. The corresponding results for a vanishing charm quark mass are shown in Fig. \[fig:HQbreakingb\] and the third column of Tab. \[tab:HQbreaking\]. We see that the charm mass effects in the top-MSR bottom-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass matching correction $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)} ({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ are only around $1$ MeV, and the stability for ${\overline{m}}_c\rightarrow 0$ shows that the matching correction is governed by scales of order ${\overline{m}}_b$ and higher, which reconfirms the range ${\overline{m}}_b\leq\mu\leq{\overline{m}}_t$ for the variation of the renormalization scale.
In Fig. \[fig:HQbreakingc\] the bottom-MSR charm-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass matching correction $\delta m_{c}^{(b\rightarrow c)}({\overline{m}}_c)$ of Eq. is displayed as a function of the renormalization scale $\mu$ for ${\overline{m}}_b=4.2$ GeV and ${\overline{m}}_c=1.3$ GeV at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ using the same color coding and curve styles as for Figs. \[fig:HQbreakinga\] and \[fig:HQbreakingb\]. In the fourth column of Tab. \[tab:HQbreaking\] the final numerical results at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ are shown using ${\overline{m}}_c\leq\mu\leq{\overline{m}}_b$ for the renormalization scale variation. The stability and convergence is again excellent, and at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ the matching correction amounts to $4$ MeV with an uncertainty of $1$ MeV.
Given that the heavy quark symmetry breaking matching corrections $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ and $\delta m_{c}^{(b\rightarrow c)}({\overline{m}}_c)$ amount to only $4$ to $6$ MeV, we note that they may be simply neglected in practical applications where they yield contributions that are much smaller than other sources of uncertainties. In fact, this also applies to our subsequent studies of the top, bottom and charm quark pole masses. However, we include them here for completeness. Due to their small size, we have not explicitly included the heavy quark symmetry breaking matching corrections in the graphical illustration of Fig. \[fig:matchrun\].
Light Virtual Quark Mass Corrections at 4-Loop Order and Beyond {#sec:lightvirtual}
---------------------------------------------------------------
The excellent perturbative convergence of the top-MSR bottom-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass matching correction $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)} ({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ and of the bottom-MSR charm-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass matching correction $\delta m_{c}^{(b\rightarrow c)} ({\overline{m}}_c)$ discussed in the previous section illustrates that they both are short-distance quantities and free of an ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity. This is also expected theoretically due to heavy quark symmetry. However, the facts that the overall size of the matching corrections only amounts to a few MeV, and that the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ corrections are only around $1$ MeV allows us to draw interesting conceptual implications for the large order asymptotic behavior of the virtual quark mass corrections in the mass relations of Eqs. , and . We discuss these implications in the following. As a consequence we can [*predict*]{} the yet uncalculated virtual quark mass corrections at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ to within a few percent without an additional loop calculation and draw important conclusions on their properties for the orders beyond.
To be concrete, we consider the matching correction $\delta m_{q}^{(Q\rightarrow q)} ({\overline{m}}_q)$ between the MSR mass of heavy quark $Q$ and the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass of the next lighter massive quark $q$ assuming the massless approximation for all quarks lighter than quark $q$ i.e. ${n_Q}= n_q+1 = {n_{\ell}}+1$ and $n_\ell=n_q$ being the number of massless quarks. This situation applies to the matching relation for the top-MSR and the bottom ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ masses for a massless charm quark or to the matching relation between the bottom-MSR and the charm-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ masses.
In Fig. \[fig:HQbreakinga\] we have displayed separately the virtual bottom and charm mass effects to the top quark self energy of Eq. (green curves) and the virtual bottom and charm mass effects to the bottom quark self energy of Eq. (blue lines) at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ (dashed) and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ (solid). In Fig. \[fig:HQbreakingb\] the charm quark is treated as massless in the same quantities. In Fig. \[fig:HQbreakingc\] the virtual charm mass effects to the bottom quark self energy of Eq. and the virtual charm mass effects to the charm quark self energy of Eq. are shown at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ with the analogous line styles and colors. We see that both types of contributions each are quite large and furthermore do not at all converge. The ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ corrections are even bigger than the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections, which indicates that the corresponding asymptotic large order behavior already dominates the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ corrections.
The origin of this behavior has been already mentioned and is understood: The mass of the virtual quark $q$ acts as an infrared cutoff and therefore modifies the infrared sensitivity of the self energy diagrams (of quark $Q$ and of quark $q$) with respect to the case where the virtual loops of quark $q$ are evaluated in the massless approximation. As a consequence these corrections individually carry an ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity. Moreover, at large orders in perturbation theory the sensitivity of the self energy diagrams to infrared momenta increases due to high powers of logarithms from gluonic and massless quark loops. As a consequence, at large orders, the finite mass effects of the virtual loops of quark $q$ in the self energy diagrams of quark $Q$ and the self energy diagrams of quark $q$ become equivalent due to heavy quark symmetry. The strong cancellation in the sum of both types of corrections in $\delta m_{q}^{(Q\rightarrow q)}({\overline{m}}_q)$ ($\sim75\%$ at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ and $\gtrsim90\%$ at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ for the cases displayed in Fig. \[fig:HQbreaking\]) thus confirms that the known ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ self energy corrections coming from virtual quark masses are already dominated by their large order asymptotic behavior.
From the observations that the series for $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ and $\delta m_{c}^{(b\rightarrow c)}({\overline{m}}_c)$ converge very well and that their ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ corrections amount to only about $1$ MeV, we can therefore expect that the two types of corrections that enter $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ as well as $\delta m_{c}^{(b\rightarrow c)}({\overline{m}}_c)$ agree to even better than $1$ MeV at $ {\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ and beyond. This allows us to make an approximate *prediction* for the yet uncalculated ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ finite mass corrections from virtual loops of quark $q$ in the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relations of quark $Q$ of Eqs. and by setting the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ correction in $\delta m_{q}^{(Q\rightarrow q)}({\overline{m}}_q)$ to zero: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:delta4predict}
&\delta_{Q,4}^{(q)}(r_{qQ}) \\
&\approx r_{qQ}\Bigg[\,\delta_{q,4}^{(q)}(1) + \left(6\,{\beta_0^{({n_Q})}}\delta_{q,3}^{(q)}(1) + 4\,{\beta_1^{({n_Q})}}\delta_2(1)\right) \ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_q}\right) + 12\,\delta_2(1)\left({\beta_0^{({n_Q})}}\ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_q}\right)\right)^2\Bigg] \, \nonumber\\
&\hspace{1.3cm} - \left( 6\,{\beta_0^{({n_Q})}}\delta_{Q,3}^{(q)}(r_{qQ}) + 4\, {\beta_1^{({n_Q})}}\delta_2(r_{qQ})\right)\ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_Q}\right) - 12\,\delta_2(r_{qQ})\left({\beta_0^{({n_Q})}}\ln\left(
\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_Q}\right)\right)^2\nonumber \,.\end{aligned}$$ The prediction has a residual $\mu$-dependence, which would vanish in the formal limit that the virtual quark $q$ mass corrections are entirely dominated by their large order asymptotic behavior. Therefore the dependence on the scale $\mu$ can be used as an uncertainty estimate of our approximation.
In Fig. \[fig:deltapredicta\] we show the prediction for $\delta_{Q,4}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})$ for ${\overline{m}}_q\leq\mu\leq{\overline{m}}_Q$ (green bands) for ${n_Q}=n_q+1={n_{\ell}}+1=5$ (lower band) and ${n_Q}=n_q+1={n_{\ell}}+1=4$ (upper band). The prediction satisfies exactly the required boundary condition $\delta_{Q,4}^{(q)}(0) = 0$ and Eq. for $r_{qQ}=1$ and provides an interpolation for $0<r_{qQ}<1$ with an uncertainty of $\pm3\%$ (for $r_{qQ}\lesssim0.1$) or smaller (for $r_{qQ}>0.1$). To judge the quality of the prediction we apply the same method at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ to “predict” $\delta_{Q,3}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})$ which gives $$\label{eqn:delta3predict}
\delta_{Q,3}^{(q)}(r_{qQ}) \approx r_{qQ}\left[\,\delta_{q,3}^{(q)}(1) + 4\,{\beta_0^{({n_Q})}}\delta_2(1)\ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_q}\right)\right] - 4{\beta_0^{({n_Q})}}\delta_2 (r_{qQ})\ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_Q}\right) \,.$$ The result for the prediction of $\delta_{Q,3}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:deltapredictb\] for ${n_Q}=n_q+1={n_{\ell}}+1=5$. The green band illustrates again the range of predictions for $\mu$-variations ${\overline{m}}_q\leq\mu\leq{\overline{m}}_Q$, and represents an uncertainty of $\pm10\%$ (for $r_{qQ}\lesssim0.1$) or smaller (for $r_{qQ}>0.1$). Compared to the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ result, the larger $\mu$ variation we observe at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ is expected because the infrared sensitivity is weaker and the large order asymptotic behavior is less dominating at the lower order. The red curve is the exact result for $\delta_{Q,3}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})$ obtained from the results in Ref. [@Bekavac:2007tk], see also Eq. . We see that the prediction is fully compatible with the exact result and that the uncertainty estimate based on the $\mu$-variation is reliable. The prediction for $\delta_{Q,3}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})$ for ${n_Q}=n_q+1={n_{\ell}}+1=4$ has the same good properties but is not displayed since it is numerically very close to the prediction for ${n_Q}=n_q+1={n_{\ell}}+1=5$.
Overall, the examination shows that the prediction and the uncertainty estimate for $\delta_{Q,4}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})$ can be considered reliable. We can also provide a very simple closed analytic expression by evaluating Eq. for $\mu={\overline{m}}_Q$, which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:delta4predict2}
&\delta_{Q,4}^{(q)}(r_{qQ}) \\ &\approx r_{qQ}\bigg[\,\delta_{q,4}^{(q)}(1) - \left(6\,{\beta_0^{({n_Q})}}\delta_{q,3}^{(q)}(1) + 4\,{\beta_1^{({n_Q})}}\delta_2(1) \right)\ln\left(r_{qQ}\right) + 12\,\delta_2(1)\left({\beta_0^{({n_Q})}}\ln(r_{qQ})\right)^2\bigg] \nonumber\\
&= r_{qQ}\bigg[\,(203915.\pm32.) - 22962.\,{n_Q}+ 525.2\,{n_Q}^2 + (-130946. +13831.\,{n_Q}-328.5\,{n_Q}^2)\,\ln(r_{qQ}) \nonumber\\ &\hspace{1.5cm}
+ (26599.1 - 3224.1\,{n_Q}+ 97.70\,{n_Q}^2 )\,\ln(r_{qQ})^2\,\bigg] \,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The expression depends via the boundary condition of Eq. entirely on the coefficients $a_n(n_q,n_h)$ of Eq. , which for this case describe the corrections to the heavy quark $q$ self energy for the case that all lighter quarks are massless, and the coefficients of the $\beta$-function. The expression is shown as the black dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:deltapredicta\] for ${n_Q}={n_{\ell}}+1=5$ (lower line) and ${n_Q}={n_{\ell}}+1=4$ (upper line). This approximation for $\delta_{Q,4}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})$ has a simple overall linear behavior on the mass ratio $r_{qQ}={\overline{m}}_q/{\overline{m}}_Q$. The behavior is just a manifestation of $\delta_{Q,4}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})$ being dominated by the large order asymptotic behavior due to its ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ renormalon ambiguity which is related to linear sensitivity to small scales. The overall linear dependence of $\delta_{Q,4}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})$ on ${\overline{m}}_q$ arises since the mass of quark $q$ represents an infrared cut and thus represents the characteristic physical scale that governs $\delta_{Q,4}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})$. This also explains the origin of the logarithms shown in Eq. : They arise because all virtual quark mass corrections in Eqs. , and are defined in an expansion in $\alpha_s({\overline{m}}_Q)$. We note that for the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ virtual massive quark correction $\delta_{Q,3}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})$ these aspects were already discussed in Ref. [@Hoang:2000fm] and later in Ref. [@Ayala:2014yxa], where a direct comparison to the explicit calculations from Ref. [@Bekavac:2007tk] could be carried out. These analyses were, however, using generic considerations and were not carried out within a systematic RG framework.
The expression of Eq. is a special case of the general statement that the asymptotic large order behavior of the coefficients $\delta_{Q,n}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})$ can be obtained from the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{deltaqallorderasy}
\delta_2(r_{qQ})&\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^2 + \sum_{n=3}^\infty\,\delta_{Q,n}^{(q)}(r_{qQ})\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)}{4\pi}\right)^n
\\
&\approx r_{qQ}\,\overline{\delta}_{q}^{(q)}(1) =
r_{qQ}\left [ \delta_2(1)\,\left( \frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_q)}{4\pi} \right)^2 + \sum_{n=3}^\infty\delta_{q,n}^{(q)}(1)\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{({n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_q)}{4\pi} \right)^n \,\right ] \, ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where on the RHS of the approximate equality $\alpha_s^{({n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_q)$ has to be expanded in powers of $\alpha_s^{({n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)$, and we have $\delta_2(1)=18.3189$, $\delta_{q,3}^{(q)}(1)=1870.79 - 82.1208\, {n_Q}$ and . The terms $\delta_{q,n}^{(q)}(1)$ for $n>4$ can be obtained from using Eqs. and together with the large order asymptotic form of the coefficients $a_n$ shown in Eq. , giving $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{q,n>4}^{(q)}(1) &\approx
a_n^\mathrm{asy}(n_q) - a_n^\mathrm{asy}(n_q+1) =
a_n^\mathrm{asy}(n_Q-1) - a_n^\mathrm{asy}(n_Q)\label{eqn:deltaqn5} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we would like to remind the reader that for the case we consider here we have $n_Q = n_q+1 = n_\ell+1$. Our examination at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ above showed that this relation provides an approximation for $\delta_{Q,4}^{(q)}$ within a few percent. For the higher-order terms $\delta_{Q,n}^{(q)}$ with $n>4$ it should be even more precise, and we therefore believe that it should be sufficient for essentially all future applications in the context of studies of the pole mass scheme.
To conclude we note that it is straightforward to extend Eq. from the case of having only one massive quark $q$ being lighter than heavy quark $Q$, i.e. ${n_Q}=n_q+1={n_{\ell}}+1$, to the case of having a larger number of lighter massive quarks. For example for the case that there are two massive quarks lighter than quark $Q$ (let’s say $q$ and $q^\prime$, in order of decreasing mass) with ${n_Q}=n_q+1=n_{q^\prime}+2={n_{\ell}}+2$, the generalization of the approximation formula reads $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta_{Q,4}^{(q,q^\prime)}(r_{qQ},r_{q^\prime Q}) + \delta_{Q,4}^{(q^\prime)}(r_{q^\prime Q}) \approx r_{qQ}\,\Bigg\{ \,\delta_{q,4}^{(q,q^\prime)}(1,r_{q^\prime q}) + \delta_{q,4}^{(q^\prime)}(r_{q^\prime q}) \nonumber\\ &\hspace{1cm}
+ \left[6\,{\beta_0^{({n_Q})}}\left(\delta_{q,3}^{(q,q^\prime)}(1,r_{q^\prime q}) + \delta_{q,3}^{(q^\prime)}(r_{q^\prime q})\right) + 4\,{\beta_1^{({n_Q})}}\left( \delta_2(1) + \delta_2(r_{q^\prime q}) \right)\right] \ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_q}\right) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} + 12\,\left(\delta_2(1) + \delta_2(r_{q^\prime q})\right)\,\left({\beta_0^{({n_Q})}}\ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_q}\right)\right)^2\Bigg\} \\ &\hspace{1cm}
- \left[6\,{\beta_0^{({n_Q})}}\left(\delta_{Q,3}^{(q,q^\prime)}(r_{qQ},r_{q^\prime Q}) + \delta_{Q,3}^{(q^\prime)}(r_{q^\prime Q})\right) + 4\,{\beta_1^{({n_Q})}}\left( \delta_2(r_{qQ}) + \delta_2(r_{q^\prime Q})\right)\right] \ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_Q}\right) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm} - 12\,\left(\delta_2(r_{qQ}) + \delta_2(r_{q^\prime Q})\right)\,\left({\beta_0^{({n_Q})}}\ln\left(\frac{\mu}{{\overline{m}}_Q}\right)\right)^2\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Pole Mass Differences {#sec:polediff}
---------------------
Using the MSR mass we have set up a conceptual framework to systematically quantify the contributions to the pole mass of a heavy quark coming from the different momentum regions contained in the on-shell self energy diagrams. The pole mass of a heavy quark $Q$ contains the contributions from all momenta, while the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass ${\overline{m}}_Q(\mu)$ and the MSR mass ${m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R)$ contain the contributions from above the scales $\mu$ and $R$, respectively (see Fig. \[fig:massschemes\]). The MSR mass is the natural extension of the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass, which is applied for scales $\mu>m_Q$, to scales $R<m_Q$, and obeys a RG-evolution equation that is linear in $R$, called R-evolution [@Hoang:2008yj; @Hoang:2017suc]. The R-evolution equation quantifies in a way free of the ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ renormalon the change in the MSR mass when contributions from lower momenta are included into the mass when $R$ is decreased, as long as $R>{\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}$.
In Sec. \[sec:Qintout\] we discussed the matching corrections $\Delta m_Q^{({n_Q}+1\rightarrow{n_Q})}({\overline{m}}_Q)$ that arise when the virtual loop contributions of quark $Q$ are integrated out by switching from ${\overline{m}}_Q$ to ${m^{\rm MSR}}_Q({\overline{m}}_Q)$. In Sec. \[sec:MSRmass\] we discussed the MSR mass difference $\Delta m^{(n_Q)}(R,R^\prime) = {m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R^\prime) - {m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R)$, which is determined from solving the R-evolution equation of the MSR mass and which systematically sums logarithms of $R/R^\prime$. In Sec. \[sec:MSRMSbmatch\] we examined the matching between the QCD corrections to the MSR mass of the heavy quark $Q$ and the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass of the next lighter massive quark $q$, $\delta m_{q,q^\prime,\dots}^{(Q\rightarrow q)}({\overline{m}}_q,{\overline{m}}_{q^\prime},\dots)$ accounting for the mass effects of the quarks $q,q^\prime,\dots\;$. This matching is based on heavy quark symmetry and the small numerical size of $\delta m_{q,q^\prime,\dots}^{(Q\rightarrow q)}({\overline{m}}_q,{\overline{m}}_{q^\prime},\dots)$ reflects that the symmetry breaking effects due to the finite quark masses are quite small. These two types of matching corrections and the R-evolution of the MSR mass each are free of ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguities and show excellent convergence properties in QCD perturbation theory.
An interesting application is the determination of the difference of the pole masses of two massive quarks. Due to heavy quark symmetry, the differences of two heavy quark pole masses are also free of ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguities and can therefore be determined to high precision. The matching corrections discussed above and the R-evolution of the MSR mass allow us to systematically sum logarithms of the mass ratios that would remain unsummed in a fixed-order calculation, and to achieve more precise perturbative predictions [@Hoang:2017suc]. Taking the example of the top and bottom mass one can then write the difference of the top quark pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation and the bottom quark pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation in the form $$\label{eqn:tbrelation}
\left[ {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t - {\overline{m}}_t \right] - \left[ {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b - {\overline{m}}_b \right] = \Delta m_t^{(6\rightarrow 5)}({\overline{m}}_t) + \Delta m^{(5)}({\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b) + \delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c) \,.$$ The analogous relation for the bottom and charm quarks reads $$\label{eqn:bcrelation}
\left[ {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b - {\overline{m}}_b \right] - \left[ {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c - {\overline{m}}_c \right] = \Delta m_b^{(5\rightarrow 4)}({\overline{m}}_b) + \Delta m^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c) + \delta m_{c}^{(b\rightarrow c)}({\overline{m}}_c) \,.$$ Each of the mass differences is the sum of universal matching and evolution building blocks which each can be computed to high precision, as shown in Tabs. \[tab:DeltaMRRprime\], \[tab:MSRMSbmatch\], \[tab:HQbreaking\].
The resulting relations between the top, bottom and charm quark pole masses read $$\begin{aligned}
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b &= \left[ {\overline{m}}_t - {\overline{m}}_b \right] + \Delta m_t^{(6\rightarrow 5)}({\overline{m}}_t) + \Delta m^{(5)}({\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b) + \delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c) \label{eqn:tbpole} \,,\\
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c &= \left[ {\overline{m}}_b - {\overline{m}}_c \right] + \Delta m_b^{(5\rightarrow 4)}({\overline{m}}_b) + \Delta m^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c) + \delta m_{c}^{(b\rightarrow c)}({\overline{m}}_c) \label{eqn:bcpole} \,,\\
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c &= \left[ {\overline{m}}_t - {\overline{m}}_c \right] + \Delta m_t^{(6\rightarrow 5)}({\overline{m}}_t) + \Delta m^{(5)}({\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b) + \delta m_{b,c}^{(t\rightarrow b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c) \nonumber\\ &\hspace{2.13cm}+ \Delta m_b^{(5\rightarrow 4)}({\overline{m}}_b) + \Delta m^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c) + \delta m_{c}^{(b\rightarrow c)}({\overline{m}}_c) \label{eqn:tcpole} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and can be readily evaluated from the highest order results given in Tabs. \[tab:DeltaMRRprime\], \[tab:MSRMSbmatch\], \[tab:HQbreaking\] for the case (${\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c$) = ($163,4.2,1.3$) GeV: $$\begin{aligned}
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b &= 158.800 + (0.032\pm0.001) + (9.331\pm0.016) + (0.006\pm0.001) \;{\rm GeV} \nonumber \\
&= 168.169\pm0.016 \;{\rm GeV} \,, \label{eqn:tbpole2} \\
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c &= 2.9 + (0.004\pm0.001) + (0.423\pm0.017) + (0.004\pm0.001) \;{\rm GeV} \nonumber \\
&= 3.331\pm0.017 \;{\rm GeV} \,, \label{eqn:bcpole2} \\
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c &= 171.500 \pm 0.024 \;{\rm GeV} \,, \label{eqn:tcpole2}\end{aligned}$$ where we have added all uncertainties quadratically. We can compare our results for the bottom-charm pole mass difference ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c$ to the result obtained in Ref. [@Hoang:2005zw] using a fixed-order expansion at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ for the mass difference. Their result was based on a linear approximation for the virtual charm quark mass effects derived in Ref. [@Hoang:2000fm] which is similar to Eq. , but used a numerical calculation of the coefficient linear in $r_{qQ}$ from Ref. [@Melles:1998dj]. In this analysis the pole mass difference was used to eliminate the charm quark mass as a primary parameter in the predictions. They determined ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c=3.401\pm 0.013$ GeV and obtained ${\overline{m}}_c=1.22\pm 0.06$ GeV from the fits using ${\overline{m}}_b=4.16\pm 0.05$ GeV as input. Their result for ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c$ is consistent with ours, but one should keep in mind that logarithms of ${\overline{m}}_c/{\overline{m}}_b$ were not systematically summed and that their result also included nontrivial QCD corrections to semileptonic B-meson decay spectra for $B\to X_c\ell\nu$ and $B\to X_s\gamma$ which were only known to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$. The mutual agreement is reassuring (also for the theoretical approximations made in the context of the B meson analyses) and in particular shows that the summation of logarithms of ${\overline{m}}_c/{\overline{m}}_b$ is not essential for bottom and charm masses, which is expected, and that the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ corrections are tiny, which can also be seen explicitly in our results. The larger error we obtain in our computation of ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c$ arises from the renormalization scale scale variation in $\Delta m^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ which includes scales as low as $0.6 \,{\overline{m}}_c$ while in their analysis the lowest renormalization scale was ${\overline{m}}_c$. Similar determinations of bottom and charm quark masses from B-meson decay spectra were carried out in Ref. [@Buchmuller:2005zv; @Gambino:2016jkc], and they are also consistent with our result for ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c$.
For the case (${\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c$) = ($163,4.2,0$) GeV, the difference between the top and bottom pole masses reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:tbpole3}
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b &= 158.800 + (0.032\pm0.001) + (9.331\pm0.016) + (0.005\pm0.001) \;{\rm GeV} \nonumber\\
&= 168.168\pm0.016 \;{\rm GeV} \,.\end{aligned}$$ This result differs from Eq. by only $1$ MeV showing that the effects of the finite charm quark mass are tiny in the difference of the top and bottom pole masses. The uncertainties in the pole mass differences are between $16$ and $24$ MeV and should be considered as conservative estimates of the theoretical uncertainties due to missing higher order corrections.
Lighter Massive Flavor Decoupling {#sec:decoupling}
---------------------------------
Another very instructive application of the RG framework to quantify and separate the contributions to the pole mass of a heavy quark coming from the different physical momentum regions is to examine the effective massive flavor decoupling at large orders. It was observed in Ref. [@Ayala:2014yxa] that the sum of the known ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ charm quark mass effects in the bottom quark pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass series expressed in four flavor coupling $\alpha_s^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_b)$ (where they amount to about $35$ MeV) are essentially fully captured simply by expressing the series in the three flavor coupling $\alpha_s^{(3)}({\overline{m}}_b)$ (where they amount to only $-2$ MeV). This observation entails that one can simply neglect the charm quark mass corrections by computing the bottom quark pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation right from start in the three flavor theory without any charm quark (which corresponds to an infinitely heavy charm quark). This effective decoupling of lighter massive quarks is obvious and truly happening at asymptotic large orders. The importance of the observation made in Ref. [@Ayala:2014yxa] was that the finite charm quark mass corrections in the decoupled calculation at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ and ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ were so tiny that there was no need to compute them explicitly in the first place. If this decoupling property would be true in general (i.e. the remaining light quark mass correction become negligible) it would represent a great simplification because it may make an explicit calculation of the lighter massive quark corrections and also the summation of the associated logarithms irrelevant.
Using the RG framework for the lighter massive flavor dependence of the pole mass we can examine systematically in which way this effective lighter massive quark decoupling property is realized. In the following we analyze this issue for $({\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)=(163,4.2,1.3)$ GeV. We start with the effects of the charm quark mass in the bottom pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation examined in Ref. [@Ayala:2014yxa]. Applying the same considerations as for the pole mass differences in Sec. \[sec:polediff\] for this case we can write down the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mbmcdecoup}
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b- & \bigg[\, {\overline{m}}_b+{\overline{m}}_b\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n({n_{\ell}}=3,0)\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(3)}({\overline{m}}_b)}{4\pi}\right)^n\,\bigg] \\
= & \,\,\Delta m_b^{(5\to 4)}({\overline{m}}_b)+\Delta m^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)+\delta m_{c}^{(b\to c)}({\overline{m}}_c)+\Delta m_c^{(4\to 3)}({\overline{m}}_c) \nonumber \\
&-\Delta m^{(3)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c) \,\nonumber \\
= &\,\, (0.004\pm0.001) + (0.423\pm0.017) + (0.004\pm0.001) + (0.005\pm0.002)\nonumber \\
& \,\, - (0.434\pm0.020) \;{\rm GeV} \nonumber\\
= &\,\, 0.002\pm0.026 \;{\rm GeV}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The RHS represents a computation of the charm quark mass corrections that remain within a calculation where the charm mass effects are approximated by making the charm infinitely heavy (i.e. ${n_{\ell}}=3$). The individual numerical results have been taken from the highest order results in Tabs. \[tab:DeltaMRRprime\], \[tab:MSRMSbmatch\] and \[tab:HQbreaking\], and for the final numerical result we have conservatively added all uncertainties quadratically. We see that these remaining corrections are essentially zero, fully confirming the observation of Ref. [@Ayala:2014yxa]. This is not surprising since the bottom and charm quark masses are similar in size and the ratio ${\overline{m}}_c/{\overline{m}}_b$ does not lead to large logarithms. So the summation of these logarithms which is contained in our computation does not make an improvement, and the agreement with Ref. [@Ayala:2014yxa] simply represents a computational cross check of both calculations. The scale uncertainty is larger than the one shown in Ref. [@Ayala:2014yxa] because we considered variations of the renormalization scale down to $\mu=0.6\,{\overline{m}}_c$, which were not considered by them, and because we do not attempt to eliminate the strong correlation in scale-dependence between $\Delta m^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ and $\Delta m^{(3)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ from these low scales here.
Let us now investigate the case of the bottom quark mass corrections in the top quark pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation assuming a massless charm quark. We can simply adapt Eq. through trivial modifications and obtain the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mtmbdecoup}
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t-& \bigg[\, {\overline{m}}_t+{\overline{m}}_t\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n({n_{\ell}}=4,0)\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_t)}{4\pi}\right)^n\,\bigg] \\
= & \,\,\Delta m_t^{(6\to 5)}({\overline{m}}_t)+\Delta m^{(5)}({\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b)+\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\to b)}({\overline{m}}_b,0)+\Delta m_b^{(5\to 4)}({\overline{m}}_b)\nonumber\\
&-\Delta m^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b)\nonumber \\
= &\,\, (0.032\pm0.001) + (9.331\pm0.016) + (0.005\pm0.001) + (0.004\pm0.001) \nonumber \\
& \,\, - (9.114\pm0.014) \;{\rm GeV} \nonumber\\
= &\,\, 0.258\pm0.021 \;{\rm GeV}\,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We see that using the approximation of an infinitely heavy bottom quark for a calculation of the bottom mass effects in the top quark pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation gives a result that is about $260$ MeV too small.
We can now go one step further and also consider the case where the masses of both the bottom and charm quark are accounted for. Generalizing the previous two calculations to this case is straightforward and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mtmbmcdecoup}
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t-& \bigg[\, {\overline{m}}_t+{\overline{m}}_t\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n({n_{\ell}}=3,0)\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(3)}({\overline{m}}_t)}{4\pi}\right)^n\,\bigg] \\
= & \,\,\Delta m_t^{(6\to 5)}({\overline{m}}_t)+\Delta m^{(5)}({\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b)+\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\to b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)\nonumber\\
&+\Delta m_b^{(5\to 4)}({\overline{m}}_b)+\Delta m^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)+\delta m_{c}^{(b\to c)}({\overline{m}}_c)+\Delta m_c^{(4\to 3)}({\overline{m}}_c) \nonumber \\
&-\Delta m^{(3)}({\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_c) \,.\nonumber \\
= &\,\, (0.032\pm0.001) + (9.331\pm0.016) + (0.006\pm0.001) \nonumber \\
& \,\, + (0.004\pm0.001) + (0.423\pm0.017) + (0.004\pm0.001) + (0.005\pm0.002)\nonumber \\
& \,\, - (9.111\pm0.032) \;{\rm GeV} \nonumber\\
= &\,\, 0.694\pm0.040 \;{\rm GeV}\,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In this case using the approximation of infinitely heavy bottom and charm quarks for a calculation of the bottom and charm mass effects in the top quark pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation gives a result that is almost $700$ MeV too small.
Our results show that the approximation of computing the lighter heavy flavor mass corrections in a theory where these heavy flavors are decoupled is an excellent approximation for the charm mass corrections in the bottom quark pole mass, but it is considerably worse for the top quark, where the discrepancy even reaches the $1$ GeV level. The reason is that the decoupling limit can in general not capture the true size of the lighter quark mass effects if the hierarchy of scales is large. One should therefore not use this approximation to determine bottom or charm quark mass effects for the top quark.
The Top Quark Pole Mass Ambiguity {#sec:topmass}
=================================
![\[fig:mtpole1\] Top quark pole mass as a function of order obtained from the MSR mass $m_t^{\rm MSR}({\overline{m}}_t)$ (black) and ${\overline{m}}_t={\overline{m}}_t({\overline{m}}_t)=163$ GeV (gray) for massless bottom and charm quarks. The central dots refer to the renormalization scale $\mu={\overline{m}}_t$ for the strong coupling. The error bars arise from renormalization scale variation ${\overline{m}}_t/2 \le \mu \le 2\,{\overline{m}}_t$. The gray horizontal band represents the region $m_t^{\rm pole}=173.10\pm 0.07$, which indicates the top quark pole mass and its scale uncertainty obtained from $m_t^{\rm MSR}({\overline{m}}_t)$ at the 8th order. ](figs/mtpole1.pdf){width=".6\textwidth"}
General Comments and Estimation Method {#sec:method}
--------------------------------------
In this section we address the question of the best possible approximation and the ambiguity of the top quark pole mass $m_t^{\rm pole}$ using the RG formalism for the top mass described in the earlier sections. As a reminder and for illustration we show in Fig. \[fig:mtpole1\] ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t$ as a function of the order obtained from the series for ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t - {m^{\rm MSR}}_t({\overline{m}}_t)$ in powers of $\alpha_s^{(5)}$ given in Eq. for massless bottom and charm quarks, where the central dots are obtained for the default choice of renormalization scale $\mu={\overline{m}}_t$ in the strong coupling and the error bars represent the scale variation ${\overline{m}}_t/2\leq\mu\leq2\,{\overline{m}}_t$. The corresponding results from the series for ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t-{\overline{m}}_t$ given in Eq. in powers of $\alpha_s^{(6)}$, also for massless bottom and charm quarks, are shown in gray. We have used the asymptotic form of the perturbative coefficients shown in Tab. \[tab:aasy\] for the series coefficients beyond $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^4)$[^3]. We note that focusing on the approximation of massless bottom and charm quarks by itself is phenomenologically valuable because it is employed for most current predictions in the context of top quark physics, and since the analytic expressions are most transparent for this case.
The graphics illustrates visually the problematic features associated to the top quark ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ pole mass renormalon, and in particular the specific properties of the series for $\mu\sim m_t$ already mentioned in Sec. \[sec:intro\]: The minimal term of the series is obtained at order $n_{\rm min} = 8$, which according to the theory of asymptotic series is the order that provides the best possible approximation for the top quark pole mass. Furthermore, the corrections are numerically close to the eighth order correction for the orders in the range 6 to 10, i.e. $\Delta n \approx 5$, for which the partially summed series increases linearly with the order. According to the theory of asymptotic series it is this region of orders that is relevant for the size of the principle uncertainty of this best approximation. We also see two very important practical issues appearing already at lower orders which can make dealing with the pole mass in mass determinations difficult: First, the higher order corrections are much larger than indicated by usual renormalization scale variations of the lower order prediction and, second, the common renormalization scale variation at any given truncation order is not an appropriate tool to estimate the perturbative uncertainty. In this context it is easy to understand that specifying a concrete numerical value for the principle uncertainty of the top quark pole mass is non-trivial even if the series is known precisely to all orders. So to obtain a top quark pole mass determination with uncertainties close to the principle uncertainty within a phenomenological analysis based on a usual truncated finite order calculation may be quite difficult. As a comparison let us recall the much better perturbative behavior of a series that is free of an ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity such as the MSR mass differences $\Delta m^{(n_Q)}(R,R^\prime)$ of Eq. with numerical evaluations given in Tab. \[tab:DeltaMRRprime\].
Prior to this work the issue of the best possible estimate and the ambiguity of the top quark pole mass were already studied in Ref. [@Beneke:2016cbu]. They examined the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation of Eq. for massless bottom and charm quarks (i.e. ${n_Q}=n_t={n_{\ell}}=5$) and their analysis addressed the numerical uncertainty of the top quark pole mass accounting for all series terms displayed in Fig. \[fig:mtpole1\] for $\mu={\overline{m}}_t$. They adopted a prescription given in Ref. [@Beneke:1998ui], which [*defined*]{} the top quark pole mass uncertainty as the imaginary part of the inverse Borel integral of Eq. , $\Delta m_{\rm Borel}^{({n_{\ell}}=5)}$, divided by $\pi$, which gives about $65$ MeV. Since this agrees in size with the minimal series term[^4], which arises at order $\alpha_s^8$, they argued that $\Delta m_{\rm Borel}^{({n_{\ell}}=5)}/\pi$ (or the size of the minimal term) is a reliable quantification of the top quark pole mass ambiguity, which they finally specified as $70$ MeV. Interpreting the specification like a numerical uncertainty, this gives $m_t^{\rm pole}=173.10\pm 0.07$, which is shown in Fig. \[fig:mtpole1\] as the thin gray horizontal band. The uncertainty band is about the same size as the renormalization scale variation of the series truncated at the eighth order.
We believe that quoting $70$ MeV for the top quark pole mass ambiguity for massless bottom and charm quarks is too optimistic. Given (i) the overall bad behavior of the series, (ii) that there is a sizable range of orders where the corrections have very similar size and (iii) that the partially summed series increases linearly with the order in the range $6$ to $10$ ($\Delta n \approx 5$), we see no compelling reason to truncate precisely at the order $n_{\rm min}=8$ and to quote a number at the level of the scale variation of the truncated series or the size of the correction at this order as the principle uncertainty. Our view is also supported by heavy quark symmetry (HQS) [@Isgur:1989vq] which states that the pole mass ambiguity is independent of the mass of the heavy quark up to power corrections of ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/m_Q)$. This is the first aspect following from HQS we discussed in Sec. \[sec:intro\]. HQS requires that the criteria and the outcome of the method used to determine the top quark pole mass ambiguity are independent of the top mass value (as long as it is sufficiently bigger than $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$). So it is straightforward to carry out a test concerning HQS by changing the value of ${\overline{m}}_t$ while keeping $\mu/{\overline{m}}_t=1$ and checking whether the approach to estimate the ambiguity provides stable results.
Concerning Ref. [@Beneke:2016cbu] this check is best carried out in the five-flavor scheme for the strong coupling, and we therefore evaluate the size of the minimal term in the series for $m_t^{\rm pole}-m_t^{\rm MSR}({\overline{m}}_t)$. Adopting the values $163$, $20$, $4.2$, $2$ and $1.3$ GeV for ${\overline{m}}_t$ we obtain $62$, $75$, $91$, $113$ and $131$ MeV for the minimal term $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$. This behavior is roughly described by the approximate formula $\Delta(n_{\rm min})\approx(4\pi\alpha_s^{({n_{\ell}}=5)}(\mu)/\beta_0^{({n_{\ell}}=5)})^{1/2}\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{({n_{\ell}}=5)}$, already mentioned in Sec. \[sec:intro\] and shows that the basic dependence on $\mu$ is logarithmic. We can even render the minimal term arbitrarily small if we adopt for ${\overline{m}}_t$ values much larger than $163$ GeV. We see that $\Delta m_{\rm Borel}^{({n_{\ell}}=5)}/\pi$, which is independent of the top mass value and therefore proportional to the ambiguity, agrees with the size of the minimal term only for $\mu\sim 163$ GeV, but disagrees for other choices. So the line of reasoning used for the analysis of the top quark pole mass ambiguity in Ref. [@Beneke:2016cbu] is not independent of the top quark mass value, and one has to conclude that the ambiguity must be larger than $\Delta m_{\rm Borel}^{({n_{\ell}}=5)}/\pi$ and certainly larger than $130$ MeV, which is the size of the minimal term for a very small value of ${\overline{m}}_t$. Concerning the quoted numbers, we emphasize that we still discuss the case of massless bottom and charm quarks. From the relation $\Delta n\times\Delta(n_{\rm min})\propto \pi^2 \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{({n_{\ell}})}/\beta_0\propto \Delta m_{\rm Borel}$ we see in particular that a reliable method consistent with HQS has to explicitly account for the range $n_{\rm min}\pm\Delta n/2$ in orders for which the terms in the series have values close to $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$. We stress that the latter issue is not at all new and has been known since the work of Refs. [@Bigi:1994em; @Beneke:1994sw]. It was also argued in [@Beneke:2016cbu] that their approach to estimate the size of the top quark pole mass ambiguity is consistent concerning that issue. However, their approach did not account for the actual size of $\Delta n$, which is about $5$ for the case discussed in [@Beneke:2016cbu] and also shown in Fig. \[fig:mtpole1\].
In the following subsections we apply a method to determine the best possible estimate and the ambiguity of the top quark pole mass which explicitly accounts for the range $n_{\rm min}\pm\Delta n/2$ in orders where the $\Delta(n)$ are very close to $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$. It also accounts for the practical problems in an order-by-order determination of the pole mass from a series containing the ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ renormalon which we discussed above in the context of Fig. \[fig:mtpole1\]. To describe the method we define, for a given series to calculate the top quark pole mass, $$\Delta(n) \equiv {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t(n) - {m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t(n-1) \,,$$ where ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t(n)$ is the partial sum at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^n)$ of the series for the top quark pole mass that contains the ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ pole mass renormalon, and thus $\Delta(n)$ is the $n$-th order correction. The method we use is as follows:
1. We determine the minimal term $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ and the set of orders $\{n\}_f\equiv\{n:\,\Delta(n)\leq f\,\Delta(n_{\rm min})\}$ in the series for a default renormalization scale, where $f$ is a number larger but close to unity.
2. We use half of the range of values covered by ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t(n)$ with $n\in\{n\}_f$ evaluated for this setup and include renormalization scale variation in a given range as an estimate for the ambiguity of the top quark mass. We use the midpoint of the covered range as the central value.
While $n_{\rm min}$, $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ and $\Delta n$ each can vary substantially depending on which setup one uses to determine $m_t^{\rm pole}$, the method provides results that are setup-independent and is therefore consistent with HQS. Through the RG formalism we developed in the previous sections we can explicitly implement the other important requirement of HQS, namely that the ambiguities of the pole masses of all heavy quarks agree. To do this we apply our method for three different scenarios which differ on whether the bottom and charm quarks are treated as massive or massless and we furthermore study the pole-MSR mass difference for different values of $R$.
Massless Bottom and Charm Quarks {#sec:mbmczero}
--------------------------------
For the case that the bottom and charm quarks are treated as massless we can calculate the top quark pole mass from the top MSR mass ${m^{\rm MSR}}_t(R)$ at different scales $R\leq{\overline{m}}_t$. Using the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$-MSR mass matching contribution $\Delta m_t^{(6\rightarrow 5)}({\overline{m}}_t)$ of Eq. and R-evolution from the scale ${\overline{m}}_t$ to $R$ of Eq. with $n_t=5$ active dynamical flavors one can write the top quark pole mass as $$\label{eqn:mtpolembmc0}
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t = {\overline{m}}_t + \Delta m_t^{(6\rightarrow 5)}({\overline{m}}_t) + \Delta m^{(5)}({\overline{m}}_t,R) + R\,\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n(n_\ell=5,0)\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(5)}(R)}{4\pi}\right)^n \,,$$ where the sum of the second and third term on the RHS is just ${m^{\rm MSR}}_t(R)-{\overline{m}}_t$. The terms $\Delta m_t^{(6\rightarrow 5)}({\overline{m}}_t)$ and $\Delta m^{(5)}({\overline{m}}_t,R)$ are free of an ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity and can be evaluated to the highest order given in Tabs. \[tab:DeltaMRRprime\] and \[tab:MSRMSbmatch\]. We can then determine the best estimate of the top quark pole mass and its ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity from the $R$-dependent series which is just equal to ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t-{m^{\rm MSR}}_t(R)$. The outcome of the analysis using the method described in Sec. \[sec:method\] for ${\overline{m}}_t=163$ GeV and $R=163,20,4.2$ and $1.3$ GeV and $f=5/4$ is shown in the upper section of Tab. \[tab:mtpole\].
[|A|B|C|H|I|E|J|K|]{}\
$R$ & ${m^{\rm MSR}}_t(R)-{\overline{m}}_t$ & $n_{\rm min}$ & $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ & $\sum_{n=5}^{n_{\rm min}} \Delta(n)$ & $\{n\}_{5/4}$ & & ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t$\
$163$ & $0.032(1)\hphantom{0}$ & $8$ & $0.062(3)$ & $0.310(17)$ & $\{6,7,8,9\}$ & $10.054(157)$ & $173.086(157)$\
$20$ & $8.038(9)\hphantom{0}$ & $6$ & $0.075(4)$ & $0.150(8)\hphantom{0}$ & $\{5,6,7\}$ & $\hphantom{0}2.140(166)$ & $173.178(166)$\
$4.2$ & $9.363(16)$ & $4$ & $0.091\hphantom{(0)}$ & $0$ & $\{3,4,5\}$ & $\hphantom{0}0.832(217)$ & $173.195(218)$\
$1.3$ & $9.748(23)$ & $3$ & $0.098\hphantom{(0)}$ & $0$ & $\{2,3,4\}$ & $\hphantom{0}0.394(186)$ & $173.142(187)$\
\
$R$ & & $n_{\rm min}$ & $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ & $\sum_{n=5}^{n_{\rm min}} \Delta(n)$ & $\{n\}_{5/4}$ & & ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t$\
$163$ & $0.258(21)$ & $7$ & $0.087(3)$ & $0.324(11)$ & $\{6,7,8,9\}$ & $9.904(227)$ & $173.162(228)$\
$20 $ & $8.035(17)$ & $5$ & $0.104(3)$ & $0.104(3)$ & $\{4,5,6\}$ & $2.120(211)$ & $173.155(212)$\
$4.2$ & $9.372(16)$ & $4$ & $0.135$ & $0$ & $\{3,4\}$ & $0.855(211)$ & $173.227(212)$\
$1.3$ & $9.795(23)$ & $2$ & $0.124$ & $0$ & $\{1,2,3\}$ & $0.331(214)$ & $173.126(215)$\
\
$R$ & & $n_{\rm min}$ & $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ & $\sum_{n=5}^{n_{\rm min}} \Delta(n)$ & $\{n\}_{5/4}$ & & ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t$\
$163$ & $0.694(40)$ & $7$ & $0.098(2)$ & $0.355(8)$ & $\{6,7,8,9\}$ & $9.471(260)$ & $173.165(263)$\
$20$ & $8.076(33)$ & $5$ & $0.116(3)$ & $0.116(3)$ & $\{4,5,6\}$ & $2.085(243)$ & $173.161(245)$\
$4.2$ & $9.371(31)$ & $3$ & $0.154$ & $0$ & $\{3,4\}$ & $0.888(257)$ & $173.259(259)$\
$1.3$ & $9.805(24)$ & $2$ & $0.128$ & $0$ & $\{1,2,3\}$ & $0.354(243)$ & $173.159(244)$\
The entries are as follows: The second column shows ${m^{\rm MSR}}_t(R)-{\overline{m}}_t = \Delta m_t^{(6\rightarrow 5)}({\overline{m}}_t) + \Delta m^{(5)}({\overline{m}}_t,R)$ at the highest order. The third and fourth column show the order $n_{\rm min}$ and $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ for the default renormalization scale $\mu=R$ for the cases $R=163,20$ and $4.2$ GeV and $\mu=2{\overline{m}}_c$ for $R=1.3$ GeV. The values for $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ for $R=163$ and $20$ GeV have an uncertainty because for these cases $n_{\rm min}>4$ and the values for $\Delta(n>4)$ are determined from the asymptotic large order values given in Tab. \[tab:aasy\] which have a numerical uncertainty from the normalization factor $N_{1/2}^{(5)}$ in Eqs. . The fifth column shows the sum of the perturbative corrections beyond the explicitly calculated ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ terms up to order $n_{\rm min}$ showing the amount of extrapolation needed to obtain the best possible top quark mass based on the asymptotic approximation. The sixth column shows the set of orders $\{n\}_{f=5/4}$ for which $\Delta(n)\leq f\,\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ and which are used for determining the best estimate and the uncertainty of the top quark pole mass. The seventh column then contains the best estimate and the ambiguity of the series for ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t - {m^{\rm MSR}}_t(R)$ using the method from Sec. \[sec:method\]. To obtain the uncertainties we used renormalization scale variation for $\alpha_s^{(5)}(\mu)$ in the range $R/2\leq\mu\leq 2\,R$ for the cases $R=163,20,4.2$ GeV and in the range $1.5\,{\rm GeV} \leq \mu\leq 5$ GeV for $R = 1.3$ GeV. For $R=1.3$ GeV we always use renormalization scales $\mu$ of the strong coupling that are larger than $1.5$ GeV because the dependence on the renormalization scale grows rapidly for smaller scales. The last column contains the final result for ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t$ combining the results for ${m^{\rm MSR}}_t(R) - {\overline{m}}_t$ and ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t - {m^{\rm MSR}}_t(R)$ where the uncertainties of both are added quadratically to give the final number for the ambiguity of $m_t^{\rm pole}$. These results are also displayed graphically in Figs. \[fig:mtpolea\]-\[fig:mtpoled\] as the gray hatched horizontal bands.
\
In Figs. \[fig:mtpole\] we have also shown in black the results for ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t(n)$ over the order $n$ for the different setups where the dots are the results for the default renormalization scales that are used to determine $n_{\rm min}$, $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ and $\{n\}_f$. The error bars represent the range of values at each order of the truncated series coming from the variations of the renormalization scale of the strong coupling. The black dot at $n=0$ visible in Figs. \[fig:mtpolec\], \[fig:mtpoled\] shows the highest order result for ${m^{\rm MSR}}_t(R)$.
We see that the results for the top quark pole mass $m_t^{\rm pole}$ for the different $R$ values are fully compatible to each other. In particular, the ambiguity estimates based on our method agree within $\pm 15\%$ and average to $182$ MeV. Furthermore, the central values for the best estimates vary by at most $110$ MeV and average to $173.150$ GeV. It is reassuring that the spread of the central values is smaller than the size of the ambiguity. We emphasize that the consistency of our results for the different $R$ values to each other cannot be interpreted in any way statistically since the analyses for different $R$ values are not theoretically independent. The agreement just shows that our method is consistent since the best estimate (and also the ambiguity) of the top quark pole mass is independent of $R$. Interestingly our estimate for the ambiguity of the top quark pole mass agrees quite well with ${\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}^{({n_{\ell}}=5)} = 166$ MeV given in Eq. .
As already pointed out in Sec. \[sec:method\], the minimal correction $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ increases from around $60$ MeV for $R=163$ GeV to about $100$ MeV[^5] for $R=1.3$ GeV. At the same time, the order $n_{\rm min}$ where the minimal correction $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ arises decreases from $n_{\rm min}=8$ at $R={\overline{m}}_t$ down to $n_{\rm min}=4$ and $3$ for $R=4.2$ and $1.3$ GeV. Moreover, the contribution in the best estimate for $m_t^{\rm pole}$ from orders beyond $n=4$ until order $n_{\rm min}$ decreases from about $310$ MeV at $R={\overline{m}}_t$ to about $150$ MeV at $R=20$ GeV. For $R$ scales around the bottom quark mass and below, where $n_{\rm min}\le 4$, there is no need any more to extrapolate beyond the explicitly calculated four orders to get the best value for $m_t^{\rm pole}$. This information is not just of academic importance but it is also relevant for phenomenology: The MSR mass $m_t^{\rm MSR}(R)$ for some low scale $R$ can serve as a low-scale short-distance mass for a physical application where the characteristic physical scale is $R$. Typical examples include the top pair inclusive cross section at the production threshold where $R \sim m_t\alpha_s \sim 25$ GeV [@Hoang:2000yr], or the reconstructed invariant top quark mass distribution where $R$ is in the range of $5$ to $10$ GeV [@Fleming:2007qr; @Butenschoen:2016lpz; @Hoang:2017kmk]. The behavior of the series for $m_t^{\rm pole}-m_t^{\rm MSR}(R)$ thus reflects the typical behavior of the QCD corrections to the mass for the respective physical applications. The observations we make for the $R$-dependence of the behavior of the series show that the best possible determination of the top quark mass from an observable characterized by a low characteristic physical scale can in general be achieved at a lower order and also involves smaller perturbative corrections compared to an observable characterized by high characteristic physical scales (such as inclusive top pair cross sections at high energies or virtual top quark effects). This general property is also reflected visually in the graphical illustrations shown in Fig. \[fig:mtpole\].
We note that our numerical analysis has a rather weak overall dependence on the choice of $f$ and that the results change by construction in a non-continuous way. Using $f=4/3$ only the outcome for $R=20$ GeV is modified to ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t-{m^{\rm MSR}}_t(R) = 2.100\pm0.206$. Using $f=6/5$ only the outcome for $R=163$ GeV is modified to ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t-{m^{\rm MSR}}_t(R) = 10.088\pm0.123$. This leaves the overall conclusion about the ambiguity of the top quark pole mass unchanged and we therefore consider $f=5/4$ as a reasonable default choice.
Comparing our results to those of Ref. [@Beneke:2016cbu], we find that our estimate of the top quark pole mass ambiguity of $180$ MeV exceeds theirs of $70$ MeV by a factor of $2.5$. The discrepancy arises since their result was only related to the size of the minimal term $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ for an $R$ value close to $163$ GeV and did not account for the number of orders $\Delta n$ for which the $\Delta(n)$ are close to the minimal term $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$. For $R = 163$ GeV we have $\Delta n = 4$ for $f=5/4$ and we see the discrepancy is roughly compatible with $\Delta n/2$. Since for other choices of $R$ the values of $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ and $\Delta n$ vary individually substantially (while their product is stable) we believe that a specification of the top quark pole mass ambiguity of $70$ MeV is not consistent with heavy quark symmetry.
Massless Charm Quark {#sec:mczero}
--------------------
For the case of a massive bottom quark and treating the charm quark as massless we can calculate the top quark pole mass from the bottom MSR mass $m_b^{\mathrm{MSR}}(R\leq{\overline{m}}_b)$ using the top-bottom mass matching contribution $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\to b)}({\overline{m}}_b,0)$ of Eq. for ${\overline{m}}_c=0$ in combination with the top and bottom ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$-MSR mass matching contributions, $\Delta m_t^{(6\to 5)}({\overline{m}}_t)$ and $\Delta m_b^{(5\to 4)}({\overline{m}}_b)$ of Eq. and R-evolution, see Eq. , with $n_t=5$ active dynamical flavors from ${\overline{m}}_t$ to ${\overline{m}}_b$ and with $n_b=4$ active dynamical flavors from ${\overline{m}}_b$ to $R$. The resulting expression for the top quark pole mass systematically sums all logarithms $\log({\overline{m}}_b/{\overline{m}}_t)$ and uses that the bottom quark pole-MSR mass relation, which specifies the bottom quark pole mass ambiguity, fully encodes the top quark pole mass ambiguity due to heavy quark symmetry. The expression for the top quark pole mass we use reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mtpolemczero}
m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}={\overline{m}}_t &+\Delta m_t^{(6\to 5)}({\overline{m}}_t)+\Delta m^{(5)}({\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b)+\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\to b)}({\overline{m}}_b,0) +\Delta m_b^{(5\to 4)}({\overline{m}}_b) \nonumber\\
&+\Delta m^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_b,R) + R\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n({n_{\ell}}=4,0)\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(4)}(R)}{4\pi}\right)^n\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the sum of the first four terms on the RHS is just $m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}+{\overline{m}}_b$, using Eq. , and the sum of the fifth and sixth term is the difference of the bottom MSR and ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ masses $m_b^{\mathrm{MSR}}(R)-{\overline{m}}_b$. Both quantities are free of an ${\mathcal{O}}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity and can be evaluated to the highest order given in Tabs. \[tab:DeltaMRRprime\], \[tab:MSRMSbmatch\] and \[tab:HQbreaking\]. We can then study the uncertainty of the top quark pole mass and its ${\mathcal{O}}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity from the $R$-dependent series which is just equal to $m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_b^{\mathrm{MSR}}(R)$.
[|A|B|B|B|]{}\
$R$ & ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t$ & ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b$ & ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c$\
$163$ & $173.162\pm0.228$ & $4.994\pm0.227$ & –\
$20$ & $173.155\pm0.212$ & $4.987\pm0.211$ & –\
$4.2$ & $173.227\pm0.212$ & $5.059\pm0.211$ & –\
$1.3$ & $173.126\pm0.215$ & $4.958\pm0.215$ & –\
\
$R$ & ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t$ & ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b$ & ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_c$\
$163$ & $173.165\pm0.263$ & $4.996\pm0.263$ & $1.665\pm0.262$\
$20$ & $173.161\pm0.245$ & $4.992\pm0.245$ & $1.661\pm0.244$\
$4.2$ & $173.259\pm0.259$ & $5.090\pm0.258$ & $1.759\pm0.258$\
$1.3$ & $173.159\pm0.244$ & $4.990\pm0.244$ & $1.659\pm0.243$\
The outcome of the analysis using the method described in Sec. \[sec:method\] for $({\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b)=(163,4.2)$ GeV as well as $R=163, 20, 4.2, 1.3$ GeV and $f=5/4$ is shown in the middle section of Tab. \[tab:mtpole\]. Except for the second and seventh column the entries are analogous to the analysis for ${\overline{m}}_b={\overline{m}}_c=0$ in Sec. \[sec:mbmczero\]. Here, the second column shows $m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}+m_b^{\mathrm{MSR}}(R)-{\overline{m}}_t$ and the seventh shows $m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_b^{\mathrm{MSR}}(R)$, which contains the ${\mathcal{O}}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity. The default choices and the ranges of variation for the renormalization scale in the strong coupling in the series for $m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_b^{\mathrm{MSR}}(R)$ are the same as for our analysis for ${\overline{m}}_b={\overline{m}}_c=0$ in Sec. \[sec:mbmczero\] for the corresponding $R$ values. The last column contains again the final result for $m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}$ combining the results for $m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}+m_b^{\mathrm{MSR}}(R)-{\overline{m}}_t$ and $m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_b^{\mathrm{MSR}}(R)$ where the uncertainties of both are added quadratically. The results are also displayed graphically in Figs. \[fig:mtpolea\]- \[fig:mtpoled\] as the light red hatched horizontal bands. In the upper section of Tab. \[tab:mQpole\] we also show the best estimate for the bottom quark pole mass $m_b^{\rm pole}$ obtained for the respective $R$ values, which can be obtained using Eq. and the result for the top-bottom pole mass difference of Eq. .
In Figs. \[fig:mtpole\] we have shown in red the results for $m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}(n)$ over the order $n$ for the different setups where the dots are again the results for the default renormalization scales that are used to determine $n_\mathrm{min}$, $\Delta(n_\mathrm{min})$ and $\{n\}_f$. The error bars are the range of values coming from the variations of the renormalization scale of the strong coupling. The red dots at $n=0$ visible in Figs. \[fig:mtpolec\] and \[fig:mtpoled\] show the highest order results for $m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_b^{\mathrm{pole}}+m_b^{\mathrm{MSR}}(R)$.
We again see that the results for the top quark pole mass for the different $R$ values are compatible each other. The ambiguity estimates average to $217$ MeV. Interestingly this estimate for the ambiguity of the top quark pole mass roughly agrees with ${\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}^{({n_{\ell}}=4)}=225$ MeV given in Eq. . This is larger than ${\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}^{(5)}=166$ MeV since the infrared sensitivity of the top quark pole mass increases when the number of massless quarks is decreased (i.e. $\beta_0^{(4)}>\beta_0^{(5)}$). Furthermore, we observe that the central values for the top quark pole mass cover a range that is compatible with case of a massless bottom quark. The central values average to $173.168$ GeV which is about $20$ MeV larger than for a massless bottom quark, which is, however, insignificant given the range of values covered by the central values or even the size of the ambiguity. So the bottom quark mass does essentially not affect the overall value of the top quark pole mass. We also note that the minimal corrections $\Delta(n_\mathrm{min})$ are all larger than the corresponding terms for the case of massless bottom and charm quarks. For $R=4.2$ and $1.3$ GeV they amount to about $130$ MeV.
Massive Bottom and Charm Quarks {#sec:finitembmc}
-------------------------------
We now, finally, consider the case that both the bottom and the charm quark masses are accounted for. Since this situation involves three scales, it is the most complicated concerning matching and evolution that systematically sums logarithms $\log({\overline{m}}_t/{\overline{m}}_b)$ and $\log({\overline{m}}_b/{\overline{m}}_c)$. However, the case can be treated in a straightforward way by iterating the top-bottom mass matching procedure of the previous section one more time concerning the bottom-charm mass matching. The resulting formula for the top quark pole mass reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mtpolembmc}
{m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t={\overline{m}}_t&+\Delta m_t^{(6\to 5)}({\overline{m}}_t)+\Delta m^{(5)}({\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b)+\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\to b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)\nonumber\\
&+\Delta m_b^{(5\to 4)}({\overline{m}}_b)+\Delta m^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)+\delta m_{c}^{(b\to c)}({\overline{m}}_c)+\Delta m_c^{(4\to 3)}({\overline{m}}_c)\\
&+\Delta m^{(3)}({\overline{m}}_c,R)+ R\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n({n_{\ell}}=3,0)\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(3)}(R)}{4\pi}\right)^n\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The expression combines the top-bottom and bottom-charm mass matching contributions $\delta m_{b,c}^{(t\to b)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ and $\delta m_c^{(b\to c)}({\overline{m}}_c)$ from Eqs. and , respectively, and the top, bottom and charm ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$-MSR mass matching contributions $\Delta m_t^{(6\to 5)}({\overline{m}}_t)$, $\Delta m_b^{(5\to 4)}({\overline{m}}_b)$ and $\Delta m_c^{(4\to 3)}({\overline{m}}_c)$ of Eq. . Furthermore it contains contributions from R-evolution with $n_t=5$ active dynamical flavors from ${\overline{m}}_t$ to ${\overline{m}}_b$, with $n_b=4$ active dynamical flavors from ${\overline{m}}_b$ to ${\overline{m}}_c$ and with $n_b=3$ active dynamical flavors from ${\overline{m}}_c$ to $R$. We do not employ any evolution to scales below ${\overline{m}}_c$ due to instabilities of perturbation theory for the charm pole-MSR mass relation at such low scales but we can explore scales above ${\overline{m}}_c$ using the R-evolution.
On the RHS of Eq. the sum of the first seven terms is just $m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}+{\overline{m}}_c$, using Eq. , and the eighth term is the charm ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$-MSR matching contribution. Both quantities are free from an ${\mathcal{O}}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity and can be evaluated to the highest order given in Tabs. \[tab:DeltaMRRprime\], \[tab:MSRMSbmatch\] and \[tab:HQbreaking\]. We can then study the ambiguity of the top quark pole mass due to the ${\mathcal{O}}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon from the $R$-dependent series which is just equal to $m^{\mathrm{pole}}_c-{m^{\rm MSR}}_c(R)$. This relation specifies the charm quark pole mass ambiguity, and it fully encodes the top and bottom quark pole mass ambiguities due to heavy quark symmetry.
We note that among all the terms shown in Eq. the contributions from the MSR mass differences $\Delta m^{(5)}({\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b)$, $\Delta m^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)$ and $\Delta m^{(3)}({\overline{m}}_c,R)$, determined with R-evolution, and the series proportional to $R$, which contains the ${\mathcal{O}}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon, constitute the numerically most important terms. They exceed by far the contributions from the matching corrections, which amount to only $50$ MeV and, therefore, fully encode the large order asymptotic behavior of the top quark pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass series $m_t^{\rm pole}-{\overline{m}}_t$ as defined in Eq. in the presence of finite bottom and charm quark masses. The large order asymptotic form of the coefficients in the expansion in powers of $\alpha_s^{(6)}({\overline{m}}_t)$ may then be determined directly from these terms for $R={\overline{m}}_c$ using the analytic solution for the MSR mass differences provided in Eq. (4.2) of Ref. [@Hoang:2017suc] and expanding in $\alpha_s^{(6)}({\overline{m}}_t)$. However, the resulting series suffers from the large logarithms involving the ratios of the top, bottom and charm quark masses, and is therefore less reliable for applications than the result shown in Eq. .
The outcome of the analysis using the method described in Sec. \[sec:method\] for (${\overline{m}}_t,{\overline{m}}_b,{\overline{m}}_c)=(163,4.2,1.3)$ GeV, as well as $R=163, 20, 4.2, 1.3$ GeV and $f=5/4$ is shown in the lower section of Tab. \[tab:mtpole\]. Except for the second and seventh column the entries are analogous to the previous two analyses in Secs. \[sec:mbmczero\] and \[sec:mczero\]. Here, the second column shows $m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}+{m^{\rm MSR}}_{c}(R)-{\overline{m}}_t$ and the seventh shows $m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}-{m^{\rm MSR}}_c(R)$, which contains the ${\mathcal{O}}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon ambiguity of the top quark pole mass. The default choices and the ranges of variation for the renormalization scale in the strong coupling in the series for $m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_c^{\mathrm{MSR}}(R)$ are the same as for the two previous analyses in Secs. \[sec:mbmczero\] and \[sec:mczero\] for the corresponding $R$ values. The last column contains again the final result for $m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}$ combining the results for $m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}+{m^{\rm MSR}}_{c}(R)-{\overline{m}}_t$ and $m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}-{m^{\rm MSR}}_c(R)$ where all uncertainties are added quadratically. These results are also displayed graphically in Fig. \[fig:mtpolea\]-\[fig:mtpoled\] as the light blue hatched horizontal bands. In the lower section of Tab. \[tab:mQpole\] we also show the best estimate for the charm and bottom quark pole masses $m_c^{\rm pole}$ and $m_b^{\rm pole}$, respectively, for the different $R$ values, which can be obtained using Eq. and the result for the top-bottom and top-charm pole mass difference of Eqs. and .
In Fig. \[fig:mtpole\] we have also shown in blue the results for $m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}(n)$ over the order $n$ for the different setups where the dots are again the results for the default renormalization scales that are used to determine $n_\mathrm{min}$, $\Delta(n_\mathrm{min})$ and $\{n\}_f$. The error bars are the range of values coming from the variations of the renormalization scale of the strong coupling. The blue dots visible in Figs. \[fig:mtpolec\] and \[fig:mtpoled\] at $n=0$ shows the highest order result for $m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}-m_c^{\mathrm{pole}}+{m^{\rm MSR}}_c(R)$.
We see that the results for the top quark pole mass for the different $R$ values are again fully consistent to each other. The ambiguity estimates average to $253$ MeV, which is more than twice the $110$ MeV ambiguity obtained in Ref. [@Beneke:2016cbu]. The reason for the discrepancy is the same as for the analysis for massless bottom and charm quarks already explained in Secs. \[sec:method\] and \[sec:mbmczero\], and we therefore do not discuss it here further. Concerning the size of the minimal corrections $\Delta(n_\mathrm{min})$, we find that they reach $116$, $154$ and $128$ MeV for $R=20$, $4.2$ and $1.3$ GeV, respectively, each of which is larger than $110$ MeV. As in the two previous analyses our result for the ambiguity agrees very well with the corresponding value of ${\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}$, given in Eq. , which in this case is also ${\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}^{({n_{\ell}}=3)}=253$ MeV. This is larger than the uncertainties we obtained for the cases discussed in the two previous analyses, where either the bottom and charm quarks were massless or just the charm quark, and thus again follows the pattern that the infrared sensitivity of the top quark pole mass increases when the number of massless quarks decreases (i.e. $\beta_0^{(3)}>\beta_0^{(4)}>\beta_0^{(5)}$).
Furthermore, we find that the central values for the top quark pole mass cover a range that is within errors in agreement with the two previous analyses. The range is, however, shifted slightly upwards by about $70$ MeV with respect to the case of massless bottom and charm quarks. For the value of the average we have $173.186$ GeV which is about $40$ MeV higher than the average $173.150$ GeV we obtained for massless bottom and charm quarks. This shift may represent a slight trend, but it is overall insignificant compared to the range of values covered by the central values or the size of the ambiguity. This shows that the charm quark mass, like the bottom quark mass, does not affect the value of the top quark pole mass. We can compare to the result of Ref. [@Beneke:2016cbu], where they found that the finite bottom and charm quark masses increase the top quark pole mass by $80\pm 30$ MeV, where the $30$ is their estimate for the uncertainty in their computation of the bottom and charm mass effects. This is consistent with the dependence on the bottom and charm masses we find in our analysis. Their prescription was based on a successive order-dependent reduction of the effective flavor number in the series motivated by the decoupling property observed in Ref. [@Ayala:2014yxa]. It incorporated some basic features of the bottom and charm mass corrections beyond the third order but is otherwise heuristic and does not systematically sum logarithms of ${\overline{m}}_b/{\overline{m}}_t$ and ${\overline{m}}_c/{\overline{m}}_t$. The consistency shows that concerning the estimate of the top quark pole mass ambiguity and within errors their prescription provides an adequate approximation.
Overall Assessment for the Pole Mass Ambiguity {#sec:overall}
----------------------------------------------
The overall outcome of the analyses above concerning the best possible estimates (and the ambiguities) of the top quark pole mass and the pole masses of the bottom and charm quarks is summarized as follows:
1. Heavy quark symmetry states that the ambiguity of a heavy quark pole mass is independent of the mass of the heavy quark and that the ambiguities of the pole masses of all heavy quarks are equivalent. Our method for estimating the ambiguity is insensible to the masses of the heavy quarks and, within any given setup for the heavy quark mass spectrum, obtains the same ambiguities for all heavy quark pole masses. It is therefore fully consistent with heavy quark symmetry.
2. Our examinations for different setups for the spectrum of the masses of the bottom and charm quarks show that the top quark pole mass ambiguity increases when the number ${n_{\ell}}$ of massless quarks is decreased (which arises when the number of lighter massive quarks is increased). The numerical size we find agrees very well with ${\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}^{({n_{\ell}})}$ defined in Eqs. . So our studies show that the well-accepted statement that “heavy quark pole masses have an ambiguity of order ${\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}$” can be specified to the more precise statement that “the ambiguity of the heavy quark pole masses is ${\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}^{({n_{\ell}})}$, where ${n_{\ell}}$ is the number of massless quarks”.
3. Considering the value of the top quark pole mass (and not its ambiguity) we find essentially no dependence on whether the bottom and charm quarks are treated massive or massless. This also implies that there is no dependence on actual values of the bottom and charm quark masses (which are know to a precision of a few $10$ MeV in the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ scheme). Likewise we also find that the value of the bottom quark pole mass has no dependence on whether the charm quark is treated massive or massless. These observations are important because, although the pole mass concept depends, due to the linear sensitivity to small momenta, intrinsically on the spectrum of the lighter massive quarks, they imply that one can give the top and the bottom quark pole masses a unique global meaning irrespective which approximation is used for the bottom and charm masses. In such a global context, however, one has to assign the largest value for ${\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}$ as the ambiguity of the pole mass. This value is obtained for finite bottom and charm quark masses and amounts to $250$ MeV which we adopt as our final specification of the top quark pole mass ambiguity.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this work we have provided a systematic study of the mass effects of virtual massive quark loops in the relation between the pole mass ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_Q$ and short-distance masses such as the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass ${\overline{m}}_Q(\mu)$ and the MSR mass ${m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R)$ [@Hoang:2008yj; @Hoang:2017suc] of a heavy quark $Q$, where we mean virtual loop insertions of quarks $q$ with ${\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}< m_q < m_Q$. In this context it is well-known that the virtual loops of a massive quark act as an infrared cut-off on the virtuality of the gluon exchange that eliminates the effects of that quark from the large order asymptotic behavior of the series. This effect arises from the ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ renormalon contained in the pole mass which means that the QCD corrections have a linear sensitivity of small momenta that increases with the order in the perturbative expansion. The primary aim of this work was to study this effect in detail at the qualitative and quantitative level. We established a renormalization group formalism that allows to discuss the mass effects coming from virtual quark loops in the on-shell self energy diagrams of heavy quarks in a coherent and systematic fashion. We in particular examined (i) how the logarithms of mass ratios that arise in this multi-scale problem can be systematically summed to all orders, (ii) the large order asymptotic behavior and structure of the mass corrections themselves and (iii) the consequences of heavy quark symmetry (HQS).
The basis of our formalism is that the difference of the pole mass and a short-distance mass contains the QCD corrections from all momentum scales between zero and the scale at which the short-distance mass is defined, which is $\mu$ for the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass ${\overline{m}}_Q(\mu)$ or $R$ for the MSR mass $m_Q^{\rm MSR}(R)$. The MSR mass ${m^{\rm MSR}}_Q(R)$, which is derived from self energy diagrams like the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass, is particularly suited to describe the scale-dependence for momentum scales $R<m_Q$ since its renormalization group (RG) evolution is linear in $R$, called R-evolution [@Hoang:2008yj; @Hoang:2017suc]. When the finite masses of lighter heavy quarks are accounted for, the MSR mass concept allows to establish a RG evolution and matching procedure where the number of active dynamical flavors governing the evolution changes when the evolution crosses a mass threshold and where threshold corrections arise when a massive flavor is integrated out. This follows entirely the common approach of logarithmic RG equations as known from the $n_f$ flavor dependent $\mu$-evolution of the strong coupling $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ and reflects the properties of HQS.
Due to heavy quark symmetry, the procedure allows for example to relate the QCD corrections in the top quark pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass difference ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_t-{\overline{m}}_t({\overline{m}}_t)$ that are coming from scales smaller than the bottom mass, to the bottom quark pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass difference ${m^{{\mathrm{pole}}}}_b-{\overline{m}}_b({\overline{m}}_b)$. This relation can be used to generically study and determine the large order asymptotic behavior and the structure of the lighter virtual quark mass corrections in the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass difference of a heavy quark $Q$. Within the RG framework we have proposed, we find that the bulk of the lighter virtual quark mass corrections is determined by their large order asymptotic behavior already at ${\mathcal O(\alpha_s^3)}$ (very much like the QCD corrections for massless virtual quarks), which confirms earlier observations made in Refs. [@Hoang:1999us; @Hoang:2000fm] and [@Ayala:2014yxa]. Using our RG framework and heavy quark symmetry we used this property to predict the previously unknown ${\mathcal O(\alpha_s^4)}$ lighter virtual quark mass corrections to within a few percent from the available information on the ${\mathcal O(\alpha_s^4)}$ corrections for massless lighter quarks without an additional loop computation, see Eq. . Furthermore we calculated the differences of the top, bottom and charm quark pole masses with a precision of around $20$ MeV, and we analyzed in detail the quality of the coupling approximation of Ref. [@Ayala:2014yxa], which works in an excellent way for the charm mass effects in the bottom quark pole mass, where in the context of the top quark, it fails.
The second aim of the paper was to use the formalism to determine a concrete numerical specification of the ambiguities of the heavy quark pole masses and in particular of the top quark pole mass. This is of interest because the top quark pole mass is still the most frequently used mass scheme in higher order theoretical predictions for the LHC top physics analyses. The ambiguity of the pole mass is the precision with which the pole mass can be determined [*in principle*]{} given that the complete series is known. This ambiguity is universal (i.e. it exists in equivalent size in any context and cannot be circumvented) and its size can therefore be quantified from the relation of the pole mass and any short-distance mass alone for which all terms in the series can be determined to high precision. With the renormalization group formalism we have proposed we carried out an analysis accounting explicitly for the constraints coming from HQS. HQS states (i) that the ambiguity of a heavy quark is independent of its mass, and (ii) that the QCD effects in the heavy quark masses coming from momenta below the lightest massive quark are all equivalent, which implies that the ambiguities of all heavy quarks are equal.
With our formalism both aspects were incorporated and validated in detail at the qualitative and quantitative level. We considered different scenarios for the treatment of the bottom and charm quark masses and employed a method to estimate the ambiguity that does not depend on the mass of the heavy quark in a way that is consistent with heavy quark symmetry. For the case of massless bottom and charm quarks we found that the ambiguity of the top quark pole mass is $180$ MeV, when the charm quark is massless we found $215$ MeV and when the finite masses of both the bottom and charm quarks are accounted for we obtained $250$ MeV. Numerically, the ambiguity turns out be essentially equal to the hadronization scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{(n_\ell)}$, defined in Eq. , where ${n_{\ell}}$ is the number of massless quarks. Thus, our analysis allows to specify the well-known qualitative statement “the heavy quark pole masses have an ambiguity of order ${\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}$” to the more specific statement “the ambiguity of heavy quark pole masses is ${\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}}^{({n_{\ell}})}$, where ${n_{\ell}}$ is the number of massless quarks”. This dependence of the top quark pole mass ambiguity on the number of massless flavors is fully consistent with the behavior expected from the pole mass renormalon. Furthermore, we have found that there is no significant dependence of the central value of the top quark pole mass on whether the bottom and charm quarks are treated as massive or massless.
Our results for the ambiguities differ considerably from those of Ref. [@Beneke:2016cbu]. They estimated the top quark pole mass ambiguity as $70$ MeV for the case that bottom and charm masses are neglected and as $110$ MeV when the bottom and charm masses are accounted for. We have shown in detail in which ways these values are incompatible with heavy quark symmetry and why our ambiguity estimates should be considered more reliable.
If one considers the top quark pole mass as a globally defined mass scheme valid for all choices of approximations for the bottom and charm quark masses, one should assign it an intrinsic principle ambiguity due to the ${\cal O}({\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}})$ renormalon of $250$ MeV. We stress, that this intrinsic uncertainty refers to the best possible precision with which one can in principle theoretically determine the top quark pole mass, and does not account in any way for issues unrelated to the pole mass renormalon in applications for actual phenomenological quantities, which typically involve NLO, NNLO or even NNNLO corrections from perturbative QCD. Furthermore, in order to achieve this theoretical precision it is required to have access to orders where the corrections (in the relation involving the pole mass) become minimal. The order where this happens in an actual phenomenological analysis also depends on the typical physical scale (i.e. the value of $R$) governing the examined quantity. If the top quark mass is determined from a quantity which has a low characteristic physical scale (e.g. top pair production close to threshold, kinematic endpoints, reconstructed top invariant mass distributions) then the minimal term is reached at very low orders, which may well be within the orders that can be calculated explicitly. If the top quark mass is determined from a quantity which has a high characteristic scale of the order or the top quark mass (e.g. total inclusive cross sections at high energies, virtual top quark effects) then the minimal term is reached only at high orders, which are not accessible to full perturbative computations. This also explains why top mass sensitive observables involving low characteristic physical scales are more sensitive for top quark mass determinations than observables involving high characteristic physical scales. So reaching the uncertainties in top quark pole mass determinations that come close to the ambiguity limit is in general much harder for observables governed by high physical scales.
Currently, the most precise measurements of the top quark mass from the D0 and CDF experiments at the Tevatron [@Tevatron:2014cka; @Abazov:2017ktz] and the ATLAS and CMS collaborations at the LHC [@Aaboud:2016igd; @Khachatryan:2015hba] use the top reconstruction method and already reach the level of $500$ to $700$ MeV. Projections for LHC Run-2 further indicate that this uncertainty can be reduced significantly in the future and may reach the level of $200$ MeV for the high-luminosity LHC run [@HL-LHC]. The outcome of our analysis disfavors the top quark pole mass as a practically adequate mass parameter in the theoretical interpretation of these measurements.
As a final comment we would like to remind the reader that all tricky issues concerning the convergence of the perturbative series and the way how to properly estimate the ambiguity of top quark pole mass become irrelevant if one employs an adequate short-distance mass definition. This may of course not mean in general that switching to a short-distance mass scheme will automatically lead to smaller uncertainties simply because other unresolved issues may then dominate. The outcome of our analysis, however, implies that even reaching a $250$ MeV uncertainty for the top quark pole mass in a reliable way within a practical application is difficult. This is because the ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$ renormalon prevents using common ways such as scale variation for the truncated series to estimate theoretical uncertainties, and can affect the behavior of the series already at low orders where the corrections still decrease. It is therefore advantageous to abandon the pole mass scheme in favor of an adequately chosen short-distance mass at latest when the available QCD corrections for a mass sensitive quantity yield perturbative uncertainties in the pole mass that become of the order of its ambiguity, which we believe is when they approach $0.5$ GeV.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge partial support by the FWF Austrian Science Fund under the Doctoral Program No. W1252-N27 and the Project No. P28535-N27 and the U.S. Department of Energy under the Grant No. DE-SC0011090. We also thank the Erwin-Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematics and Physics for partial support.
Virtual Quark Mass Corrections up to 3-Loop Order {#app:Delta}
=================================================
The virtual quark mass corrections of ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ were determined in Ref. [@Gray:1990yh] and read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:d21}
\delta_2(1) & = 8\left(\frac{\pi^2}{3}-1\right)\, = \, 18.3189 \\
\label{eqn:d2r}
\delta_2(r) &= \frac{8}{9}\pi^2 +\frac{16}{3}\ln^2 r - \frac{16}{3} r^2\left(\frac{3}{2} + \ln r\right) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm}+ \frac{16}{3}(1+r)(1+r^3)\left(\frac{\pi^2}{6} - \frac{1}{2}\ln^2 r + \ln r \,\ln(1+r) + {\rm Li}_2(-r)\right)\\
&\hspace{1cm}+ \frac{16}{3}(1-r)(1-r^3)\left(-\frac{\pi^2}{3} - \frac{1}{2}\ln^2 r + \ln r \,\ln(1-r) + {\rm Li}_2(r)\right) \,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The expansion of $\delta_2$ for small $r$ has the form $\delta_2(r)=(8\pi^2/3) r -16 r^2+(8\pi^2/3) r^3+\ldots$. At ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ the virtual quark mass corrections were determined semi-analytically in Ref. [@Bekavac:2007tk] for the case of one more massive quark $q$ in the heavy quark $Q$ self-energy. The corrections from the insertions of virtual loops of two different massive quarks $q$ and $q^\prime$ were not provided and are given in Eq. . In the following we provide the results for the full set of ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ virtual quark mass corrections using the results from Ref. [@Bekavac:2007tk] in the expansion for ${\overline{m}}_q/{\overline{m}}_Q\ll1$ adapted to our notation. The expressions for general ${\overline{m}}_q/{\overline{m}}_Q$, which are extensive, can be downloaded at <https://backend.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/i_particle_physics/publications/hpw.m>.
We consider the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)$ virtual quark mass corrections to the pole-${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ mass relation of the heavy quark $Q$ coming from $n$ lighter massive quarks $q_1$, $q_2$, …$q_n$ in the [*order of decreasing mass*]{} and $n_\ell$ additional quarks lighter than $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, which we treat as massless. So, the number $n_Q$ of quark flavors lighter than quark $Q$ is $n_Q=n+{n_{\ell}}$. The expressions for the functions $\delta_{Q,3}$ defined in Eqs. and can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{Q,3}^{(Q,q_1,q_2,\dots,q_n)}(1,r_{q_1 Q},\ldots,r_{q_n Q}) &= h(1) + ({n_Q}+1)\,p(1) + \sum_{i=1}^n w(1,r_{q_i Q}) \label{eqn:d31qq} \,,\\
\delta_{Q,3}^{(q_1,q_2,\dots,q_n)}(r_{q_1 Q},r_{q_2 Q},\ldots,r_{q_n Q}) &= h(r_{q_1 Q}) + {n_Q}\,p(r_{q_1 Q}) + \sum_{i=2}^n w(r_{q_1 Q},r_{q_i Q}) \label{eqn:d3qq} \,,\\
\delta_{Q,3}^{(q_m,q_{m+1},\dots,q_n)}(r_{q_m Q},r_{q_{m+1} Q},\ldots,r_{q_n Q}) &= h(r_{q_m Q}) + ({n_Q}-m+1)\,p(r_{q_m Q}) \nonumber\\ &\hspace{3.3cm}+ \sum_{i=m+1}^n w(r_{q_m Q},r_{q_i Q}) \,.\end{aligned}$$ All three formulae follow the same general scheme, where the number multiplying the function $p(r)$ is just the number of massive quarks in the superscript plus the number of massless quarks, ${n_{\ell}}$. We have displayed them nevertheless for clarity. The explicit form of the functions $h$, $p$ and $w$ is $$\begin{aligned}
h(1) &= 1870.7877 \,, \\
h(r) &= r\,(1486.55 - 1158.03 \ln r) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{.5cm} + r^2\,(-884.044-683.967\ln r
) + r^3\,(906.021 - 1126.84 \ln r) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{.5cm}+ r^4\,(225.158 + 11.4991\ln r - 80.3086 \ln^2 r + 21.3333 \ln^3 r) \\
&\hspace{.5cm} + r^5\,(126.996 -182.478\ln r) + r^6\,(-22.8899 + 38.3536\ln r - 54.5284 \ln^2 r) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{.5cm} + r^7\,(15.3830 - 34.8914\ln r) + r^8\,(2.52528 - 3.82270\ln r - 20.4593 \ln^2 r)
+ {\cal O}(r^9) \,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
p(1) &= -82.1208 \,, \\
p(r) &= \frac{32}{27}\int_0^\infty{\mathrm{d}}z\left[\frac{z}{2} + \left(1-\frac{z}{2}\right)\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{z}}\,\right] {\rm P}\left(\frac{r^2}{z}\right)\left(\ln z-\frac{5}{3}\right)\\
&= r\,(-66.4668 + 70.1839 \ln r) + r^2\, 14.2222 + r^3\,(15.4143 + 70.1839 \ln r) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{.5cm} + r^4\,(-23.1242 + 18.0613\ln r + 15.4074\ln^2 r - 4.74074\ln^3 r) - 31.5827\,r^5 \nonumber \\
&\hspace{.5cm} + r^6\,(11.9886 - 1.70667\ln r) - 4.17761\,r^7 + r^8\,(2.40987 - 0.161088\ln r)
+ {\cal O}(r^9)\,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ as well as $$\begin{aligned}
w(1,1) &= 6.77871 \,, \\
w(1,r) &= r^2\,14.2222
- 18.7157\,r^3 + r^4\,(7.36885 - 11.1477\ln r) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{.5cm} + r^6\,(3.92059 - 3.60296\ln r + 1.89630\ln^2 r) \nonumber\\
&\hspace{.5cm} + r^8\,(0.0837382 - 0.0772789 \ln r + 0.457144 \ln^2 r)
+ {\cal O}(r^9)\,,
\label{eqn:dtt1r}
\\
w(r_1,r_2) &= p(r_2) + \frac{32}{27}\int_0^\infty{\mathrm{d}}z\left[\frac{z}{2} + \left(1-\frac{z}{2}\right)\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{z}}\,\right] {\rm P}\left(\frac{r_1^2}{z}\right){\rm P}\left(\frac{r_2^2}{z}\right)\,, \label{eqn:dttr1r2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi(x) &= \frac{1}{3} - (1-2\,x)\left[2-\sqrt{1+4\,x}\ln\left(\frac{\sqrt{1+4\,x}+1}{\sqrt{1+4\,x}-1}\right)\right] \,, \\
{\rm P}(x) &= \Pi(x) + \ln x + \frac{5}{3} \,.\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: We assume $\alpha^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1180$ for $M_Z=91.187$ GeV for the ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ QCD coupling and account for 5-loop evolution [@Baikov:2016tgj] and flavor matching at the scales ${\overline{m}}_{c,b,t}$ [@Kniehl:2006bg], which gives $\alpha_s^{(6)}({\overline{m}}_t)=0.10847$, $\alpha_s^{(5)}({\overline{m}}_b)=0.22430$, $\alpha_s^{(4)}({\overline{m}}_c)=0.38208$.
[^2]: In Ref. [@Hoang:2017suc; @Hoang:2008yj] the natural and the practical MSR masses were introduced. In this paper we employ the natural MSR mass and call it just the MSR mass for convenience.
[^3]: The uncertainties of the normalization factors $N_{1/2}^{({n_Q})}$ are about an order of magnitude smaller than the renormalization scale variation of the series beyond ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^4)$ and therefore not significant for our analysis.
[^4]: In Ref. [@Beneke:1998ui] the order of the minimal series term $n_{\rm min}$ and the size of the minimal term $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ were not chosen from the set of the actual series terms but computed from the minimum of a quadratic fit to the series terms in the vicinity of the minimum, so that their $n_{\rm min}$ was a non-integer value and their $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ value is slightly smaller than the minimal term in the series. There are neither practical nor conceptual advantages of this procedure, and the numerical results are unchanged within their errors if $\Delta(n_{\rm min})$ is taken as the minimal terms in the series.
[^5]: This number is obtained for the default renormalization scale $\mu=2\,{\overline{m}}_c=2.6$ GeV. In the short analysis of Sec. \[sec:method\] we quoted $131$ MeV for the size of the minimal term for $R=1.3$ GeV, which was obtained for $\mu=1.3$ GeV.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**A STRONG APPROXIMATION OF SUB-FRACTIONAL BROWNIAN MOTION\
BY MEANS OF TRANSPORT PROCESSES**]{}\
Johanna Garzón, Luis G. Gorostiza and Jorge A. León
[**Abstract.**]{} Sub-fractional Brownian motion is a process analogous to fractional Brownian motion but without stationary increments. In [@GGL1] we proved a strong uniform approximation with a rate of convergence for fractional Brownian motion by means of transport processes. In this paper we prove a similar type of approximation for sub-fractional Brownian motion. .5cm [**1. Introduction**]{} .25cm Fractional Brownian motion (fBm) is well known and used in many areas of application (see [@N; @ST] for background, and [@DOT] for some applications). It is a centered Gaussian process $W=(W(t))_{t\geq 0}$ with covariance function $$E(W(s)W(t))=\frac{1}{2}(s^{2H} +t^{2H}-|s-t|^{2H}),\quad s, t\geq 0,$$ where $H\in (0, 1/2) \cup (1/2,1)$ (the case $H=1/2$ corresponds to ordinary Brownian motion). $H$ is called Hurst parameter. The main properties of fBm are that it is a continuous centered Gaussian process which is self-similar, has stationary increments with long range dependence, and is neither a Markov process nor a semimartingale. Since it is not a semimartingale, it has been necessary to develop new theories of stochastic calculus for fBm, different from the classical Itô calculus (see e.g. [@BHOZ; @Mi; @N; @NT] and references therein).
Sub-fractional Brownian motion (sfBm) is a process $S=(S(t))_{t\geq 0}$ that has the main properties of fBm except stationary increments, and its long range dependence decays faster than that of fBm. Its covariance function is $$E(S(s)S(t))=s^{2H}+t^{2H}-\frac{1}{2}\left[(s+t)^{2H}+|s-t|^{2H}\right],\quad s, t\geq 0,$$ with parameter $H\in (0,1/2)\cup (1/2, 1)$ (the case $H=1/2$ also corresponds to ordinary Brownian motion). The main properties of sfBm were studied in [@BGT1], where it was also shown that it arises from the occupation time fluctuation limit of a branching particle system with $H$ restricted to $(1/2,1)$. This process appeared independently in a different context in [@DZ].
The emergence of sfBm has motivated a series of papers where it arises in connection with several analogous but somewhat different branching particle systems, usually with $H\in (1/2, 1)$. It has been shown in [@BGT3] that it also comes out in a more natural way from a particle system without branching, and in [@BT] there is a different particle picture approach that yields sfBm with the full range of parameters $H\in
(0,1)$. Other long range dependent Gaussian processes have been obtained which are related to particle systems. A reader interested in fBm and sfBm in connection with particle systems can find some results and references in [@BGT1; @BGT2; @LX].
Some authors have studied further properties of sfBm for its own sake and related stochastic calculus, and possible applications of sfBm have been proposed (see [@BB; @EN; @HN; @LLY; @LYPW; @LY; @M; @No; @RT; @SCY; @SY; @SZ; @Sw; @T1; @T2; @T3; @T4; @T5; @T6; @YS; @YSH]).
There are various ways of approximating fBm in distribution that can be used for simulation of paths. In [@GGL1] we obtained a strong approximation of fBm with a rate of convergence by means of the Mandelbrot-van Ness representation of fBm and a strong approximation of Brownian motion with transport processes proved in [@GG]. This was employed in [@GGL2] for a strong approximation of solutions of fractional stochastic differential equations with a rate of convergence, which may be used for simulation of solutions (computational efficiency was not the objective). A strong approximation of the Rosenblatt process by means of transport processes with a rate of convergence has been obtained in [@GTT].
Since sfBm has attracted interest recently, it seems worthwhile to provide a strong approximation for it by means of transport processes with a rate of convergence, analogously as was done for fBm in [@GGL1]. This can be achieved using the same approach of [@GGL1] with some technical modifications and additional work. The aim of the present paper is to prove such a strong approximation for sfBm, which moreover has the same rate of convergence as that of the transport approximation of fBm. The result is given in Corollary 2.3.
We end the Introduction by recalling the strong transport approximation of Brownian motion. For each $n=1,2,\ldots$, let $(Z^{(n)}(t))_{t\geq 0}$ be a process such that $Z^{(n)}(t)$ is the position on the real line at time $t$ of a particle moving as follows. It starts from $0$ with constant velocity $+n$ or $-n$, each with probability $1/2$. It continues for a random time $\tau_1$ which is exponentially distributed with parameter $n^2$, and at that time it switches from velocity $\pm n$ to $\mp n$ and continues that way for an additional independent random time $\tau_2-\tau_1$, which is again exponentially distributed with parameter $n^2$. At time $\tau_2$ it changes velocity as before, and so on. This process is called a (uniform) transport process.
\[T1.1\] [@GG] There exist versions on the transport process $(Z^{(n)}(t))_{t\geq 0}$ on the same probability space as a Brownian motion $(B(t))_{t\geq 0}$ such that for each $q>0$, $$P\biggl(\sup_{a\leq t \leq b}|B(t)-Z^{(n)}(t) |>Cn^{-1/2}(\log n)^{5/2}\biggr) =o (n^{-q}) \quad {\it as}\quad n\rightarrow \infty,$$ where $C$ is a positive constant depending on $a,b$ and $q$.
See [@GG; @GGL1] for background and references.
[**2. Approximation**]{} \[S2\] .5cm A stochastic integral representation of sfBm $S$ with parameter $H$ is given by $$\label{eqdefS}
S(t)= C\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}[\left((t-s)^+\right)^{H-1/2}+((t+s)^-)^{H-1/2} - 2((-s)^+)^{H-1/2}]dB(s),$$ where $C$ is a positive constant depending on $H$, and $B=(B(t))_{t\in \mathbb{R}}$ is Brownian motion on the whole real line (see [@BGT1]). Rewriting (\[eqdefS\]), we have $$\label{eqrepS1}
S(t)= W(t) + Y(t),$$ where $W$ is a fBm with Hurst parameter $H$ and Mandelbrot-van Ness representation $$\label{eqdefW}
W(t)= C\biggl\{\int_{-\infty}^0[\left(t-s\right)^{H-1/2}-(-s)^{H-1/2}]dB(s)+ \int_0^t (t-s)^{H-1/2}dB(s)\biggr\},$$ and the process $Y$ is defined by $$\label{eqdefY}
Y(t)= C\biggl\{\int_{-\infty}^{-t}[\left(-t-s\right)^{H-1/2}-(-s)^{H-1/2}]dB(s)- \int_{-t}^0 (-s)^{H-1/2}dB(s)\biggr\}.$$
Due to (\[eqrepS1\])-(\[eqdefY\]), the processes $S$ and $Y$ have common properties in general, in particular the same Hölder continuity.
We fix $T>0$ and $a<-T$, and we consider the following Brownian motions constructed from $B$: .25cm (1) $\left(B_1(s)\right)_{0 \leq s \leq T}$, the restriction of $B$ to the interval $\left[0, T\right]$.\
(2) $\left(B_2(s)\right)_{a \leq s \leq 0}$, the restriction of $B$ to the interval $\left[a, 0\right]$.\
(3) $B_3(s)=
\begin{cases} sB(\frac{1}{s}) & \text{if}\ s\in
\left[1/a, 0\right),\\
0& \text{if}\ s=0.
\end{cases}$ .5cm By Theorem \[T1.1\] there are three transport processes $$%\begin{equation}
%\label{edeftranspro1}
(Z_1^{(n)}(s))_{0 \leq s \leq T}, \ (Z_2^{(n)}(s))_{a \leq s \leq 0}, \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ (Z_3^{(n)}(s))_{1/a \leq s \leq 0},
%\end{equation}$$ such that for each $q>0$, $$\label{eq98}
P\left(\sup_{b_i\leq t \leq c_i}|B_i(t) - Z_i^{(n)}(t)|> C^{(i)} n^{-1/2}(\log n )^{5/2}\right)= o(n^{-q}) \ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty,$$ where $b_i, c_i$, $i=1,2,3$, are the endpoints of the corresponding intervals, and each $C^{(i)}$ is a positive constant depending on $b_i$, $c_i$ and $q$. Note that $Z^{(n)}_2$ and $Z^{(n)}_3$ are constructed going backwards in time.
We now proceed similarly as in [@GGL1]. We define the functions $$f_t(s)= (t-s)^{H-1/2}-(-s)^{H-1/2}\ \ \ \ \text{for} \ \ \ s< 0\leq t \leq T,
%\end{equation}$$ $$g_t(s)=(t-s)^{H-1/2} \ \ \ \text{for}\ \ \ 0<s < t \leq T,
%%
%\end{equation}$$ and for $0<\beta<1/2$, we put $$\label{eqdefepsilon}
\varepsilon_n=-n^{-\beta/|H-1/2|}.$$
There are different approximations of $W$ for $H> 1/2$ and for $H<1/2$. We fix $0<\beta <1/2$. For $H>1/2$ we define the process $W^{(n)}_{\beta}=\left(W^{(n)}_{\beta}(t)\right)_{ t \in [0, T]}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{e75}
W^{(n)}_{\beta}(t)&=C_H\biggl\{\int_0^t g_t(s)dZ_1^{(n)}(s) + \int_{a}^0 f_t(s)dZ_2^{(n)}(s)+f_t(a)Z_2^{(n)}(a)\bigg.\notag\\
&\hspace{2.5cm}+\bigg.\int_{1/a}^{0}\biggl(-\int_{1/a}^{s\wedge {\varepsilon}_n}\partial_sf_t\biggl(\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}dv\biggr)dZ_3^{(n)}(s)\biggr\},\end{aligned}$$ and for $H<1/2$ we define the process $\hat{W}^{(n)}_{\beta}=\left(\hat{W}^{(n)}_{\beta}(t)\right)_{t \in [0, T]}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{e76}
&\hat{W}^{(n)}_{\beta}(t)=C_H\biggl\{\int_0^{(t+\varepsilon_n)\vee 0} g_t(s)dZ_1^{(n)}(s) + \int_{(t+\varepsilon_n)\vee 0}^t g_t(\varepsilon_n+s)dZ_1^{(n)}(s)\bigg.\notag\\
&+\int_a^{\varepsilon_n} f_t(s)dZ_2^{(n)}(s)+f_t(a)Z_2^{(n)}(a)+\bigg.\int_{1/a}^{0}\biggl(-\int_{1/a}^{s}\partial_sf_t\biggl(\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}dv\biggr)dZ_3^{(n)}(s)\biggr\}.\end{aligned}$$ We write $W^{(n)}=(W^{(n)}(t))_{t\in [0, T]}$, where $$\label{eqdefwn}
W^{(n)}=\begin{cases}
W^{(n)}_{\beta} & \text{if} \ \ H>1/2,\\
\hat{W}^{(n)}_{\beta} & \text{if} \ \ H<1/2.\\
\end{cases}$$ Note that $W^{(n)}$ is defined on the same probability space as the Brownian motion $B$ in (\[eqdefW\]), and recall that it depends on $\beta$ through (\[eqdefepsilon\]).
The following theorem gives the convergence and the rate of convergence of $W^{(n)}$ to $W$.
\[teoh1\] [@GGL1] Let $H\neq 1/2$ and let $W$ and $W^{(n)}$ be the processes defined by (\[eqdefW\]) and (\[eqdefwn\]), respectively. Then for each $q>0$ and each $\beta$ such that $0<\left|H-1/2\right|< \beta < 1/2$, there is a constant $C>0$ such that $$P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\left|W(t) - W^{(n)}(t)\right|> Cn^{-(1/2-\beta)}(\log n )^{5/2}\right)=o(n^{-q}) \ \ \text{as} \ n\to \infty.$$
We define another function $$\label{eqdeffunF}
F_t(s)= (-t-s)^{H-1/2}-(-s)^{H-1/2}\ \ \ \ \text{for} \ \ \ s< -t <0.$$ In [@GGL1] $Z^{(n)}_2(s)$ was defined for $s\in [a, 0]$ and $Z^{(n)}_3 (s)$ was defined for $ s\in [1/a,0]$, where $a<0$ was arbitrary, but for the approximation of sfBm we need $a<-T$ so that $F_t(s)$ is well behaved.
Now we define approximating processes for $Y$ and $S$ in (\[eqrepS1\]), again for a fixed $0<\beta <1/2$.
For $H>1/2$ we define the process $Y^{(n)}_{\beta}=(Y^{(n)}_{\beta}(t))_{t\in [0, T]}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqdefyn1}
Y^{(n)}_{\beta}(t)&=C\biggl\{-\int^0_{-t} (-s)^{H-1/2}dZ_2^{(n)}(s) + \int_{a}^{-t} F_t(s)dZ_2^{(n)}(s)+F_t(a)Z_2^{(n)}(a)\bigg.\notag\\
&\hspace{2.5cm}+\bigg.\int_{1/a}^{0}\biggl(-\int_{1/a}^{[{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)]\wedge s }\partial_sF_t\biggl(\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}dv\biggr)dZ_3^{(n)}(s)\biggr\},\end{aligned}$$ and for $H<1/2$ we define the process $\hat{Y}^{(n)}_{\beta}=\left(\hat{Y}^{(n)}_{\beta}(t)\right)_{t \in [0, T]}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqdefyn2}
\hat{Y }^{(n)}_{\beta}(t)=C&\biggl\{-\int_{-t}^{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)} (-s)^{H-1/2}dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\notag\\
& - \int_{\varepsilon_n\vee(-t)}^0 (-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\bigg. +F_t(a)Z_2^{(n)}(a)\notag\\
&-\int_{1/a}^{0}\biggl(-\int_{1/a}^{s}\partial_sF_t\biggl(\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}dv\biggr)dZ_3^{(n)}(s)+ \int_{a}^{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}F_t(s)dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\notag\\
&+\bigg. I_{\left\{-\varepsilon_n\leq t \right\}}\int_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{-t}F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(s)dZ^{(n)}_2(s)\biggr\}.\end{aligned}$$ We write $Y^{(n)}=(Y^n(t))_{t\in [0, T]}$, where $$\label{eqdefyn}
Y^{(n)}=\begin{cases}
Y^{(n)}_{\beta} & \text{if} \ \ H>1/2,\\
\hat{Y}^{(n)}_{\beta} & \text{if} \ \ H<1/2,\\
\end{cases}$$ (note that $Y^{(n)}$ involves only $Z^{(n)}_2$ and $Z^{(n)}_3$), and we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqdefsn}
S^{(n)}(t)&= W^{(n)}(t)+ Y^{(n)}(t),\end{aligned}$$ with $W^{(n)}$ as in (\[eqdefwn\]).
The following theorem gives the convergence and the rate of convergence of $Y^{(n)}$ to $Y$.
\[teoaproxy\] Let $H\neq 1/2$ and let $Y$ and $Y^{(n)}$ be the processes defined by (\[eqdefY\]) and (\[eqdefyn\]), respectively. Then for each $q>0$ and each $\beta$ such that $0<\left|H-1/2\right|< \beta < 1/2$, there is a constant $C>0$ such that $$P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\left|Y(t) - Y^{(n)}(t)\right|> Cn^{-(1/2-\beta)}(\log n )^{5/2}\right)=o(n^{-q}) \ \ \text{as} \ n\to \infty.$$
From Theorems \[teoh1\] and \[teoaproxy\] we have the following result.
\[teoaproxs\] Let $S$ and $S^{(n)}$ be the processes defined by (\[eqdefS\]) and (\[eqdefsn\]), respectively. Then for each $q>0$ and each $\beta$ such that $0<\left|H-1/2\right|< \beta < 1/2$, there is a constant $C>0$ such that $$P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\left|S(t) - S^{(n)}(t)\right|> Cn^{-(1/2-\beta)}(\log n )^{5/2}\right)=o(n^{-q}) \ \ \text{as} \ n\to \infty.$$
Note that the approximation becomes better when $H$ approaches $1/2$. .5cm [**Remark 2.4**]{} \[R2.5’\] The reason that the rates of convergence for $W$ and $Y$ are the same is that the integral representations of $W$ and $Y$, (\[eqdefW\]) and (\[eqdefY\]), have similar kernels, and the approximations depend basically on the rate of the transport approximation for Brownian motion and on the Hölder continuity of Brownian motion. Equation (\[eqrepS1\]) is a decomposition of sfBm $S$ as a sum of a fBm $W$ and a process $Y$, which holds everywhere on the sample space, and $W$ and $Y$ are dependent (but the dependence does not play a role in the proofs). In [@BB] (which contains an approximation of sfBm in law) and [@RT], for the case $H<1/2$, sfBm has a decomposition with equality in law as the sum of a fBm and a process of the form $$\int^\infty_0 (1-e^{-rt})r^{-(1+2H)/2}dB_1(r), \quad t\geq 0,$$ where $B_1$ is a Brownian motion. This kind of process was introduced in [@LN]. In that decomposition the Brownian motions $B$ and $B_1$ are independent. That representation could be used for proving an approximation of sfBm with transport processes in the case $H<1/2$, but it would require another independent set of transport processes to approximate $B_1$. We stress that our approximation is strong and holds for all $H$.
[**3. Proofs**]{} .5cm The proofs are based on a series of lemmas.
\[lemprop\] For each fixed $t>0$, the function $F_t$ defined by (\[eqdeffunF\]) has the following properties:
\(1) $$\label{eqpropF2}
|\partial_sF_t(s)|\leq |H-1/2|t(3/2-H)(-t-s)^{H-5/2}, \ \ s\leq -t.$$ (2) $$\label{eqpropF3}
\int_{-\infty}^{a} |\partial_sF_t(s)|(-s)^{1/2+\gamma}ds< \infty \ \text{for each} \ 0<\gamma <(1-H)\wedge (1/2).$$ (3) $$\label{eqpropF4}
\lim_{b\to -\infty}F_t(b)B(b)=0 \ \text{a.s.}$$ (4) $$\label{eq:3.4}
%\label{eqpropF5}
\int_{-\infty}^{a} F_t(s)dB(s)=F_t(a)B_2(a)-\int_{1/a}^0\partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv.$$
\(1) $$\partial_s F_t(s)=(H-1/2)[(-s)^{H-3/2}-(-t-s)^{H-3/2}].$$ Taking $g(x)=x^{H-3/2}$, $g'(x)=(H-3/2)x^{H-5/2}$, $x\in [-t-s, -s]$. By the mean value theorem, for some $r\in [-t-s, -s]$, $$|(-s)^{H-3/2}-(-t-s)^{H-3/2}|=|-g'(r)(-t-s+s)|=t(3/2-H)r^{H-5/2}\leq t(3/2-H)(-t-s)^{H-5/2}.$$ .25cm (2) From (1) and integration by parts we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq80}
&\int_{-\infty}^{a} |\partial_sF_t(s)|(-s)^{1/2+\gamma}ds \leq |H-1/2|t(3/2-H)\int_{-\infty}^{a}(-t-s)^{H-5/2}(-s)^{1/2+\gamma}ds\notag\\
&= \;\;|H-1/2|t\left[\left.(-s)^{\gamma+1/2}(-t-s)^{H-3/2}\right|_{-\infty}^{a}+\int_{-\infty}^{a}(1/2+\gamma)(-t-s)^{H-3/2}(-s)^{\gamma-1/2}ds\right].\end{aligned}$$ Since $\gamma<(1-H)\wedge (1/2)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq81}
\lim_{s\to -\infty}(-s)^{\gamma+1/2}(-t-s)^{H-3/2}&=\lim_{s\to -\infty}(-s)^{\gamma+H-1}\left(\frac{t}{s}+1\right)^{H-3/2}=0,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eq82}
&\int_{-\infty}^{a}(-t-s)^{H-3/2}(-s)^{\gamma-1/2}ds\leq \int_{-\infty}^{a}(-t-s)^{H+\gamma-2}ds\notag \\
&=\frac{(-t-a)^{H+\gamma-1}}{1-H-\gamma} <\infty,\end{aligned}$$ which together (\[eq80\]) and (\[eq81\]) shows that statement $(2)$ holds. .25cm (3) By the pathwise Hölder continuity of $B_3$ on $[1/a, 0]$, taking $0<\gamma< (1-H)\wedge (1/2)$, we have $|sB(1/s)|< Y(-s)^{1/2-\gamma}$ for each $s\in [1/a, 0]$ and a random variable $Y$. Then $|B(s)|< Y(-s)^{1/2+\gamma}$ for each $s\in (-\infty, a]$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eq83}
|F_t(b)B(b)|&\leq \left|(-t-b)^{H-1/2}-(-b)^{H-1/2}\right|Y(-b)^{1/2+\gamma}\notag\\
&=\left|\left(\frac{t}{b}+1\right)^{H-1/2}-1\right|Y(-b)^{H+\gamma},\end{aligned}$$ and using l’Hôpital rule, $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{b\to -\infty}\frac{\left|\left(\frac{t}{b}+1\right)^{H-1/2}-1\right|}{(-b)^{-\gamma-H}}=0.\end{aligned}$$ .25cm (4) Since $F_t$ is square-integrable on $(-\infty, a)$, $\lim_{b\to -\infty}\int_b^{a} F_t(s)dB(s)=\int_{-\infty}^{a} F_t(s)dB(s)$. Thus, applying integration by parts, $$\int_b^{a} F_t(s)dB(s)= F_t({a})B({a})- F_t(b)B(b)- \int_b^{a} \partial_sF_t(s)B(s)ds.$$ By the pathwise Hölder continuity of $B$ (see the proof of Statement (3)) and (\[eqpropF3\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\infty}^{a} |\partial_sF_t(s)B(s)|ds < \infty,\end{aligned}$$ and using (\[eqpropF4\]), $$%\label{eq84}
\int_{-\infty}^{a} F_t(s)dB(s)= F_t(a)B(a)-\int_{-\infty}^{a} \partial_sF_t(s)B(s)ds.
%\end{equation}$$ Now, with the change of variable $s=1/v$, $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eq85}
\int_{-\infty}^{a} \partial_sF_t(s)B(s)ds&=\int_{1/a}^0\partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^2}B\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)dv\notag\\
&=\int_{1/a}^0\partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv,\end{aligned}$$ and we obtain (\[eq:3.4\]).
We prove Theorem \[teoaproxy\] separately for $H>1/2$ and $H<1/2$. We denote the sup norm by $||\;||_\infty$, and it will always be clear from the context which interval it refers to. .25cm [**3.1. Case $\mathbf{H>1/2}$**]{}
We fix $H-1/2 <\beta <1/2$ and define $$\alpha_n=n^{-(1/2-\beta)}(\log n)^{5/2}.$$ The proof will be a consequence of the following lemmas, involving $Z^{(n)}_2$ and $Z^{(n)}_3$.
\[lemB1\] For each $q>0$ there is $C>0$ such that $$I_1=P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\left| F_t(a)B_2(a) -F_t(a)Z_2^{(n)}(a)\right|> C\alpha_n \right)= o(n^{-q})\ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.
%\end{equation}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\left| F_t(a)B_2(a) - F_t(a)Z_2^{(n)}(a)\right|&\leq \|B_2 - Z_2^{(n)}\|_{\infty}|(-t-a)^{H-1/2}-(-a)^{H-1/2}|\\
&\leq \|B_2- Z_2^{(n)}\|_{\infty}(-a)^{H-1/2},\end{aligned}$$
then, by (\[eq98\]), $$\begin{aligned}
I_1&\leq P\left(\|B_2 - Z_2^{(n)}\|_{\infty}(-a)^{H-1/2}> C\alpha_n \right)\\
&\leq P\left(\|B_2 - Z_2^{(n)}\|_{\infty}> Cn^{-1/2}(\log n)^{5/2} \right)=o(n^{-q}).\end{aligned}$$
\[lemA1\] For each $q>0$ there is $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eqA1}
I_2&=P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\left|\int^0_{-t} (-s)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s) - \int^0_{-t} (-s)^{H-1/2}dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\right|> C\alpha_n \right)\notag\\
&= o(n^{-q}) \ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$
By integration by parts, $$\begin{aligned}
&\int^0_{-t} (-s)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s)=-t^{H-1/2}B_2(-t)+ (H-1/2)\int^0_{-t}
(-s)^{H-3/2}B_2(s)ds.\end{aligned}$$ Analogously, $$\begin{aligned}
\int^0_{-t} (-s)^{H-1/2}dZ_2^{(n)}(s)&=-t^{H-1/2}Z_2^{(n)}(-t)+ (H-1/2)\int^0_{-t}
(-s)^{H-3/2}Z_2^{(n)}(s)ds,\end{aligned}$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\int^0_{-t} (-s)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s) - \int^0_{-t} (-s)^{H-1/2}dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\right|\\
&\leq t^{H-1/2}|B_2(-t)-Z_2^{(n)}(-t)|+(H-1/2)\int^0_{-t} (-s)^{H-3/2}\left|B_2(s)-Z_2^{(n)}(s)\right|ds\\
& \leq t^{H-1/2}\|B_2-Z_2^{(n)}\|_{\infty}+ (H-1/2)\|B_2-Z_2^{(n)}\|_{\infty}\left.\frac{-1}{H-1/2}(-s)^{H-1/2}\right|_{-t}^0\\
& \leq 2T^{H-1/2}\|B_2-Z_2^{(n)}\|_{\infty}.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently the result follows by (\[eq98\]).
\[lemD1\] For each $q>0$ there is $C>0$ such that $$%\begin{equation}
%\label{eqD1}
I_3=P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\left|\int_{a}^{-t} F_t(s)dB_2(s) - \int_{a}^{-t} F_t(s)dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\right|> C\alpha_n \right)= o(n^{-q}) \ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.
%\end{equation}$$
By integration by parts, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{a}^{-t} F_t(s)dB_2(s)&=F_t(-t)B_2(-t)-F_t(a)B_2(a)- \int_{a}^{-t} \partial_sF_t(s)B_2(s)ds \notag\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{a}^{-t} F_t(s)dZ_2^{(n)}(s)&= F_t(-t)Z_2^{(n)}(-t)-F_t(a)Z_2^{(n)}(a)-\int_{a}^{-t} \partial_sF_t(s)Z_2^{(n)}(s)ds,\end{aligned}$$ then, $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\int_{a}^{-t} F_t(s)dB_2(s) - \int_{a}^{-t}F_t(s)dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\right|\\
&\leq \|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}\left[|F_t(-t)|+|F_t(a)| +\int_{a}^{-t}| \partial_sF_t(s)|ds\right]\\
&= \|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}\biggl[t^{H-1/2}+ |(-t-a)^{H-1/2}-(-a)^{H-1/2}|\biggr.\\
&\hspace{3.7cm}+\left.\int_{a}^{-t}(H-1/2)[(-t-s)^{H-3/2}-(-s)^{H-3/2}]ds\right]\\
&\leq \|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}2T^{H-1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by (\[eq98\]) the proof is complete.
\[lemF1\] For each $q>0$ there is $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
I_4&=P\biggl(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\biggl|\int_{1/a}^{{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)} \partial_sF_t\biggl(\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv \biggr.\biggr.\\
&\hspace{2cm}\biggl.\biggl.- \int_{_{1/a}}^{0}\biggl(-\int_{1/a}^{[{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)]\wedge s}\partial_sF_t\biggl(\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}dv\biggr)dZ_3^{(n)}(s)\biggr|> C\alpha_n \biggr)\\
&= o(n^{-q}) \ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{1/a}^{{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)} \partial_sF_t\biggl(\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv=& I_{\{\varepsilon_n>1/a\}}\int_{1/a}^{{\varepsilon}_n} \partial_sF_t\biggl(\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv.\\\end{aligned}$$ Analogously, applying Fubini’s theorem we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int_{_{1/a}}^{0}\biggl(-\int_{1/a}^{[{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)]\wedge r}\partial_sF_t\biggl(\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}dv\biggr)dZ_3^{(n)}(r)}\\
&=&\int_{1/a}^{{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)} \partial_sF_t\biggl(
\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}Z_3^{(n)}(v)dv\\
&=&I_{\{\varepsilon_n\geq 1/a\}}\int_{1/a}^{{\varepsilon}_n}
\partial_sF_t\biggl(\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}Z_3^{(n)}(v)dv.\end{aligned}$$
Then, by (\[eqpropF2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\kern .35cm \left|\int_{1/a}^{{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)} \partial_vf_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv - \int_{1/a}^{0}\biggl(-\int_{1/a}^{[{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)]\wedge s} \partial_sF_t\biggl(\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}dv\biggr)dZ_3^{(n)}(s)\right|}\\
&\leq&\|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty}I_{\{\varepsilon_n>1/a\}}\int_{1/a}^{{\varepsilon}_n}\left|\partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{s}\right)\frac{1}{s^3}\right|ds\\
&\leq&\|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty}I_{\{\varepsilon_n>1/a\}}\int_{1/a}^{{\varepsilon}_n} t(3/2-H)(H-1/2)(tv+1)^{H-5/2}(-v)^{-1/2-H}dv\\
&\leq& \|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty}I_{\{\varepsilon_n>1/a\}} t(3/2-H)(H-1/2)\left(t/a+1\right)^{H-5/2}\int_{1/a}^{{\varepsilon_n}} (-v)^{-1/2-H}dv\\
&\leq& \|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty}I_{\{\varepsilon_n>1/a\}} t(3/2-H)(1+T/a)^{H-5/2}[(-\varepsilon_n)^{1/2-H} -(-1/a)^{1/2-H}]\\
&\leq& \|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty} T(3/2-H)(1+T/a)^{H-5/2}(-{\varepsilon}_n)^{1/2-H}.
%\end{align*}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, since $(-{\varepsilon}_n)^{1/2-H}=n^{\beta}$, by (\[eqdefepsilon\]), $$\begin{aligned}
I_4&\leq P\left(\|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty} T(3/2-H)(1+T/a)^{H-5/2}(-{\varepsilon}_n)^{1/2-H}>C\alpha_n\right)\notag\\
&\leq P\left(\|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty} >Cn^{-\beta}\alpha_n\right)\notag\\
&\leq P\left(\|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty} >Cn^{-1/2}(\log n)^{5/2}\right)=o(n^{-q}).\end{aligned}$$
\[lemG1\] For each $q>0$, $$%\begin{equation}
%\label{eqG1}
I_5=P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\left|\int_{{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)}^0 \partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv \right|> \alpha_n\right)=o(n^{-q})\ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.
%\end{equation}$$
By the pathwise Hölder continuity of $B_3$ with $0<\gamma<1-H$, and (\[eqpropF2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&\kern -.35cm \left|\int_{{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)}^0\partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv\right|\\
\leq &\int_{{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)}^0t(3/2-H)(H-1/2)(tv+1)^{H-5/2}(-v)^{-H-1/2}Y(-v)^{1/2-\gamma}dv\\
\leq &\;(3/2-H)(H-1/2)TY (1+T/a)^{H-5/2}
\int_{{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)}^0(-v)^{-H-\gamma}dv\\
\leq & \;CY({-\varepsilon}_n)^{1-H-\gamma}\\
= & \;CYn^{-\beta(1-H-\gamma)/(H-1/2)},\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a positive constant.
By Chebyshev’s inequality, for $r>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
I_5&\leq P\left(CYn^{-\beta(1-H-\gamma)/(H-1/2)}>\alpha_n\right)\\
&=P\left(CY>n^{\kappa}(\log n)^{5/2}\right)\\
&\leq \frac{E(|CY|^r)}{n^{r\kappa}(\log n)^{r5/2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa=-(1/2-\beta)+ \beta(1-H-\gamma)/(H-1/2)$. Taking $\gamma$ close enough to $0$ we have $H-1/2<(H-1/2)/(1-2\gamma)<\beta<1/2$, and then $\kappa>0$. For $q>0$ there is $r>0$ such that $q<r\kappa$, then $$%\begin{equation}
\lim_{n\to \infty}n^qI_5=0.
%\end{equation}$$
From (\[eqdefY\]), (\[eqdeffunF\]) and (\[eq:3.4\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
Y(t)&=C\left\{-\int_{-t}^0 (-s)^{H-1/2}dB(s) + \int_{a}^{-t} F_t(s)dB(s) + \int_{-\infty}^{a} F_t(s)dB(s)\right\}\\
&=C\left\{ -\int_{-t}^0(-s)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s) + \int_{a}^{-t} F_t(s)dB_2(s)+F_t(a)B_2(a)\right.\\
&\hspace{1cm} - \left.\int_{1/a}^0 \partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv\right\}\\
&=C\left\{-\int_{-t}^0 (-s)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s) + \int_{a}^{-t} F_t(s)dB_2(s)+F_t(a)B_2(a)\right. \\
&\hspace{1cm}\left.- \int_{1/a}^{\varepsilon_n\vee(1/a)} \partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv - \int_{\varepsilon_n\vee(1/a)}^0 \partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv\right\},\end{aligned}$$ then the definition of $Y^{(n)}$ (see (\[eqdefyn\])) implies $$\begin{aligned}
&|Y(t)-Y^{(n)}(t)|\leq C\Biggl\{\Biggl.\left|-\int_{-t}^0 (-s)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s)+\int_{-t}^0 (-s)^{H-1/2}dZ^{(n)}_2(s)\right|\\
&+\left|\int_{a}^{-t} F_t(s)dB_2(s)-\int_{a}^{-t} F_t(s)dZ^{(n)}_2(s)\right|+\left|F_t(a)B_2(a)-F_t(a)Z_2^{(n)}(a)\right|\\
&+\left|\int_{1/a}^{\varepsilon_n\vee(1/a)} \partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv-\int_{_{1/a}}^{0}\biggl(-\int_{1/a}^{[{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)]\wedge s}\partial_sF_t\biggl(\frac{1}{v}\biggr)\frac{1}{v^3}dv\biggr)dZ_3^{(n)}(s)\right|\\
&+\left|\int_{{\varepsilon}_n\vee (1/a)}^0 \partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv \right|\Biggl.\Biggr\}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, taking $\beta$ such that $0<H-1/2<\beta<1/2$, by Lemmas \[lemB1\], \[lemA1\], \[lemD1\], \[lemF1\] and \[lemG1\] we have the result.
[**3.2. Case $\mathbf{H<1/2}$**]{}
Let $1/2-H<\beta <1/2$, and $\varepsilon_n$ and $\alpha_n$ are as before. We proceed similarly with some lemmas.
\[lemA32\] For each $q>0$ there is $C$ such that $$%\begin{equation}
%\label{eqA32}
J_1=P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\left| F_t(a)B_2(a)-F_t(a)Z_2^{(n)}(a)\right|> C\alpha_n \right)= o(n^{-q})\ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.
%\end{equation}$$
Similar arguments as in the proof of Lemma \[lemB1\].
\[lemA22\] For each $q>0$ there is $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
%\begin{align}
\label{eqA22} J_2&=&P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq
T}\left|
\int_{-t}^{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(-s)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s) -
\int_{-t}^{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(-s)^{H-1/2}dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\right|>C\alpha_n\right)\notag\\
&=& o(n^{-q})\ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.
%\end{align}\end{aligned}$$
By integration by parts, $$\begin{aligned}
%\begin{align*}
%\label{eqdemA22-1}
\int_{-t}^{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(-s)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s)&=&I_{\{\varepsilon_n> -t\}}\biggl[\int_{-t}^{\varepsilon_n}(-s)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s)\biggr]\notag\\
&=&I_{\{\varepsilon_n> -t\}}\biggl[(-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}B_2(\varepsilon_n)-t^{H-1/2}B_2(-t)\biggr.\notag\\
&&\hspace{1.5cm}\biggl. +\int_{-t}^{\varepsilon_n}(H-1/2)(-s)^{H-3/2}B_2(s)ds\biggr],
%\end{align*}\end{aligned}$$
and analogously, $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eqdemA22-2}
&\int_{-t}^{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(-s)^{H-1/2}dZ_2^{(n)}(s)=I_{\{\varepsilon_n> -t\}}\biggl[-(\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}Z_2^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n) -t^{H-1/2}Z_2^{(n)}(-t)\biggr.\notag\\
&\biggl.\hspace{6.7cm}+\int_{-t}^{\varepsilon_n}(H-1/2)(-s)^{H-3/2}Z_2^{(n)}(s)ds\biggr]\notag .\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eqdemA22-3}
&\left|\int_{-t}^{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(-s)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s) - \int_{-t}^{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(-s)^{H-1/2}dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\right|\notag\\
&\leq I_{\{\varepsilon_n> -t\}}\|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}\biggl[(-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}+ t^{H-1/2}+\int_{-t}^{\varepsilon_n}(1/2-H)(-s)^{H-3/2}ds\biggr]\notag\\
&\leq 2\|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}{n^{\beta}}.\notag \end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eq90}
J_2&\leq P\left(2\|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}n^{\beta} >C\alpha_n\right)\leq P\left(\|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty} >Cn^{-1/2}(\log n)^{5/2}\right)=o(n^{-q}).\notag\end{aligned}$$
\[lemD22\] For $1/2-H< \beta < 1/2$ and each $q>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
%\begin{align*}
\label{eqD22}
J_3&=&P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\left|\int_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}^0 [(-s)^{H-1/2}- (-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}]dB_2(s) \right|> \alpha_n \right)\notag\\
&=&o(n^{-q}) \ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.
%\end{align*}\end{aligned}$$
By the Hölder continuity of $B_2$ with $0<\gamma<H$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqD22-1}
&\left|\int_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}^0 [(-s)^{H-1/2}- (-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}]dB_2(s)\right|=\left|\int_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}^0 \int_{-s}^{-s-\varepsilon_n} (1/2-H)x^{H-3/2}dxdB_2(s)\right|\notag\\
&=\left|\int_0^{-\varepsilon_n-(\varepsilon_n\vee(-t))}\int_{(-t\vee\varepsilon_n)\vee (-x)}^{(-x-\varepsilon_n)\wedge 0}(1/2-H)x^{H-3/2}dB_2(s)dx\right|\notag\\
&=\left|\int_0^{-\varepsilon_n-(\varepsilon_n\vee(-t))}(1/2-H)x^{H-3/2}[B_2((-x-\varepsilon_n)\wedge 0)-B_2((-t\vee\varepsilon_n)\vee (-x))]dx\right|\notag\\
&\leq (1/2-H)Y\int_0^{-\varepsilon_n-(\varepsilon_n\vee(-t))}x^{H-3/2}A_1^{1/2-\gamma}(x)dx,\end{aligned}$$ where $$%\begin{equation}
A_1(x)=|(-x-\varepsilon_n)\wedge 0- ((-t)\vee\varepsilon_n\vee (-x))|.
%\end{equation}$$ First, if $0\leq -x-\varepsilon_n$, then $A_1(x)=| (-t)\vee(-x)|$, and if $t<x$, then $$\label{eqA11}
A_1(x)=t<x<2x.$$ If $t\geq x$, then $$\label{eqA12}
A_1(x)=x<2x.$$ Second, if $0> -x-\varepsilon_n$, then $$\begin{aligned}
A_1(x)&=&|-x-\varepsilon_n- ((-t)\vee \varepsilon_n\vee(-x))|= |-x-\varepsilon_n- ((-t)\vee \varepsilon_n)|\\
&=&-x-\varepsilon_n- ((-t)\vee \varepsilon_n) \leq -\varepsilon_n+(t\wedge(-\varepsilon_n)).\end{aligned}$$ If $t<-\varepsilon_n$, then $$\label{eqA13}
A_1(x)\leq -\varepsilon_n+t\leq -2\varepsilon_n<2x,$$ and if $t\geq -\varepsilon_n$, then $$\label{eqA14}
A_1(x)= -\varepsilon_n-\varepsilon_n\leq -2\varepsilon_n<2x.$$ From (\[eqA11\])-(\[eqA14\]) we have that $A_1(x)\leq 2x$, and then from (\[eqD22-1\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&\kern -.26cm\left|\int_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}^0 [(-s)^{H-1/2}- (-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}]dB_2(s)\right|\\
\leq&\;\; (1/2-H)2^{1/2-\gamma}Y\int_0^{-\varepsilon_n-(\varepsilon_n\vee(-t))}x^{H-1-\gamma}dx\\
=&\;\; \frac{(1/2-H)2^{1/2-\gamma}}{H-\gamma}Y({-\varepsilon_n-(\varepsilon_n\vee(-t))})^{H-\gamma}\\\
\leq&\;\; \left.\frac{(1/2-H)2^{H-2\gamma+1/2}}{H-\gamma}Y
({-\varepsilon_n})^{H-\gamma}.\right.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
J_3&\leq P\left(\frac{(1/2-H)2^{H-2\gamma+1/2}}{H-\gamma}Y({-\varepsilon_n})^{H-\gamma}>\alpha_n\right)\\
&=\;\;P\left(CY>({-\varepsilon_n})^{-H+\gamma}\alpha_n\right)\\
&=\;\;P\left(CY>n^{\kappa}(\log n)^{5/2}\right)\\
&\leq \;\;\frac{E(\left|CY\right|^r)}{n^{r\kappa}(\log n)^{r5/2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa=-(1/2-\beta)- \beta(H-\gamma)/(H-1/2)$. Taking $\gamma$ close enough to $0$ we have $0<(1/2-H)/(1-2\gamma)<\beta<1/2$, and then $\kappa>0$. The result follows by analogous arguments as in proof of the Lemma \[lemG1\].
\[lemF22\] For each $q>0$ there is $C$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eqF22}
J_4&= P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\left|
\int^0_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s)-\int^0_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\right|>C\alpha_n \right)\notag\\
& = o(n^{-q}) \ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$
By integration by parts $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eqdemF22-1}
&\int^0_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s)\\
&=-(-(\varepsilon_n\vee (-t))-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}B_2(\varepsilon_n\vee (-t))
+\int^0_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(H-1/2)(-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-3/2}B_2(s)ds,\end{aligned}$$ and
$$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eqdemF22-2}
&\kern -.29cm \int^0_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\notag\\
=&-(-(\varepsilon_n\vee (-t))-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}Z_2^{(n)}(\varepsilon_n\vee (-t))
+\int^0_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(H-1/2)(-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-3/2}Z_2^{(n)}(s)ds.\end{aligned}$$
Then $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eqdemF22-4}
&\left|
\int^0_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s)-\int^0_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\right|\notag\\
&\leq\|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}\biggl[(-(\varepsilon_n\vee (-t))-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}+ \int^0_{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}(1/2-H)(-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-3/2}ds \biggr]\notag\\
&=\|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}(-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}\notag\\
&=\|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}n^\beta.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\begin{aligned}
J_4\leq &\;P\left(\|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}n^{\beta}>C\alpha_n \right)=P\left(\|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}> Cn^{-1/2}(\log n)^{5/2} \right)\\
&\kern -.33cm =o(n^{-q}).\end{aligned}$$
\[lemG22\] For each $q>0$ there is $C$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
J_5&=P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\right.\left|\int^0_{1/a} \partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv \right.\\
&\hspace{2.3cm}- \left.\left.\int^0_{1/a}\left(-\int_{{1/a}}^{s}\partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}dv\right)dZ_3^{(n)}(s)\right|> C\alpha_n \right)\\
&= o(n^{-q}) \ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$
By the Fubini’s theorem we have $$\int^0_{1/a}\left(-\int_{1/a}^{s}\partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}dv\right)dZ_3^{(n)}(s)=\int^0_{1/a} \partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}Z^{(n)}_3(v)dv,$$ then, by Lemma \[lemprop\], $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\int^0_{1/a} \partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv - \int^0_{1/a}\left(-\int_{{1/a}}^{s}\partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}dv\right)dZ_3^{(n)}(s)\right|\\
&\leq \|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty}\int^0_{1/a} \left|\partial_sF_t
\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}\right|dv\\
&\leq \|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty}\int^0_{1/a} t(3/2-H)(1/2-H)(tv+1)^{H-5/2}(-v)^{-1/2-H}dv \\
&\leq \|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty}t(3/2-H)(t/a+1)^{H-5/2}(1/2-H)\int^0_{1/a} (-v)^{-1/2-H}dv \\
&\leq \|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty}T(3/2-H)(T/a+1)^{H-5/2}(-1/a)^{1/2-H}. \\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$%\begin{align*}
%\label{eqdemG22-3}
J_5 \leq P\left(\|B_3-Z_3^{(n)}\|_{\infty}>C\alpha_n \right)=o(n^{-q}).$$
\[lemJ22\] For each $q>0$ there is $C$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
J_6&=P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\left|\int^{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}_{a} F_t(s)dB_2(s) -\int^{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}_{a} F_t(s)dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\right|> C\alpha_n \right)\\
&= o(n^{-q}) \ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$
By integration by parts,
$$\begin{aligned}
\int^{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}_{a} F_t(s)dB_2(s)
&=F_t(a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n))B_2(a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n))-F_t(a)B_2(a)\\
&\ \ \ \ -\int^{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}_{a} \partial_sF_t(s)B_2(s)ds,\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\int^{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}_{a} F_t(s)dZ_2^{(n)}(s)&=F_t(a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n))Z_2^{(n)}(a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n))\\
&\ \ \ \ -F_t(a)Z_2^{(n)}(a) -\int^{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}_{a} \partial_sF_t(s)Z_2^{(n)}(s)ds.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
&\kern -.3cm\left|\int^{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}_{a} F_t(s)dB_2(s)-\int^{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}_{a} F_t(s)dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\right|\\
\leq&\;\; \|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty} \left[|F_t(a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n))|+
|F_t(a)|+\int^{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}_{a}| \partial_sF_t(s)|ds\right]\\
=&\;\; \|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}
\biggl[(-t-(a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)))^{H-1/2}-(-(a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)))^{H-1/2}\biggr.\\
&\biggl.+(-t-a)^{H-1/2}-(-a)^{H-1/2}+\int^{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}_{a}(1/2-H)[(-t-s)^{H-3/2}-(-s)^{H-3/2}]ds\biggr]\\
=&\;\; \|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}
2\biggl[(-t-(a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)))^{H-1/2}-(-(a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)))^{H-1/2}\biggr]\\
\leq&\;\;\|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}2((-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}+(-T-a)^{H-1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ Hence the result follows.
\[lemJ23\] For each $q>0$ there is $C$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
J_7&=P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\left|I_{\left\{-\varepsilon_n\leq t \right\}}
\int^{-t}_{a\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n)} F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(s)dB_2(s)\right.\right.\\
&\hspace{2cm}\left.\left.-I_{\left\{-\varepsilon_n\leq t \right\}}
\int^{-t}_{a\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n)} F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(s)dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\right|> C\alpha_n \right)\\
&= o(n^{-q}) \ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof.*]{} By integration by parts, .10cm $$\begin{aligned}
&I_{\left\{-\varepsilon_n\leq t \right\}}\left|
\int^{-t}_{a\vee (-t +\varepsilon_n)} F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(s)dB_2(s)-
\int^{-t}_{a\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n)} F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(s)dZ_2^{(n)}(s)\right|\\
&=\;\;I_{\{-\varepsilon_n \leq t\}}\left|F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(-t) (B_2 (-t)-Z^{(n)}_2 (-t))
\right.\\
&-F_{t+\varepsilon_n} (a\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n))(B_2(a\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n))-Z^{(n)}_2
(a\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n))\\
&\left.-\int^{-t}_{a\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n)} \partial_s F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(s)(B_2(s)-Z^{(n)}_2 (s))ds\right|\\
&\leq \;\; I_{\{-\varepsilon_n \leq t\}}||B_2 -Z^{(n)}_2 ||_\infty
\biggl(|F_{t+\varepsilon_n} (-t)|+|F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(a\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n))|\biggr. \left.+ \int^{-t}_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)} |\partial_s F_{t+\varepsilon_n} (s) |ds\right)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&=\;\;I_{\{-\varepsilon_n \leq t\}} ||B_2 -Z^{(n)}_2 ||_\infty
\biggl((-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}-(t)^{H-1/2} +(-t-\varepsilon_n-(a\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n)))^{H-1/2}\biggr.\\
&-\;\left. (-(a\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n)))^{H-1/2}+\left(1/2-H\right) \int^{-t}_{a\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n)} [(-s-t-\varepsilon_n)^{H-3/2}-(-s)^{H-3/2}]ds\right)\\
&=\; I_{\{-\varepsilon_n \leq t\}} ||B_2-Z^{(n)}_2 ||_\infty 2\left((-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}-t^{H-1/2}\right)\\
&\leq\;\;2\|B_2-Z^{(n)}_2\|_{\infty}(-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2},\end{aligned}$$ and we have the result similarly as the Lemma \[lemF22\]. $\Box$
\[lemK22\] For $1/2-H<\beta<1/2$ and each $q>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eqJ}
&J_8=P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq
T}\left|I_{\left\{t< -\varepsilon_n \right\}}\int_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{-t} F_t(s)dB_2(s) \right|> C\alpha_n \right)=
o(n^{-q}) \ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$
By the Hölder continuity of $B_2$ with $0<\gamma <H$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq152}
&\kern -.45cm \left|I_{\left\{t< -\varepsilon_n \right\}}\int_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{-t} F_t(s)dB_2(s)\right|\notag\\
=&\;\;\left|I_{\left\{t< -\varepsilon_n \right\}}\int_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{-t}\int_{-t-s}^{-s}(1/2-H)x^{H-3/2}dxdB_2(s)\right|\notag\\
=&\;\;\left|I_{\left\{t< -\varepsilon_n \right\}}\int_0^{-(a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n))}\int_{(-t-x)\vee a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{(-x)\wedge(-t)}(1/2-H)x^{H-3/2}dB_2(s)dx\right|\notag\\
=&\;\;\biggl|I_{\left\{t< -\varepsilon_n \right\}}\int_0^{-(a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n))}(1/2-H)x^{H-3/2}[B_2((-x)\wedge(-t))\biggr.\notag\\
&\hspace{7cm}\biggl.-B_2((-t-x)\vee a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n))]dx\biggr|\notag\\
\leq&\;\;(1/2-H)YI_{\left\{t< -\varepsilon_n \right\}}\int_0^{-(a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n))}x^{H-3/2}(A_2(x))^{1/2-\gamma}dx\end{aligned}$$ where $$%\begin{equation}
%\label{eqA20}
A_2(x)=|((-x)\wedge(-t))-((-t-x)\vee a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n))|.
%\end{equation}$$ First, if $-x<-t$ and $-t-x<-t+\varepsilon_n$, then $$\label{eqA2-1}
A_2(x)=-x+(-a\wedge (t-\varepsilon_n))<t<x.$$ If $-x<-t$ and $-t-x\geq-t+\varepsilon_n$, then $$\label{eqA2-2}
A_2(x)=-x+((t+x)\wedge (-a))<t<x.$$ Second, if $-x\geq-t$ and $-t-x<-t+\varepsilon_n$, then $$\label{eqA2-3}
A_2(x)=-t+(-a\wedge (t-\varepsilon_n))<-\varepsilon_n<x.$$ If $-x\geq -t$ and $-t-x\geq-t+\varepsilon_n$, then $$\label{eqA2-4}
A_2(x)=-t+((t+x)\wedge (-a))<x.$$
From (\[eqA2-1\])-(\[eqA2-4\]) we have that $A_2(x)\leq x$, then by (\[eq152\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\left|I_{\left\{t< -\varepsilon_n \right\}}\int_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{-t}
F_t(s)dB_2(s)\right|
\leq &\;\;(1/2-H)YI_{\left\{t< -\varepsilon_n \right\}}
\int_0^{-(a\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n))}x^{H-\gamma-1}dx\\
\leq &\;\;\frac{1/2-H}{H-\gamma}YI_{\left\{t< -\varepsilon_n \right\}}
({t-\varepsilon_n})^{H-\gamma}\\
\leq&\;\;\frac{1/2-H}{H-\gamma}2^{H-\gamma}Y(-\varepsilon_n)^{H-\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ Proceeding similary as in Lemma \[lemD22\] we have the result.
\[lemL22\] For $1/2-H<\beta<1/2$ and each $q>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eqL22}
&J_9=P\left(\sup_{0\leq t \leq
T}\left|I_{\left\{-\varepsilon_n \leq t\right\}}\int_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{-t} [F_t(s)-F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(s)]dB_2(s) \right|> C\alpha_n \right)\nonumber\\
&\;=o(n^{-q}) \ \ \ \text{as} \ \ n\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$
By the Hölder continuity of $B_2$ with $0<\gamma <H$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq153}
&\kern -.35cm\left|I_{\left\{-\varepsilon_n \leq t \right\}}\int_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{-t} [F_t(s)-F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(s)]dB_2(s)\right|\notag\\
=&\;\;\left|I_{\left\{-\varepsilon_n \leq t \right\}}\int_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{-t}\int_{-t-s}^{-t-s-\varepsilon_n}(1/2-H)x^{H-3/2}dxdB_2(s)\right|\notag\\
=&\;\;\biggl|I_{\left\{-\varepsilon_n \leq t \right\}}\int_0^{-t-\varepsilon_n+((-a)\wedge(t-\varepsilon_n))}(1/2-H)x^{H-3/2}[B_2((-t-x-\varepsilon_n)\wedge(-t))\biggr.\notag\\
&\hspace{8cm}\biggl.-B_2((-t-x)\vee a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n))]dx\biggr|\notag\\
\leq&\;\;(1/2-H)YI_{\left\{-\varepsilon_n \leq t \right\}}\int_0^{-t-\varepsilon_n+((-a)\wedge(t-\varepsilon_n))}x^{H-3/2}(A_3(x))^{1/2-\gamma}dx,\end{aligned}$$ where $$A_3(x)=|(-t-x-\varepsilon_n)\wedge (-t)-((-t-x)\vee (-t+\varepsilon_n)\vee a)|\leq x.$$ Then, by (\[eq153\]), $$\begin{aligned}
%\label{eq154}
&\kern -.35cm \left|I_{\left\{-\varepsilon_n \leq t \right\}}\int_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{-t} [F_t(s)-F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(s)]dB_2(s)\right|\notag\\
\leq&\;\;(1/2-H)YI_{\left\{-\varepsilon_n \leq t \right\}}\int_0^{-t-\varepsilon_n+((-a)\wedge(t-\varepsilon_n))}x^{H-1-\gamma}dx\notag\\
\leq&\;\;Y\frac{1/2-H}{H-\gamma}(-t-\varepsilon_n+((-a)\wedge(t-\varepsilon_n)))^{H-\gamma}\notag\\
\leq&\;\;Y\frac{1/2-H}{H-\gamma}2^{H-\gamma}(-\varepsilon_n)^{H-\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ Proceeding similary as in Lemma \[lemD22\] we have the result.
From (\[eqdefY\]), (\[eqdeffunF\]) and (\[eq:3.4\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Y(t)=&\;C\left\{-\int^0_{-t} (-s)^{H-1/2}dB(s) + \int_{a}^{-t} F_t(s)dB(s) + \int_{-\infty}^{a} F_t(s)dB(s)\right\}\\
=&\;C\left\{-\int^{\varepsilon_n\vee (-t)}_{-t} (-s)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s) - \int_{\varepsilon_n\vee(-t)}^0 [(-s)^{H-1/2}-(-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}]dB_2(s)\right.\\
&-\int_{\varepsilon_n\vee(-t)}^0 (-s-\varepsilon_n)^{H-1/2}dB_2(s)+\int_{a}^{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)} F_t(s)dB_2(s)\\
& +I_{\left\{t< -\varepsilon_n \right\}}\int_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{-t} F_t(s)dB_2(s)+I_{\left\{ -\varepsilon_n \leq t \right\}}\int_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{-t} [F_t(s)-F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(s)]dB_2(s)\\
&+I_{\left\{ -\varepsilon_n \leq t \right\}}\int_{a\vee(-t+\varepsilon_n)}^{-t} F_{t+\varepsilon_n}(s)dB_2(s)+F_t(a)B_2(a)\\
&\left.-\int_{1/a}^{0}\partial_sF_t\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)\frac{1}{v^3}B_3(v)dv\right\},\end{aligned}$$ and we have the result similarly as the case $H>1/2$.
[**Acknowledgment**]{} .25cm This work was done with support of CONACyT grant 98998.
[BGT2]{} X. Bardina, D. Bascompte, Weak convergence towards two independent Gaussian processes from a unique Poisson process, [*Collect. Math.*]{} [**61**]{} (2010), no. 2, 191-204. F. Biagini, Y. Hu, B. $\not$[O]{}ksendal, T. Zhang, Stochastic Calculus for Fractional Brownian Motion and Applications, [*Springer*]{}, 2008. T. Bojdecki, L.G. Gorostiza, A. Talarczyk, Sub-fractional Brownian motion and its relation to occupation times, [*Stat. Prob. Lett.*]{} [**69**]{} (2004), 405-419. T. Bojdecki, L.G. Gorostiza, A. Talarczyk, Occupation times of branching systems with initial inhomogeneous Poisson states and related superprocesses, [*Elec. J. Probab.*]{} [**14**]{} (2009), 1328-1371. T. Bojdecki, L.G. Gorostiza, A. Talarczyk, Particle systems with quasi-homogeneous initial states and their occupation time fluctuations, [*Elect. Commun. Probab.*]{} [**15**]{} (2010), 191-202. T. Bojdecki, A Talarczyk, Particle picture interpretation of some Gaussian processes related to fractional Brownian motion, [*arXiv:*]{} PR 1108-2745 (2011). P. Doukhan, G. Oppenheim, M.S. Taqqu, Theory and Applications of Long-Range Dependence, [*Birkhäuser*]{}, 2003. K.O. Dzhaparidze, J.H. van Zanten, A series expansion of fractional Brownian motion, [*Probab. Theory Related Fields*]{} [**130**]{} (2004), 39-55. C. El-Nouty, The lower classes of the sub-fractional Brownian motion. In Stochastic Differential Equations and Processes. [*Springer Proceedings in Mathematics*]{} [**7**]{} (2012), 179-196. J. Garzón, L.G. Gorostiza, J.A. León, A strong uniform approximation of fractional Brownian motion by means of transport processes, [*Stoch. Proc. Appl.*]{} [**119**]{} (2009), 3435-3452. J. Garzón, L.G. Gorostiza, J.A. León, Approximations of fractional stochastic differential equations by means of transport processes, [*Comm. Stoch. Analysis*]{} [**5**]{} (2011), 443-456. J. Garzón, S. Torres, C.A. Tudor, A strong convergence to the Rosenblatt process, [*arXiv:*]{} PR 1109.4345 (2011). L.G. Gorostiza, R.J. Griego, Rate of convergence of uniform transport processes to Brownian motion and application to stochastic integrals, [*Stochastics*]{} [**3**]{} (1980), 291-303. D. Harnett, D. Nualart, Weak convergence of the Stratonovich integral with respect to a class of Gaussian processes, [*arXiv:*]{} PR 1109.3110 (2011).
P. Lei, D. Nualart, A decomposition of the bifractional Brownian motion and some applications, [*Stat. Prob. Lett.*]{} [**79**]{} (2009), 619-624. Y. Li, Y. Xiao, Occupation time fluctuations of weakly degenerate branching systems, [*J. Theoret. Probab.*]{} (to appear).
J. Liu, L. Li, L. Yan, Sub-fractional model for credit risk pricing, [*International J. Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation*]{} [**11**]{} (2010), 231-236.
J. Liu, L. Yan, Z. Peng, D. Wang, Remarks on confidence intervals for self-similarity parameter of a subfractional Brownian motion, [*Abstract and Applied Analysis*]{} [**2012**]{}, article ID 804942, 14 pages. J. Liu, L. Yan, Remarks on asymptotic behavior of weighted quadratic variation of subfractional Brownian motion, [*J. Korean Statist. Soc.*]{} (to appear). I. Mendy, On the local time of sub-fractional Brownian motion, [*Annales Mathématiques Blaise Pascal*]{} [**17**]{} (2010), 357-374. Y. S. Mishura, Stochastic Calculus for Fractional Brownian Motion and Related Processes, [*Springer*]{}, 2008.
R. Norvaiša, A complement to Gladyshev’s theorem, [*Lithuanian Math. J.*]{} [**51**]{} (2011), 26-35. D. Nualart, Stochastic integration with respect to fractional Brownian motion and applications, in “Stochastic Models” (J.M. González-Barrios, J.A. León, A. Meda, Eds.), [*Contemp. Math.*]{} 336, 3-39, [*Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, 2003. D. Nualart, S. Tindel, A construction of the rough path above fractional Brownian motion using Volterra’s representation, [*Ann. Probab.*]{} [**39**]{} (2011), 1061-1096.
J. Ruiz de Chávez, C. Tudor, A decomposition of sub-fractional Brownian motion, [*Math. Reports*]{} [**11**]{} (61), no. 1 (2009), 67-74.
G. Samorodnitsky, M.S. Taqqu, Stable Non-Gaussian Random Processes. Stochastic Models with Infinite Variance, [*Chapman & Hall*]{}, 1994. G. Shen, Necessary and sufficient condition for the smoothness of intersection local time of subfractional Brownian motions, [*Journal of Inequalities and Applications*]{} [**139**]{} (2011). G. Shen, C. Chen, Stochastic integration with respect to the sub-fractional Brownian motion, [*Statist. Probab. Lett.*]{} (to appear). G. Shen, C. Chen, L. Yan, Remarks on sub-fractional Bessel processes, [*Acta Mathematica Scientia*]{} Ser. B [**31**]{} (5) (2011), 1860-1876. G. Shen, L. Yan, Remarks on an integral functional driven by sub-fractional Brownian motion, [*J. Korean Statist. Soc.*]{} [**40**]{} (3) (2011), 337-346. L. Słomiński, B. Ziemkiewicz, On weak approximations of integral with respect to fractional Brownian motion, [*Stat. Prob. Lett.*]{} [**79**]{} (2009), 543-552. J. Swanson, Fluctutations of the empirical quantiles of independent Brownian motions, [*Stoch. Proc. Appl.*]{} [**121**]{} (2011), 479-514. C. Tudor, Some aspects of stochastic calculus for the sub-fractional Brownian motion, [*Analele Universităţii Bucureşti, Matematica$\breve{\rm a}$*]{} [**LVII**]{} (2008), 199-230. C. Tudor, Inner product spaces of integrands associated to sub-fractional Brownian motion, [*Stat. Probab. Lett.*]{} [**78**]{} (2008), 2201-2209. C. Tudor, Sub-fractional Brownian motion as a model in finance, [*University of Bucharest*]{}, 2008. C. Tudor, Some properties of the sub-fractional Brownian motion, [*Stochastics*]{} [**79**]{} (2007), 431-448. C. Tudor, On the Wiener integral with respect to a sub-fractional Brownian motion on an interval, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**351**]{} (2009), 456-468.
C. Tudor, Berry-Esséen bounds and almost sure CLT for the quadratic variation of the sub-fractional Brownian motion, [*J. Math. Analysis Appl.*]{} [**375**]{} (2011), 667-676.
L. Yan, G. Shen, On the collision local time of sub-fractional Brownian motions, [*Stat. Prob. Lett.*]{} [**80**]{} (2010), 296-308.
L. Yan, G. Shen, K. He, Itô’s formula for a sub-fractional Brownian motion, [*Commun. Stoch. Analysis*]{} [**5**]{} (2011), 135-159.
Johanna Garzón\
Department of Statistics\
University of Valparaíso, Chile\
[[email protected]]{}\
Luis G. Gorostiza\
Department of Mathematics\
CINVESTAV-IPN, Mexico\
[[email protected]]{}\
Jorge A. León\
Department of Automatic Control\
CINVESTAV-IPN, Mexico\
[[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[ Charge-neutral 180$^\circ$ domain walls that separate domains of antiparallel polarization directions are common structural topological defects in ferroelectrics. In normal ferroelectrics, charged 180$^\circ$ domain walls running perpendicular to the polarization directions are highly energetically unfavorable because of the depolarization field and are difficult to stabilize. We explore both neutral and charged 180$^\circ$ domain walls in hyperferroelectrics, a class of proper ferroelectrics with persistent polarization in the presence of a depolarization field, using density functional theory. We obtain zero temperature equilibrium structures of head-to-head and tail-to-tail walls in recently discovered $ABC$-type hexagonal hyperferroelectrics. Charged domain walls can also be stabilized in canonical ferroelectrics represented by LiNbO$_3$ without any dopants, defects or mechanical clamping. First-principles electronic structure calculations show that charged domain walls can reduce and even close the band gap of host materials and support quasi-two-dimensional electron(hole) gas with enhanced electrical conductivity. ]{}'
author:
- Shi Liu
- 'R. E. Cohen'
title: Stable Charged Antiparallel Domain Walls in Hyperferroelectrics
---
[**Introductions**]{}
A ferroelectric domain wall (DW) is an interface separating domains of different polarization directions in ferroelectrics. [@Pramanick12p243] Because DWs can move in response to external stimuli such as electric field and mechanical stress, their presence can substantially affect the electro-mechanical and electro-thermal coupling properties of ferroelectrics. [@Zhang94p454; @Taylor97p1973; @Xu01p1336; @Xu14p3120; @Karthik11p024102; @Karthik12p167601; @Zubko16p524] DWs possessing symmetries different from their parent bulk materials can also exhibit unique properties that do not exist in the bulk. One notable example is the electrical conducting DWs in ferroelectric semiconductors such as BiFeO$_3$, [@Seidel09p229; @Maksymovych11p1906; @Farokhipoor11p127601] Pb(Zr,Ti)O$_3$, [@Guyonnet11p5377; @Tselev16p11630] and LiNbO$_3$. [@Schrder12p3936] Ekhard Salje [*et al. *]{}also demonstrated the polarity and ferroelectircity in ferroelastic DWs in SrTiO$_3$ [@Salje13p247603] and CaTiO$_3$. [@Yokota14p144109] The ability to tune and control the conductive DW in an insulating medium via external electrical or stress field provides a new playground for designing new nanoelectronics. [@Catalan12p119] Recent experiments also highlighted the critical role of DWs for enhancing photovoltaic current in BiFeO$_3$ [@Bhatnagar13p2835; @Yang17p43070] and facilitating electron-hole separations in CH$_3$NH$_3$PbI$_3$. [@Liu15p693]
The DW type is defined based on the angle formed between adjacent polarization vectors. [@Pramanick12p243] The 180$^\circ$ wall separates domains with antiparallel polarization directions. Depending on the orientation of the wall relative to the direction of polarization inside adjacent domains, the 180$^\circ$ DW can have three configurations: a neutral wall running parallel to the polarization direction, a head-to-head (HH) configuration with polarization directed towards the wall, and a tail-to-tail (TT) configuration with polarization directed from the wall. The polarization discontinuity at the HH (TT) wall will give rise to positive (negative) bound charges, which if unscreened will create a large depolarization electric field, leading to unfavorable electrostatic energy and destabilization of ferroelectricity. [@Gureev11p184104; @Wu06p020103] The neutral 180$^\circ$ DW has been observed and prepared in a wide range of ferroelectrics experimentally and has been the subject of numerous theoretical studies with density functional theory (DFT) and molecular dynamics. [@Meyer02p104111; @Poykko99p2830; @Wojde14p247603; @Liu17p094102; @Lee09p060102; @Lee10p014104] However, strongly charged 180$^\circ$ walls are much less common in ferroelectrics: they are rarely formed naturally due to their high formation energies. In normal ferroelectrics, their stabilization requires some extrinsic mechanism (e.g., dopant and defects) to compensate the polarization-induced bound charges. [@Gureev11p184104] Recently periodic charged 90$^\circ$ DWs, stabilized by both the free-carrier compensation at the wall and the elastic compatibility of adjacent ferroelastic domains, were prepared in BaTiO$_3$ thin films by carefully controlling the poling history and mechanical boundary conditions. [@Sluka13p1808; @Bednyakov15p15819] The free-carrier compensated charged DWs can support quasi-two-dimensional electron gas (q2DEG) resulting in steady metallic-type conductivity, [@Vul73p29; @Gureev11p184104; @Sluka13p1808] and therefore are potentially useful for technology applications when combined with the electric field-tunable DW mobility. Wu and Vanderbilt studied HH and TT 180$^\circ$ DWs in PbTiO$_3$, where the wall was stabilized by the intentional insertion of charged-impurity layers (Sc$^{3+}$ at HH and Nb$^{5+}$ at TT). [@Wu06p020103] Here we explore the intrinsic properties of defect/dopant-free charged DWs.
Recent seminar work on hexagonal $ABC$ semiconducting ferroelectrics using DFT calculations revealed hyperferroelectricity [@Garrity14p127601] characterized by persistent polarization even at ideal open circuit condition. [@Fu14p164104] Normal ferroelectrics in their high-symmetry nonpolar phases have at least one unstable transverse optic (TO) mode and stable longitudinal optic (LO) modes. The origin of ferroelectricity in normal ferroelectrics comes from the delicate balance between the long-range Coulomb interaction that favors the polar phase and the short-range repulsion that favors the nonpolar phase. [@Cohen92p136] Hyperferroelectrics, on the other hand, in the high-symmetry phase possess both TO and LO-mode instability. [@Garrity14p127601] The imaginary LO phonon frequency is attributed to the small LO-TO splitting resulting from the large optical dielectric constants and small Born effective charges. It was recently pointed out that the fundamental driving mechanism for hyperferroelectricity is the short-range interaction, which already favors the symmetry-broken polar state. [@Li16p34085] LiNbO$_3$, a prototypical normal ferroelectric, is suggested to be a hyperferroelectric as well, with the short-range instability of Li also contributing to the ferroelectricity and being robust against electric boundary conditions. The persistent polarization in hyperferroelectrics in the presence of a depolarization field hints at easier formation of strongly charged DWs with HH and TT configurations. [@Garrity14p127601] In this work, we study both charged and uncharged 180$^\circ$ DWs in several known hyperferroelectrics with DFT calculations.
[**Computational Methods**]{}
We studied 180$^\circ$ DWs in $ABC$-type ferroelectrics, LiBeSb, LiBeBi, LiZnAs, NaZnSb, and KMgBi, and Li$B$O$_3$-type ferroelectrics represented by LiNbO$_3$. These materials were suggested to be hyperferroelectrics. [@Garrity14p127601; @Li16p34085] The structure of $ABC$ ferroelectric is a hexagonal variant of the half-Heusler structure with a polar space group of $P6_3mc$: the hexagonal unit cell has six atoms with $B$ and $C$ atoms forming buckling honeycomb layers separated by layers of “stuffing" $A$ atoms. [@Bennett12p167602] Ferroelectric LiNbO$_3$ belongs to the $R3c$ space group and the hexagonal unit cell has 30 atoms with the spontaneous polarization aligned along the $c$ axis ($z$ direction). The neutral 180$^\circ$ DW is modeled with a $Na\times1a\times1c$ supercell ($a$ and $c$ are short-axis and long-axis lattice constants of a hexagonal unit cell, respectively), where the unit cells are stacked in the $x$ direction ($a$ axis) and $N/2$ unit cells have polarization aligned along $+z$, and $N/2$ unit cells have polarization aligned along $-z$. The charged 180$^\circ$ DW is modeled with a $1a\times1a\times Nc$ supercell with the unit cells stacking along the $z$ direction and polarization changing from $+z$ to $-z$. We choose $N = 8$ for $ABC$ ferroelectrics and $N=4$ for Li$B$O$_3$ ferroelectrics. Because of periodic boundary conditions, the supercells contain two neural walls or one TT wall and one HH wall. The DW energy ($E_{\rm DW}$) is calculated with $E_{\rm DW} = \frac{1}{2S}\left(E_{\rm supercell} - E_{\rm SD}\right)$, where $S$ is the DW area, $E_{\rm supercell}$ is the energy of the supercell with two DWs, and $E_{\rm SD}$ is the energy of the fully-relaxed single-domain supercell of the same number and stacking of unit cells. All calculations are carried out within the local-density approximation (LDA) using Quantum Espresso [@Giannozzi09p395502] with a $1\times4\times4$ Monkhorst-Pack $k$-point grid for supercells with neutral walls, and a $4\times4\times1$ $k$-point grid for supercells containing charged walls. A force convergence threshold of 5.0$\times 10^{-5}$ Ry/Bohr, an energy convergence threshold of 1.0$\times 10^{-4}$ Ry, and Mazrzari-Vanderbilt smearing of 1 mRy are used to fully relax the dimensions of the supercell and atomic positions. We used ultrasoft pseudopotentials from the Garrity, Bennett, Rabe, Vanderbilt (GBRV) high-throughput pseudopotential set [@Garrity14p446] and a plane-wave cutoff of 50 Ry and charge density cutoff of 250 Ryd.
[**Results and Discussion**]{}
[*Spontaneous polarization in LiBeSb* ]{} We start by examining the spontaneous polarization of LiBeSb in the polar $P6_3mc$ structure, which relates to the nonpolar $P6_3/mmc$ structure through the buckling of the BeSb honeycomb layers. The fully relaxed $P6_3mc$ structure has $a=4.083$ Å and $c=6.620$ Å, consistent with previous studies with LDA. [@Bennett12p167602; @Garrity14p127601] Structurally, the polarization along the $c$ axis (aligned along the $z$ direction) in $P6_3mc$ structure results from the displacement of Be and Sb away from the center of the Li$_6$ octahedron (FIG. \[Unitcell\]a). The Be and Sb atomic displacements ($d_z^{\rm Be}$ and $d_z^{\rm Sb}$) are calculated to be 0.68 Å and -0.09 Å, respectively. We first estimate the polarization with the Berry-phase approach by tracking the change in Berry phase while adiabatically transforming the structure from $P6_3mc$ phase to $P6_3/mmc$ phase (FIG. \[Unitcell\]b). The total effective polarization (defined relative to a centrosymmetric reference) is found to be $P_z = 0.58$ C/m$^2$, agreeing well with previously reported value of 0.59 C/m$^2$. [@Bennett12p167602; @Garrity14p127601] It is noted that the formal polarization (the raw result of Berry-phase calculation) [@Rabe07Book] in the nonpolar $P6_3/mmc$ structure is exactly half a quantum of polarization. The formal polarization does not necessarily vanish in a centrosymmetric materials such as III-III perovskite (e.g., LaAlO$_3$) where the individual layers (LaO and AlO$_2$) are not charge neutral. [@Vanderbilt93p4442; @Stengel09p241103] This is also the case for $ABC$ ferroelectrics where the $A$ and $BC$ layers have formal charges of $\pm e$.
We can also estimate $P_z$ by summing the product of atomic displacements and Born effective charges (BECs), $P_z=\frac{e}{\Omega}\left(d_z^{\rm Se}Z_{zz}^{\rm Se} + d_z^{\rm Be}Z_{zz}^{\rm Be}\right)$, where $Z_{zz}$ is the Born effective charge along $z$ and $\Omega$ is the volume per formula unit (one half of the unit cell volume). The underlying assumption of this approach is that BECs have similar values in polar and refernece nonpolar structures. It works well for normal ferroelectrics such as PbTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$ where BECs are not sensitive to structural details, [@Zhong94p3618] and gives polarization value close to that obtained with the Berry-phase approach. [@Neaton05p014113] However, the BECs of Be and Sb undergo substantial changes when the structure transforms from polar $P6_3mc$ phase to nonpolar $P6_3/mmc$ phase, as BeSb layers moving from an $sp^3$ bonding to $sp^2$ bonding enviroment. Using the BECs in $P6_3mc$ phase ($Z_{zz}^{\rm Be} = 0.561$ and $Z_{zz}^{\rm Se} =-1.836$), we obtain $P_z = 0.185$ C/m$^2$, whereas using the BECs in $P6_3/mmc$ phase ($Z_{zz}^{\rm Be} = 4.656$ and $Z_{zz}^{\rm Se} =-5.847$), we obtain $P_z = 1.244$ C/m$^2$, neither reproducing the right polarization value. Finally, using the mean BECs of $P6_3mc$ and $P6_3/mmc$ phases, $P_z$ is found to be 0.72 C/m$^2$, roughly agreeing with the Berry phase approach. This behavior was also noticed in a recent DFT study on LiBeSb. [@Dai16p034103]
[*Energetics* ]{} We obtain both neutral and charged 180$^\circ$ DWs in all studied hyperferroelectrics in the absence of any dopants or mechanical clamping. Charged 180$^\circ$ DWs of HH and TT configurations are highly unstable in prototypical ferroelectrics such as PbTiO$_3$: even within zero-Kelvin DFT calculations, the supercell containing HH and TT walls will eventually transform to a single domain during structural optimization process. In hyperferroelectrics, the fully-optimized charged 180$^\circ$ walls maintained the HH or TT configurations. Table 1 reports the optimized structures and estimated energetics for both neutral and charged walls. The energetics of neutral 180$^\circ$ DWs in $ABC$ ferroelectrics are comparable to that in PbTiO$_3$ (102 mJ/m$^2$). [@Liu17p094102] In all cases, the charged domain walls have much higher energy compared to their neutral counterparts. Recent DFT investigations suggested that KMgBi is a hyperferroelectric topological insulator which supports both persistent polarization and metallic topological surface states. [@Sante16p076401] Interestingly, the DW energy in KMgBi is also the lowest among all studied hyperferroelectrics. Exploring how ferroelectric DWs may interact with topological surface states [@Liu16p1663] will be a useful future research topic.
[*Atomistic DW structure in LiBeSb* ]{} We provide a detailed analysis of the 180$^\circ$ DW structures in $ABC$ hyperferroelectrics by taking LiBeSb as an example. To give a quantitative description, we compute the local atomic displacement for Be and Sb and also the local polarization centered at Li, Be and Sb ($\mathbf{P}^{\rm Li}$, $\mathbf{P}^{\rm Be}$ and $\mathbf{P}^{\rm Se}$). The local polarization at Be is calculated with $$\mathbf{P}^{\rm Be} = \frac{e}{\Omega}\left(\frac{1}{3}\mathbf{Z}^{\rm Sb}\sum_{i=1}^{3}\mathbf{r}^{{\rm Sb}}_i +\mathbf{Z}^{\rm Be}\mathbf{r}^{{\rm Be}} + \frac{1}{6}\mathbf{Z}^{\rm Li}\sum_{i=1}^{6}\mathbf{r}^{{\rm Li}}_i \right)$$ where $\mathbf{Z}$ is the BEC tensor and $\mathbf{r}$ is the atomic position. Equation 1 is essentially the polarization resulting from the Be-centered local dipole moment formed by the Be and its nearest three Sb atoms and six Li atoms (FIG. \[Unitcell\]c). Similarly, $\mathbf{P}^{\rm Se}$ and $\mathbf{P}^{\rm Li}$ are defined as $$\mathbf{P}^{\rm Sb} = \frac{e}{\Omega}\left(\frac{1}{6}\mathbf{Z}^{\rm Li}\sum_{i=1}^{6}\mathbf{r}^{{\rm Li}}_i + \frac{1}{3}\mathbf{Z}^{\rm Be}\sum_{i=1}^{3}\mathbf{r}^{{\rm Be}}_i +\mathbf{Z}^{\rm Sb}\mathbf{r}^{{\rm Sb}} \right)$$ and $$\mathbf{P}^{\rm Li} = \frac{e}{\Omega}\left(\mathbf{Z}^{\rm Li}\mathbf{r}^{{\rm Li}} +\frac{1}{6}\mathbf{Z}^{\rm Be}\sum_{i=1}^{6}\mathbf{r}^{{\rm Be}}_i + \frac{1}{6}\mathbf{Z}^{\rm Sb}\sum_{i=1}^{6}\mathbf{r}^{{\rm Sb}}_i \right)$$ We used the mean BECs of $P6_3mc$ and $P6_3/mmc$ phases when calculating the local polarization.
The neutral 180$^\circ$ wall lies parallel to the $ab$ plane (FIG. \[LiBeSb\_DW\]a). We calculate the layer-resolved polarization for lattice planes (alternating planes consisted of Li and BeSb) stacked along the $X$ direction (normal to the $ab$ plane). The neutral wall centers at the Li layer characterized by zero local polarization. This is similar to Pb-centered 180$^\circ$ DWs in PbTiO$_3$ with nearly zero local polarization at the PbO lattice plane. We fit the polarization profile to $P_0{\rm tanh} [{(z-z_0)}/{\xi_{\rm DW}}]$, where $z_0$ and 2$\xi_{\rm DW}$ correspond to the center and the width of the DW [@Meyer02p104111] and find 2$\xi_{\rm DW}=2.86$ Å, which is about one unit cell along the $a$ axis. For the supercell containing charged DWs (FIG. \[LiBeSb\_DW\]b), the magnitude of the polarization in the internal domain-like region is similar to that in a single domain, suggesting a nearly perfect screening of the depolarization field. Charged DWs also center at Li planes with $P_z^{\rm Li} =0$ C/m$^2$. The HH and TT walls show one subtle difference: Be atoms near the HH wall have $d_z$ smaller than that in domain-like region whereas they change the direction abruptly when crossing the TT wall without reducing the magnitude. For DW width we find a value of 2$\xi_{\rm DW}$ = 6.4 Å for the HH wall and 2$\xi_{\rm DW}$ = 1.4 Å for the TT wall, showing the TT wall is much sharper. This is likely due to the positive Li atoms at the TT wall that help to compensate the negative boundary charges.
[*Atomistic DW structure in LiNbO$_3$*]{} The neutral 180$^\circ$ walls in LiNbO$_3$ have been studied with different computational methods such as DFT and molecular dynamics, and Ginzburg-Landau-Devonshire (GLD) theory. [@Lee09p060102; @Lee10p014104; @Scrymgeour05p184110; @Ye17014105] There are two crystallographically different DWs with X wall lying parallel to a mixed anion-cation plane and a Y wall running parallel to alternating planes consisted of only cations and only anions. [@Gopalan07p449] As the main focus of this work is on charged DWs, we here only studied the neutral X wall. To reveal the DW structure in LiNbO$_3$, we consider LiNbO$_3$ as a distorted perovskite and calculate the atomic displacements of Li and Nb atoms with respect to the center of their surrounding oxygen cages (O$_{12}$ for Li and O$_6$ for Nb). The local polarization at Nb ($\mathbf{P}^{\rm Nb}$) is defined as $$\mathbf{P}^{\rm Nb} = \frac{e}{\Omega}\left(\frac{1}{8}\mathbf{Z}^{\rm Li}\sum_{i=1}^{8}\mathbf{r}^{{\rm Li}}_i +\mathbf{Z}^{\rm Nb}\mathbf{r}^{{\rm Nb}} + \frac{1}{6}\mathbf{Z}^{\rm O}\sum_{i=1}^{6}\mathbf{r}^{{\rm O}}_i \right)$$ Our DFT calculations show that the X wall lies halfway between the ion planes (FIG. \[LNO\_DW\]a), consistent with previous results. [@Lee09p060102; @Lee10p014104; @Ye17014105] The polarization and atomic displacements change the direction across the X wall without becoming zero.
Although LiNbO$_3$ has been intensely studied with first-principles methods, [@Inbar96p1193; @Lee09p060102; @Lee10p014104; @Scrymgeour05p184110; @Ye17014105] our work for the first time reveals the equilibrium structure of fully-relaxed HH and TT walls (FIG. \[LNO\_DW\]b) in this canonical ferroelectric. We find that Nb atoms are little displaced locally across the whole supercell, whereas the Li atoms still have relatively large atomic displacements ($\approx 0.34$ Å), indicating the polarization should primarily come from the distortion of Li atoms. This agrees with recent understanding of hyperferroelectric instability in Li$B$O$_3$ due to short-range interactions of Li that are less sensitive to electric boundary conditions. The internal domain-like regions remain to be polar albeit adopting polarization ($P^{\rm Domain}\approx 0.076$ C/m$^2$) much smaller than the bulk polarization ($\approx 0.76$ C/m$^2$). The polarization reduction is driven by the unscreened depolarization field arising from the bound charges at DWs. The calculated domain polarization ($P^{\rm Domain}$) in the presence of charged DWs actually agrees quite well with the reported value of polarization under zero displacement field condition ($P_{D=0}=0.08$ C/m$^2$) for LiNbO$_3$. [@Li16p34085]
[*Electronics structure* ]{} The presence of charged DWs can significantly influence the electronic properties of host materials. [@Sluka12p748; @Liu15p693] Unless the bound charges are fully compensated, the depolarization field due to the imperfect compensation will result in an electrostatic potential step across the domain sandwiched by the charged DWs, shifting the energy of band edge states. At the positive HH wall, the conduction band will be pushed downward the Fermi energy with a tendency to create free electrons to screen the positive bound charge. Similarly, the valence band will approach the Fermi level to provide free holes to compensate the negative bound charge at the TT wall. For a large enough potential step (that scales with the distance between the TT and HH walls), the band gap can be closed and the structure will become metallic. We compare the band structures and orbital-resolved density of states (DOS) for supercells of LiBeSb with and without charged DWs (FIG. \[LiBeSb\_BandStructure\]). The Brillouin zone $k$-points are increased to $16\times16\times2$ for DOS calculations. The band gap for the single-domain LiBeSb is 0.84 eV using LDA, with $p$ orbitals of Be and Sb atoms contributing to the band-edge valence bands and $s$ and $p$ orbitals of Li, Be and Sb atoms all contributing to the conductions bands (FIG. \[LiBeSb\_BandStructure\]a).
Because of the relatively small band gap (at the LDA level), the $1a\times 1a\times 8c$ LiBeSb supercell with charged walls separated by 26.8 Å (4$c$) is already metallic with states near the Fermi level primarily consisted of Be $2p$ and Sb $5p$ orbitals (FIG. \[LiBeSb\_BandStructure\]b). The layer-resolved DOS reveals more details of the electronic structure in real space (FIG. \[LiBeSb\_DOS\]). The conduction band minimum (CBM) is located at the HH wall and the valence band maximum (VBM) is located at the TT wall, both crossing the Fermi level ($E_F$) and providing free carriers. In contrast, the layers between charged DWs remain mostly insulating. This demonstrates the metallicity comes from the charged DWs. The width of the conducting layers is $\approx$13.4 Å (about two unit cells along the $c$-axis), indicating the presence of quasi-two-dimensional electron gas and hole gas (q2DEG and q2DHG). We further project the band structure onto orthogonalized atomic wave functions, and the weight of atomic wave functions from atoms at HH and TT walls are then evaluated separately for nine bands near the Fermi energy (FIG. \[LiBeSb\_BandStructure2\]a). It is evident that conduction bands near the Fermi level are dominated by atomic orbitals of atoms within the HH wall and the valence bands providing free holes are mainly consisted of states of atoms at the TT wall, consistent with the layer-resolved DOS analysis. The charge density plots in FIG. \[LiBeSb\_BandStructure2\]b show the spacial extension of the 2DEG (2DHG). We also calculate the electrical conductivity as a function of Fermi level (assuming a constant carrier scattering relaxation time of 10 fs) using Boltzmann transport equation with BoltzTrap package. [@Madsen06p67] For transport calculations, a $32\times32\times4$ $k$-point sampling is used for electronic structure calculations. As shown in FIG. \[LiBeSb\_BandStructure2\]c, charged DWs significantly enhance the electrical conductivity within the plane of DW ($\sigma_{xx}$ and $\sigma_{yy}$), whereas the conductivity normal to the DW remains low ($\sigma_{zz}$).
As shown in Figure \[LNO\_BandStructure\], the LDA band gap for single-domain LiNbO$_3$ is 3.48 eV and it reduces to 1.96 eV after introducing charged DWs separated by 27.2 Å (4$c$) (half length of the $1a\times 1a\times 4c$ supercell along the $c$ axis). With increasing distance ($L$) between charged DWs, the electrostatic potential step will eventually exceed the band gap of LiNbO$_3$ and drive the DWs mettallic, similar to the case of LiBeSb. The $L$-dependence of the band gap roughly follows $E_g = E_g^{\rm SD} - 2P_{D=0}L / \varepsilon_c $, where $E_g^{\rm SD}$ = 3.48 eV is theoretical bulk band gap, $P_{D=0}$ is the polarization at zero displacement field and $\varepsilon_c$ is the dielectric constant along the $c$ axis. Taking $P_D=0.08$ C/m$^2$, $\varepsilon_c=30$ and $L=27.2$ Å, we obtain $E_g=1.84$ eV, agreeing reasonably well with DFT values. The critical distance $L$ that closes the gap is estimated to be 58 Å.
[**Conclusion**]{}
The structure and energetics of neutral and charged 180$^\circ$ domain walls in several hyperferroelectrics have been studied by density functional theory. The fully-relaxed charged domain walls in $ABC$ hyperferroelectrics are surprisingly narrow and their widths are comparable to neutral walls. Taking LiBeSb as an example, we find that the polarization bound charges at charged walls are nearly perfect screened by the free carriers with the head-to-head wall supporting quasi-two-dimensional electron gas and the tail-to-tail wall supporting quasi-two-dimensional hole gas. In LiNbO$_3$, we also obtain strongly charged 180$^\circ$ walls separating bulk-like regions of smaller polarization. Compared to Nb distortion, the Li distortion is more robust against the depolarization field. Because of the large band gap of bulk LiNbO$_3$, a large distance between charged walls is required to close the band gap. Understanding the stability of strongly charged walls in hyperferroelectrics at finite temperatures and their mobility in response to electric field will be useful future research topics.
[**Acknowledgements**]{} This work is partly supported by US Office of Naval Research Grants N00014-12-1-1038 and N00014-14-1-0561. SL and REC are supported by the Carnegie Institution for Science. REC is also supported by the European Research Council Advanced Grant ToMCaT. Computational support was provided by theß US DOD through a Challenge Grant from the HPCMO. SL acknowledges Dr. Kevin F. Garrity for sharing structural files of $ABC$ ferroelectrics.
[52]{}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 [****, ()]{} [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1325005) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature17659) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/nl104363x) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.127601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/adma.201102254) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/ncomms11630) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1002/adfm.201201174) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.247603) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.89.144109) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/RevModPhys.84.119) [**** (), 10.1038/ncomms3835](\doibase
10.1038/ncomms3835) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/srep43070) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/jz502666j) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.184104) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.73.020103) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.125164) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.112.247603) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.094102) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.060102) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.82.014104) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms2839) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/srep15819) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/00150197308237691) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.127601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4900480) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/srep34085) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.commatsci.2013.08.053) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{}, Vol. (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.48.4442) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.241103) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.4958848) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.076401) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b04545) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.71.184110) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.014105) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev.matsci.37.052506.084247) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.53.1193) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.cpc.2006.03.007)
$l_x$ $l_y$ $l_z$ $\alpha$ $\beta$ $\gamma$ $E_{\rm DW}$ (mJ/m$^2$)
--------------- -------- ------- -------- ---------- --------- ---------- -------------------------
LiBeSb,nDW 32.717 4.103 6.629 90.00 89.99 120.10 192
LiBeSb,cDW 4.090 4.080 53.638 89.96 90.00 120.07 1232
LiBeBi,nDW 33.642 4.229 6.835 90.00 89.99 120.19 169
LiBeBi,cDW 4.175 4.169 56.128 90.00 91.99 119.95 535
LiZnAs,nDW 32.572 4.093 6.585 90.00 90.00 120.18 174
LiZnAs,cDW 4.089 4.126 51.541 90.01 89.99 119.72 1332
NaZnSb,nDW 35.991 4.520 7.239 90.00 90.00 120.16 84
NaZnSb,cDW 4.517 4.538 57.595 90.00 90.00 120.07 567
KMgBi,nDW 40.594 5.077 7.891 90.00 90.00 120.02 14
KMgBi,cDW 5.089 5.089 62.765 90.00 90.00 120.00 369
LiNbO$_3$,nDW 20.301 5.076 13.661 90.00 90.01 120.00 140
LiNbO$_3$,cDW 5.110 5.110 54.359 90.00 90.00 120.00 1044
: Optimized Supercell Dimensions and Energetics of Neutral and Charged DWs (nDWs and cDWs) in Hyperferroelectrics.
![ (a) Crystal structures of LiBeSb in the high-symmetry $P6_3/mmc$ phase and the polar $P6_3mc$ phase. The $c$ axis is aligned along the $z$ direction. The Be is displaced along $+z$ with respect to the center of the Li$_6$ cage whereas the Sb is displaced along $-z$. (b) Calculation of the effective polarization with the Berry-phase approach. The structure is changed adiabatically from $P6_3mc$ phase to $P6_3/mmc$ phase. (c) Structural motif for the calculation of local polarization at Be. Each Be is shared by three Sb atoms and six Li atoms. []{data-label="Unitcell"}](UnitCell.eps "fig:")\
![ Atomic displacements ($d_z$) and polarization profiles ($P_z$) for supercells with (a) neutral and (b) charged 180$^\circ$ domain walls (DW) in LiBeSb. The polarization profile for the single domain (SD) supercell is also plotted as the reference. []{data-label="LiBeSb_DW"}](LiBeSb_DW.eps "fig:")\
![Atomic displacements ($d_z$) and polarization profiles ($P_z$) for supercells with (a) neutral and (b) charged 180$^\circ$ domain walls (DW) in LiNbO$_3$. []{data-label="LNO_DW"}](LNO_DW.eps "fig:")\
![ Band structures and orbital-resolved density of states for (a) a single-domain supercell and (b) a supercell with charged 180$^\circ$ domain walls in LiBeSb. []{data-label="LiBeSb_BandStructure"}](LiBeSb_BandStructure.eps "fig:")\
![Layer-resolved density of states for a supercell with charged 180$^\circ$ domain walls in LiBeSb. []{data-label="LiBeSb_DOS"}](LiBeSb_DOS.eps "fig:")\
![(a) Atomic orbital-resolved band structure for a supercell with charged HH and TT walls. The magenta and cyan circles represent the contribution of states from atoms within the HH and TT wall, respectively. The size of the circle scales with the contribution. (b) Charge density plots projected on $\rm \Gamma$ and M points of two bands highlighted in (a). (c) Electrical conductivity versus the Fermi levels for structures with and without charged domain walls .[]{data-label="LiBeSb_BandStructure2"}](LiBeSb_BandStructure2.eps "fig:")\
![Band structures and orbital-resolved density of states for (a) a single-domain supercell and (b) a supercell with charged 180$^\circ$ domain walls in LiNbO$_3$. []{data-label="LNO_BandStructure"}](LNO_BandStructure.eps "fig:")\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this summary we review some recent developments in New Physics at the TeV scale. We concentrate on measurements at the ILC that can distinguish between some of the models that have recently been discussed, concentrating on results presented at this workshop: The Little Higgs Model, models of Large Extra Dimensions; Randall-Sundrum (RS), Arkani-Hamed Dimopoulos Dvali (ADD), and Universal Extra Dimensions (UED). Some recent results on constraining effective Lagrangian parametrizations of new physics are also presented.'
author:
- Stephen Godfrey
title: |
\
New Physics at the TeV Scale and Precision Electroweak Studies
---
INTRODUCTION
============
There is a universal consensus that the standard model is a low energy effective theory and that some form of new physics exists beyond the standard model (BSM). The literature is full of candidate theories but it will be experiment that shows the way. This contribution reviews some of the recent developments in BSM phenomenology with an emphasis on results presented in the BSM working group sessions. However, it would be a mistake to consider this topic in isolation from the other working group topics. I expect the next few years to be exciting times in particle physics with the start of the LHC leading to major advances in our understanding of electroweak symmetry breaking. It is likely that this will give us the first hints of physics BSM but it is possible that the first hints will come from elsewhere, perhaps anomalous properties of the top quark. Maybe this new physics is supersymmetry. And maybe the new physics unravelled at the ILC will explain some of the puzzles in cosmology. The point is that while the physics topics have been divided up into EWSB, SUSY, Top/QCD, New Physics, and Cosmology, they are all connected and one should not forget this when focusing on individual topics. This will be apparent in some of the examples chosen to describe the search for new physics.
There are numerous models of new physics. An important task of the ILC will be to disentangle the possibilities and identify the correct one. We start with a very brief overview of some of the possibilities, focusing on models of recent interest. In the remainder of this summary I will examine some of approaches discussed to understand the underlying physics. This summary should not by any means be viewed as a comprehensive overview; it is a snapshot of a selection of topics covered at this workshop and studied over the last few years. More detailed reviews are given by LHC/LC working group in Ref. [@Weiglein:2004hn]. See also Ref. [@Dawson:2004xz; @Moortgat-Pick:2005cw; @Lykken:2005up]. An important omission in this summary is the subject of Higgless Elecroweak Symmetry Breaking. A selection of recent papers on this subject is given in Ref. [@Csaki:2003zu]
MODELS OF NEW PHYSICS
=====================
There are many models of new physics. Some of the models that have attracted attention recently are the Little Higgs model [@Arkani-Hamed:2002qy], various models of extra dimensions [@Antoniadis:1990ew; @Rizzo:2004kr]; ADD [@Arkani-Hamed:1998nn], RS [@Randall:1999ee], UED [@Appelquist:2000nn], and the Higgsless model [@Csaki:2003zu]. However, we shouldn’t ignore older models that, although less fashionable, may contain elements of truth in them. Some models of continued interest are extended gauge sectors with extra $U(1)$ factors [@Leike:1998wr] like the $E_6 \to SU(5) \times U(1)_\chi \times
U(1)_\psi$ where the extra $U(1)$ factors give rise to extra neutral gauge bosons, the left-right symmetric model, $SU(2)_L\times
SU(2)_R\times U(1)$, and dynamical symmetry breaking models such as technicolour and topcolour [@Hill:2002ap]. From the point of view of disentangling these possibilities we need to understand what they have in common and how we can distinguish them. As a result I will focus on predictions of the various models and how we can unravel the underlying physics rather than on theoretical details of the various models.
In the next few paragraphs I will give a rather superficial survey of some recent models and refer the interested reader to the literature. My purpose here is to simply identify the characteristics of the various models that might reveal themselves by experiment.
Little Higgs Models
: [@Arkani-Hamed:2002qy] are a new approach to stabilize the weak scale against radiative corrections. They predict new gauge bosons $W_H^\pm$, $Z_H$, and $B_H$ and a new heavy top quark at the TeV scale. The parameters of the Littlest Higgs model relevant to the discussion are $f$, the vev that breaks the global symmetry group to a smaller group and sets the mass scale of the new heavy particles in the model, and gauge boson mixing angles $s$ and $s'$. A light Higgs boson is expected at ${\cal O}(100)$ GeV. The couplings to $\gamma\gamma$ are sensitive to new physics running in the loop so measurement of the Higgs $\gamma\gamma$ and $gg$ BR’s is a sensitive test of the heavy top quark, extra gauge bosons and new scalar particles expected in Little Higgs models. Other modifications are expected due to mixing of TeV-scale particles with SM particles and corrections to SM parameters.
Extra Dimensions
: [@Rizzo:2004kr] In most scenarios our 3-dimensional space is a 3-brane embedded in a $D$-dimensional spacetime. The basic signal is a Kaluza Klein (KK) tower of states corresponding to a particle propagating in the higher dimensional space-time. The details depend on the geometry of the extra dimensions with many different variations.
- The ADD scenario [@Arkani-Hamed:1998nn] has a KK tower of graviton states in 4 dimensions that behaves like a continuous spectrum which Hewett [@Hewett:1998sn] parametrized as the effective operator $$i {{4\lambda} \over{M_H^4}} T^{\mu\nu}T_{\mu\nu}
\label{eq:hewett}$$ that will lead to deviations in $e^+e^-\to f\bar{f}$ dependent on $\lambda$ and $M_H$, a cut-off scale on the summation over the KK states. ADD also predicts graviscalars and gravitensors propagating in extra dimensions. The parameters of interest for ADD are the mixing between the Higgs boson and the graviscalar, $\xi$, the number of extra dimensions, $\delta$, and the $M_D$ scale. The Mixing of the graviscalar with the Higgs boson leads to a significant invisible width of the Higgs.
- In the Randall Sundrum Model [@Randall:1999ee] 2 3+1 dimensional branes are separated by a 5th dimension. It predicts the existence of a radion which corresponds to fluctuations in the size of the extra dimension. Radions have anomalous couplings with gluon and photon pairs and since they can mix with the Higgs boson this alters the corresponding Higgs BR’s. In the RS model the KK graviton spectrum is discrete and unevenly spaced. It is described in terms of two parameters, the mass of the first KK state and the coupling strength of the graviton. TeV scale graviton resonances are expected to be produced in 2-fermion channels.
- In the Universal Extra Dimension scenario [@Appelquist:2000nn] all SM particles propagate in the bulk resulting in KK towers for the SM particles with spin quantum numbers identical to SM particles. The resulting spectrum resembles that of SUSY and the conservation of KK number at tree level ensures that the lightest KK partner is stable and is always pair produced so that the signatures look alot like signatures of SUSY.
- An extension to both ADD and RS is the existence of higher curvature terms in the action for gravity that may manifest themselves as we approach $M_{pl}\sim 1$ TeV [@Rizzo:2005xr]. In RS the dominant effect is a modification of the KK graviton mass spectrum and their couplings to matter. In the case of ADD the modifications are quite different. The usual ADD signatures remain unaltered but the modifications lead to the production of long lived black holes. Both the RS and ADD modifications can be studied at the ILC.
To summarize, the models predict extra Higgs bosons (doublets and triplets), radions, graviscalars, gravitons, KK excitations of the $\gamma$, $Z$, $W$, extra gauge bosons and extra fermions. Almost all of the models predict new $s$-channel structures at the TeV scale, either as extended gauge bosons or new resonances. To sort out the models we first need to elucidate and complete the TeV particle spectrum and to then make precision measurements of their properties.
PRECISION ELECTROWEAK MEASUREMENTS
==================================
There are several paths to discovering new physics. The most straight forward is the direct discovery of new particles. The next possibility is the indirect discovery by comparing deviations from the SM to specific new models. The final approach is to test for new physics by measuring the parameters of effective Lagrangians. A starting point for indirect searches for new physics is to consider the common features of the various models. In almost all cases a new $s$-channel structure is expected at the TeV scale either in the form of extra gauge bosons or as some other type of new resonance. Each of these models predicts different properties for these new resonances so to distinguish between the possibilities we will need to make precision measurements. While it is likely that discoveries at the LHC will get us started it is almost a certainty that we will need the ILC to discriminate between models. An incomplete list of tools we will have at the ILC are measurements of the various di-fermion channels, anomalous fermion couplings, anomalous gauge boson couplings and measurement of the Higgs couplings.
Let’s start by considering the possibility that the LHC discovers an $s$-channel resonance in the dilepton invariant mass distribution. There are numerous possibilities of what it might be; graviton, KK excitations, a $Z'$, etc. The LHC can give some information about what it might be using the invariant mass distribution and forward backward asymmetry measurements [@Rizzo:2003ug; @Davoudiasl:2000wi; @Dittmar:2003ir]. However, these measurements are rather crude and would require significant luminosity to achieve any sort of precision and resolving power. On the other hand if we assume the LHC discovers a single, rather heavy resonance, the ILC can make many precision measurements such as cross section and widths (depending on the mass for the latter case), angular distributions, and its couplings via decays and polarization measurements.
If the resonance is below the ILC threshould it can be produced on resonance. In this case angular distributions can be tested against different spin hypothesis to distinguish between a spin 2 graviton and say, a spin 1 $Z'$. BR’s could be used to measure the resonance couplings which would distinguish between the universal couplings of a graviton or the unique couplings expected for the various $Z'$ scenarios. Angular distributions and branching ratios for spin-2 gravitons from Davoudiasl, Hewett and Rizzo [@Davoudiasl:2000wi] are shown in Fig. \[davoudiasl\].
Precision Measurements Using Di-Fermion Channels
------------------------------------------------
A more likely scenario is that the mass of a new state is beyond the direct reach of the ILC. In this case we can still learn a considerable amount about a new resonance. There are numerous di-fermion channels and since the couplings to each channel is model dependent, observables such as cross sections to specific final states, forward-backward asymmetries, and left-right asymmetries can be used to distinguish between models.
A first step is to disentangle the spin of the exchange particle. As a concrete example there have been a number of studies examining how to distinguish virtual graviton KK expected in the ADD scenario of finite size extra dimensions from other possibilities. Hewett [@Hewett:1998sn] parametrized the exchange of virtual graviton KK states as the effective operator given in Eqn. \[eq:hewett\]. She showed how interference with SM amplitudes leads to deviations in the dilepton observables dependent on both $\lambda$ and $M_H$. Rizzo has studied how multipole moments could be used to distinguish spin 2 from spin 1 [@Rizzo:2002pc]. Osland Pankov and Paver used the various difermion observables to estimate to what extent $M_H$ could be constrained at the ILC [@Osland:2005ee; @Osland:2003fn]. More recently they constructed a “Forward-Backward Centre-Edge” defined as $\sigma_{CE,FB}=\sigma_{C,FB}-\sigma_{E,FB}$ to identify graviton exchange and act as a discriminator between possible models [@Pankov:2005qi; @Pankov:2005ar]. In this defination “centre” refers to a region with $|\cos\theta| \leq Z^*$ and “edge” refers to $|\cos\theta| > Z^*$ with $z^*$ a value that can be varied to optimize the discrimination power and $FB$ is the forward-backward asymmetry evaluated for the centre region and the edge region. $A_{CEFB}$ is shown in Fig. \[pankov\] for a contact interaction and ADD graviton exchange. They estimated that the ILC would be sensitive to $M_H$ up to 3.5 and 5.8 TeV for $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ and 1.0 TeV respectively with ${\cal L}_{int}=500$ fb$^{-1}$.
{width="80mm"}
A next step would be to measure the resonance couplings. Riemann used the leptonic observables to demonstrate that one can extract a $Z'$ couplings and discriminate between models [@Aguilar-Saavedra:2001rg]. A more recent analysis is shown in Fig. \[godfrey\] which shows the resolution power for $Z'$’s coming from the $E_6$ $\chi$, LR-symmetric, Littlest Higgs, and KK excitations. Note that the couplings shown for the KK case do not in fact correspond to the KK $Z'$ couplings as in this model there are both photon and $Z$ KK excitations. The point is simply the KK model can be distinguished from other models. These figures were produced for $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV and ${\cal L}_{int}=1$ab$^{-1}$ assuming electron and positron polarization of 80% and 60% respectively, $\Delta P_{e^\pm}=0.5\% $, $\Delta {\cal L}=0.5\%$, and $\Delta ^{sys}\epsilon_{lepton}=0.25\%$. There is a two-fold ambiguity in the signs of the lepton couplings since all lepton observables are bilinear products of the couplings. The hadronic observables can be used to resolve this ambiguity since for this case the the quark and lepton couplings enter the interference terms linearly.
{width="65mm"}{width="65mm"}
A complementary approach was described by Conley Le and Hewett [@Conley:2005et] who showed how the Little Higgs parameter space can be probed in the di-fermion channels. Their results are shown in Fig. \[conley\] which indicates how well the parameters of the model can be constrained assuming that the mass of the $Z_H$ is known from the LHC.
{width="100mm"}
The di-fermion channel has also been applied to other possible new physics. Riemann studied the sensitivity to the UED model level 2 KK $Z$ excitations in the di-fermion channels [@Riemann:2005es]. Due to KK number conservation the KK excitations only couple to conventional fermions through loops. As a result the couplings are much smaller than SM couplings and $\sigma(e^+e^-\to f\bar{f})$ is much less sensitive to UED KK excitations than to other types of new gauge bosons.
A final example is that of Universal Extra Dimensions (UED). The KK spectrum in UED closely resembles that of SUSY. The typical signal for SUSY is missing $\not{E}_T$. So, for example, if a signal with significant $\not{E}_T$ was observed at the LHC it is quite possible that one could not decide if it was due to SUSY or UED [@Battaglia:2005zf; @Battaglia:2005ma]. However the spins of SUSY particles are different than that of UED KK particles. One can take advantage of this by studying the angular distributions of the outgoing muons in $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^- +\not{E}_T$. In UED this signature arises from KK muon production, $e^+e^-\to \mu_1^+\mu_1^- \to \mu^+\mu^- \gamma_1 \gamma_1$ while in SUSY it arises from smuon pair production, $e^+e^-\to \tilde{\mu}^+\tilde{\mu}^- \to \mu^+\mu^-
\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$. For UED the resulting muon angular distribution goes like $1+\cos^2\theta$ while for SUSY it goes like $1-\cos^2\theta$. The ISR-corrected theoretical predictions for the angular distributions for UED and SUSY are shown in Fig. \[battaglia\]. Clearly, the two cases can be discriminated. In addition to angular distributions threshold scans and energy distributions can also be used as discriminators of UED and SUSY [@Battaglia:2005zf; @Battaglia:2005ma]. In particular, the threshold cross section for $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^- +\not{E}_T$ goes like $\beta^3$ $(\beta=\sqrt{1-M^2/E^2_{beam}})$ in the MSSM and like $\beta$ in UED [@Battaglia:2005zf; @Battaglia:2005ma].
{width="80mm"}
As an aside one should not forget the considerable experimental effort that goes into these measurements. For example, $b$-tagging is an extremely powerful tool for ID’ing models so the understanding $b$-purity versus efficiency is an important issue to understand. Studies of this and other vertex detector issues were presented by Hillert. Luminosity and beam parameter measurements was another important issue described by Ingbir and Torrence.
Precision Measurement of Higgs Boson Properties
-----------------------------------------------
In addition to measurements of difermion observables, precision measurements of Higgs properties can be another important discriminator of models. Higgs properties have been studied in a wide variety of models using many different processes. In a first example Lillie studied Higgs properties in the Randall Sundrum model (RS) [@Lillie:2005pt]. In this model, Higgs production is enhanced at the LHC and in $\gamma\gamma$ collisions but reduced at the ILC. A probably more distinctive signal is that Higgs decays are substantially modified from their SM values.
Battaglia [*et al*]{} studied ADD at the ILC [@Battaglia:2004js]. Mixing of the SM Higgs with the graviscalar induces an invisible width compared to direct SM decay. The ILC can measure this invisible width directly and using $HZ$ production. The invisible width can be deduced in the $HZ$ process by observing the $Z$ boson and reconstructing the missing energy recoiling against it. The number of extra dimensions can be constrained by measuring the $e^+e^- \to \gamma +\not{E}$ at different values of $\sqrt{s}$ [@Weiglein:2004hn]. Combined with a Higgs mass measurement from the LHC can constrain the ADD parameter space.
Precision measurements of the Higgs partial widths are a another powerful tool for distinguishing models. The two-photon and two-gluon partial widths are modified by heavy particles running in the loop and by shifts to the SM $W$-boson and $t$-quark masses [@Han:2003gf]. Fig. \[logan\] shows the range of $\Gamma (H\to gg)$ versus $\Gamma(H\to \gamma\gamma)$ normalized to the SM values for different Higgs masses and values of the decay constant parameter of the Little Higgs model [@Han:2003gf]. It is clear that precision measurements of the BR’s offers a good means of constraining the parameters of this model.
Conley Le and Hewett also studied the process $e^+e^-\to Zh$ in the Little Higgs model [@Conley:2005et]. One of the hallmarks of Little Higgs models is the coupling of heavy gauge bosons to $Zh$. Thus, a signature of the Little Higgs model is deviations from the SM in $\sigma(e^+e^-\to Zh)$. The sensitivity of this process to the parameters of the model are shown in Fig. \[conley2\] for $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV and assuming ${\cal L}_{int}=500$ fb$^{-1}$ which gives $\delta \sigma_{Zh}/ \sigma_{Zh}=1.5\%$. The $\sigma(e^+e^-\to Zh)$ measurement covers a large region of the parameter space but there are still large regions to explore so perhaps other observables might be useful. In any case the $\sigma(e^+e^-\to Zh)$ measurements would be a useful complement to the difermion measurements in some regions of the LH parameter space and would provide a confirmation of this hallmark feature of the LH model.
{width="90mm"}
PRECISION MEASUREMENTS AND EFFECTIVE LAGRANGIANS
================================================
In the examples given so far we assumed specific models and examined how well precisions measurements could either detect them or discriminate them from other models. A more general approach is to use the language of effective Lagrangians [@Krstonosic:2005qp; @Kilian:2005bz; @Osland:2005ee]. Generically ${\cal L}_{eff}$ can be written: $${\cal L}_{eff}={\cal L}_{SM}+\sum_i {{c_i}\over{\Lambda^p} }
{\cal O}^{(4+p)}$$ where $\Lambda$ reflects the scale of new physics and the details of the new physics (couplings, chiral structure etc.) are parametrized in the coefficients $c_i$. For example, new interactions such as $s$-channel $Z'$’ or $t$-channel leptoquark exchange can be parametrized as 4-fermion interactions if $\sqrt{s}<< \Lambda$.
In the gauge sector the trilinear gauge boson vertex $\gamma WW$ can be sensitive to new physics via new particles included in the vertex loop corrections [@Monig:2005ge]. It has become the practice to parametrize the trilinear gauge boson vertices in terms of $k_\gamma$ and $\lambda_\gamma$. Mönig and Sekaric presented results of a detailed simulation including polarization and backgrounds of $\gamma\gamma\to W^+W^-\to q\bar{q}q\bar{q}$ at $\sqrt{s}_{ee}=500$ GeV [@Monig:2005ge]. Their results on $k_\gamma$ and $\lambda_\gamma$ sensitivities comparing $e^+e^-$, $e\gamma$ and $\gamma\gamma$ modes for $\sqrt{s}_{ee}=500$ GeV and ${\cal L}_{int}=1000$ fb$^{-1}$ are shown in Table \[monig\].
-------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------- --------------- -------------
LEFT [$\gamma e$]{} $e^{+}e^{-}$
Mode Real/Parasitic $|J_{Z}|=3/2$ $|J_{Z}|=2$ $J_{Z}=0$ $|J_{Z}|=1$
$\int{\cal L}\Delta t$ 160 fb$^{-1}$/230 fb$^{-1}$ 500 fb$^{-1}$
${{\Delta}L}$ 0.1$\%$ 1$\%$ -
${\Delta}{\kappa}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-4}$ 10.0/11.0 7.0 27.8 3.6$^*$
${\Delta}{\lambda}_{\gamma}{\cdot}10^{-4}$ 4.9/6.7 4.8 5.7 11.0$^*$
-------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------- --------------- -------------
: Comparison of the $\kappa_{\gamma}$ and $\lambda_{\gamma}$ sensitivities at $\gamma e$-, $\gamma\gamma$- and $e^{+}e^{-}$-colliders estimated at $\sqrt{s_{ee}}=500$ GeV using the polarised beams. In case of photon colliders, the background and the pileup are included. ($^*$) denotes the estimation at the generator level. []{data-label="monig"}
A strongly interacting weak sector would manifest itself in weak boson scattering, in particular in the quartic couplings. In the chiral Lagrangian parametrization one operator of interest is (for other operators not shown see for example Ref. [@Krstonosic:2005qp; @Kilian:2005bz]): $${\cal L}_4= {{\alpha_4}\over{16\pi^2}} Tr(V_\mu V_\nu)\; Tr(V^\mu V^\nu)$$ Again, one can calculate the values of these coefficients for specific models so that the the values and patterns of the coefficients $\alpha_i$ will codify the underlying new physics. Precision measurements of these coefficients will be needed to disentangle the underlying physics. The quartic vertices can be studied in numerous gauge boson scattering processes such as $e^+e^-\to \nu\bar{\nu}W^+W^-$ but also in triboson production processes such as $e^+e^-\to W^+W^-Z$. An important goal is to produce a full and consistent set of limits using all possible processes. Once this is done one can produce a strategy of measurements to constrain various models of new physics. To this end Krstonosic [@Krstonosic:2005qp] presented results of a new analysis of gauge boson scattering and triple gauge boson production. Their results are summarized in Fig. \[krstonosic\]. To obtain these bounds on $\alpha_4$ and $\alpha_5$ they assumed the same integrated luminosity and $80\%$ left $e^-$ and $40\%$ right $e^+$ polarization for scattering and $80\%$ right $e^+$ and $60\%$ left $e^-$ polarization for triple production. The same luminosity based conclusion was made after comparison of $e^+e^-$ and $e^-e^-$ running modes leaving the experimental physicist several ways to achieve the desired precision.
{width="65mm"}
CONCLUSIONS
===========
The ILC is an instrument for making precision measurements. These are needed to disentangle the underlying new physics that may be hinted at or unearthed elswhere. For example, if an $s$-channel resonance were discovered at the LHC, the ILC would be needed to make precision measurements of its properties. Without these measurements, complementary to those of the LHC, it will be unlikely we will know the underlying theory. Another example is the discovery of a light Higgs boson at the LHC. Again, precision measurements at the ILC are needed to determine its origins. Some recent examples that have been discussed in the literature and presented at this workshop are distinguishing between a SM Higgs, SUSY, ADD, etc. These examples take advantage of a prior discovery at the LHC to extract further information using precision measurements at the ILC. There are other examples for which the ILC has a higher reach than the LHC via indirect effects such as interference of new interactions with the SM or via loop contributions to effective interactions.
An important task for our community is to continue to strengthen the case that the ILC is needed, especially in the era of the LHC. To do this we shouldn’t forget the LHC. Working on LHC physics is needed to understand its strengths and weaknesses thereby pointing out where the ILC can contribute crucial measurements. The rewards of our efforts might be in a press release by the ILC Director proclaiming “This result will send theorists back to their drawing boards”, and what could be more exciting than that!
The author thanks contributors to the BSM sessions for helpful conversations and communications and H. Logan and T. Rizzo for helpful comments. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
[99]{} G. Weiglein [*et al.*]{} \[LHC/LC Study Group\], hep-ph/0410364. S. Dawson and M. Oreglia, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**54**]{}, 269 (2004) \[hep-ph/0403015\]. G. Moortgat-Pick [*et al.*]{}, hep-ph/0507011. J. D. Lykken, hep-ph/0503148. C. Csaki, C. Grojean, L. Pilo and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 101802 (2004) \[hep-ph/0308038\]; C. Csaki, C. Grojean, H. Murayama, L. Pilo and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 055006 (2004) \[hep-ph/0305237\]; C. Csaki, hep-ph/0412339; T. G. Rizzo, hep-ph/0405094; H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett, B. Lillie and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 015006 (2004) \[hep-ph/0312193\]; A. Birkedal, K. Matchev and M. Perelstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 191803 (2005) \[hep-ph/0412278\]. N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz and A. E. Nelson, JHEP [**0207**]{}, 034 (2002) \[hep-ph/0206021\]. I. Antoniadis, Phys. Lett. B [**246**]{}, 377 (1990). Recent pedagogical introductions to extra dimensions are given by T. G. Rizzo, eConf [**C040802**]{}, L013 (2004) \[hep-ph/0409309\] and K. Cheung, hep-ph/0409028. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 086004 (1999) \[hep-ph/9807344\]. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B [**429**]{}, 263 (1998) \[hep-ph/9803315\]. I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B [**436**]{}, 257 (1998) \[hep-ph/9804398\]. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3370 (1999) \[hep-ph/9905221\]. T. Appelquist, H. C. Cheng and B. A. Dobrescu, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 035002 (2001) \[hep-ph/0012100\]; H. C. Cheng, K. T. Matchev and M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 036005 (2002) \[hep-ph/0204342\]. A. Leike, Phys. Rept. [**317**]{}, 143 (1999) \[hep-ph/9805494\]. C. T. Hill and E. H. Simmons, Phys. Rept. [**381**]{}, 235 (2003) \[Erratum-ibid. [**390**]{}, 553 (2004)\] \[hep-ph/0203079\]. J. L. Hewett, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4765 (1999) \[hep-ph/9811356\]. T. G. Rizzo, hep-ph/0504118. T. G. Rizzo, JHEP [**0306**]{}, 021 (2003) \[hep-ph/0305077\]. H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 075004 (2001) \[hep-ph/0006041\]. M. Dittmar, A. S. Nicollerat and A. Djouadi, Phys. Lett. B [**583**]{}, 111 (2004) \[hep-ph/0307020\]. J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra [*et al.*]{} \[ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group\], hep-ph/0106315. T. G. Rizzo, JHEP [**0210**]{}, 013 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0208027\]. P. Osland and N. Paver, hep-ph/0507185. P. Osland, A. A. Pankov and N. Paver, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 015007 (2003) \[hep-ph/0304123\]. A. A. Pankov and N. Paver, hep-ph/0508174. A. A. Pankov and N. Paver, hep-ph/0501170. Preliminary results were given in S. Godfrey, contribution to [*Physics interplay of the LHC and the ILC*]{} (unpublished), see [@Weiglein:2004hn]; S. Godfrey, P. Kalyniak, A. Tomkins, in preparation.
S. Riemann, hep-ph/0508136. J. A. Conley, J. Hewett and M. P. Le, hep-ph/0507198. B. Lillie, hep-ph/0505074. M. Battaglia, D. Dominici, J. F. Gunion and J. D. Wells, hep-ph/0402062. T. Han, H. E. Logan, B. McElrath and L. T. Wang, Phys. Lett. B [**563**]{}, 191 (2003) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**603**]{}, 257 (2004)\] \[hep-ph/0302188\]; T. Han, H. E. Logan, B. McElrath and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 095004 (2003) \[hep-ph/0301040\]. M. Battaglia, A. Datta, A. De Roeck, K. Kong and K. T. Matchev, hep-ph/0502041. M. Battaglia, A. K. Datta, A. De Roeck, K. Kong and K. T. Matchev, hep-ph/0507284. P. Krstonosic, K. Moenig, M. Beyer, E. Schmidt and H. Schroeder, hep-ph/0508179. W. Kilian and J. Reuter, hep-ph/0507099. K. Mönig and J. Sekaric, hep-ex/0507050.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'J. Licandro'
- 'C. de la Fuente Marcos'
- 'R. de la Fuente Marcos'
- 'J. de León'
- 'M. Serra-Ricart'
- 'A. Cabrera-Lavers'
bibliography:
- 'refsC2018F4.bib'
date: 'Received 14 December 2018 / Accepted XX Xxxxxxxx XXXX'
title: 'Spectroscopic and dynamical properties of comet C/2018 F4, likely a true average former member of the Oort cloud [^1]'
---
[The population of comets hosted by the Oort cloud is heterogeneous. Most studies in this area have focused on highly active objects, those with small perihelion distances or examples of objects with peculiar physical properties and/or unusual chemical compositions. This may have produced a biased sample of Oort cloud comets in which the most common objects may be rare, particularly those with perihelia well beyond the orbit of the Earth. Within this context, the known Oort cloud comets may not be representative of the full sample meaning that our current knowledge of the appearance of the average Oort cloud comet may not be accurate. Comet C/2018 F4 (PANSTARRS) is an object of interest in this regard.]{} [Here, we study the spectral properties in the visible region and the cometary activity of C/2018 F4, and we also explore its orbital evolution with the aim of understanding its origin within the context of known minor bodies moving along nearly parabolic or hyperbolic paths.]{} [We present observations obtained with the 10.4 m Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC) that we use to derive the spectral class and visible slope of C/2018 F4 as well as to characterise its level of cometary activity. Direct $N$-body simulations are carried out to explore its orbital evolution.]{} [The absolute magnitude of C/2018 F4 is $H_{r} > 13.62\pm0.04$ which puts a strong limit on its diameter, $D < 10.4$ km, assuming a $p_V = 0.04$ cometary-like value of the albedo. The object presents a conspicuous coma, with a level of activity comparable to those of other comets observed at similar heliocentric distances. Comet C/2018 F4 has a visible spectrum consistent with that of an X-type asteroid, and has a spectral slope $S'=4.0\pm$1.0 %/1000 [Å]{} and no evidence of hydration. The spectrum matches those of well-studied primitive asteroids and comets. The analysis of its dynamical evolution prior to discovery suggests that C/2018 F4 is not of extrasolar origin.]{} [Although the present-day heliocentric orbit of C/2018 F4 is slightly hyperbolic, both its observational properties and past orbital evolution are consistent with those of a typical dynamically old comet with an origin in the Oort cloud.]{}
Introduction
============
In our solar system, a number of populations of small bodies are well studied and the notion of an average or typical member of such populations is well defined; good examples are the near-Earth objects or NEOs (see e.g. ) or the Jupiter-family comets (see e.g. ; ). Unfortunately, the appearance of an average Oort cloud comet remains unclear and this could be the result of most studies focusing on the extreme cases.
The Oort cloud is a spherical structure that surrounds the solar system with an outer boundary located beyond 50000 to 200000 AU. The Oort cloud hosts a population of comets of heterogeneous nature (see e.g. ; ; ; ; ). Most authors consider the Oort cloud to have appeared very early in the history of the solar system, nearly 4.6 Gyr ago, and to be made of fossil debris from the primordial protoplanetary disc. Importantly, the solar system was born within a star cluster (see e.g. ). Based on this information, suggest that perhaps over 90% of the material currently present in the Oort cloud is of extrasolar origin, having been captured from the protoplanetary discs of other stars when the Sun was still part of the open star cluster or stellar association where it was born. An analysis of a sufficiently representative sample of objects from the Oort cloud should be able to either confirm or reject a dominant primordial extrasolar origin for the populations of small bodies hosted by the Oort cloud. Being able to clearly characterise the appearance of an average Oort cloud member may help in solving this difficult and important problem.
The current sample of known Oort cloud comets is likely biased in favour of relatively active objects, those with short perihelion distances, and those with unusual physical and/or chemical properties; unremarkable comets tend to be missing, perhaps neglected. Among the currently known minor bodies following nearly parabolic or hyperbolic paths – which may have their origin in the Oort cloud – about 75% have data-arcs spanning less than a month and consistently uncertain orbit determinations; only a small subsample has been studied spectroscopically. This suggests that our current perspective on the appearance of the average Oort cloud comet may be inaccurate. Comet C/2018 F4 (PANSTARRS) is an object of interest in this regard.
Comet C/2018 F4 was discovered by the Pan-STARRS survey ( ; ) on 2018 March 17 at 6.4 AU from the Sun and with an apparent magnitude $w$ of 20.4 ( ; ; ). It was initially classified as a hyperbolic asteroid, A/2018 F4 , and was subsequently reclassified as a comet . Its current heliocentric orbit determination is based on 185 data points, for an observation arc of 146 days, and it is hyperbolic at the 7$\sigma$ level, although the barycentric eccentricity is not hyperbolic (see Table \[elements\]) at almost the 21$\sigma$ level; $\sigma$ levels have been computed using the formal uncertainty on the eccentricity in Table \[elements\]. Its trajectory is approximately perpendicular to the plane of the solar system with the descending node being at about 6 AU from the Sun and the ascending node being far from any planetary path, stranded approximately midway between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.
0.15truecm
Orbital parameter Heliocentric Barycentric
---------------------------------------------- --- ---------------------- -------------
Perihelion distance, $q$ (AU) = 3.4417$\pm$0.0004 3.4355
Eccentricity, $e$ = 1.00077$\pm$0.00011 0.99771
Inclination, $i$ () = 78.160$\pm$0.003 78.256
Longitude of the ascending node, $\Omega$ () = 26.51923$\pm$0.00004 26.46807
Argument of perihelion, $\omega$ () = 263.167$\pm$0.004 263.321
Mean anomaly, $M$ () = -0.0020$\pm$0.0004 359.9899
: \[elements\]Heliocentric and barycentric orbital elements and 1$\sigma$ uncertainties of comet C/2018 F4 (PANSTARRS).
The aim of the research presented here is two-fold: (1) We aim to study the activity and surface properties of C/2018 F4 by obtaining a high-S/N image and a low-resolution spectrum in the visible, and to compare them to the activity and spectral properties observed in other comets (see e.g. ); and (2) to explore its dynamics in order to determine whether it is an Oort cloud comet, old or new, or perhaps an interstellar interloper. The paper is organised as follows. In Sect. \[sec:obs\], observations, data reduction, and spectral extraction are described. In Sect. \[sec:results\], we analyse the observed coma and the spectral properties of the comet, and compare them to those of other comets. In Sect. \[sec:dynamics\], we explore the dynamical evolution of C/2018 F4 before finally presenting our conclusions in Sect. \[sec:conclusions\].
Observations \[sec:obs\]
========================
Images and low-resolution visible spectra of C/2018 F4 (PANSTARRS) were obtained in service mode on 2018 April 12 using the Optical System for Imaging and Low Resolution Integrated Spectroscopy (OSIRIS) camera spectrograph ( ; ) at the 10.4 m Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC). Two images, one with an exposure time of 180 s and the other of 30 s, were obtained between 0:33 and 0:43 UTC (at an airmass of 1.32) using the SLOAN [*r’*]{} filter. Three spectra, each one with an exposure time of 900 s, were obtained between 0:48 and 1:32 UTC (at an airmass of 1.29). OSIRIS has a mosaic of two Marconi 2048$\times$4096 pixel CCD detectors, with a total unvignetted field of view of 7.8$\times$7.8 arcminutes, and a plate scale of 0.127 "/px. In order to increase the S/N, we selected the 2$\times$2 binning and the standard operation mode with a readout speed of 200 kHz (with a gain of 0.95 e-/ADU and a readout noise of 4.5 e-). The tracking of the telescope matched the proper motion of the object during the observations. We found C/2018 F4 to be at 6.23 and 5.23 AU, heliocentric and geocentric distances, respectively, and its phase angle was $\alpha = 0\fdg9$ at the time of the observations.
The spectra were obtained using the R300R grism in combination with a second-order spectral filter that produces a spectrum in the range 4800 to 9000 [Å]{} with a dispersion of 32.25 Å/px for the used 2.5“ slit width. The slit was oriented in parallactic angle to account for possible variable seeing conditions and to minimise losses due to atmospheric dispersion. The three consecutive spectra were shifted in the slit direction by 10” to better correct for fringing. In addition, two G2V stars – SA102-1081 and SA107-998 – from the Landolt catalogue were observed immediately before and after the object, and at similar airmass (1.26 and 1.27, respectively) using the same spectral configuration. These stars are used as solar analogues to correct for telluric absorptions and to obtain relative reflectance spectra.
Data reduction was carried out using standard Image Reduction and Analysis Facility (IRAF[^2]) procedures. The [*r’*]{} images obtained were over-scan and bias corrected, flat-field corrected using sky-flats, and flux calibrated using standard stars observed the same night. The 180 s image is shown in Fig. \[images\]. Spectral images were over-scan and bias corrected, and then flat-field corrected using lamp flats. The 2D spectra were extracted, sky background subtracted, and collapsed to one dimension. The wavelength calibration was done using Xe+Ne+HgAr lamps. Finally, the three spectra of the object were averaged to obtain the final spectrum. As pointed out above, two G2V stars were observed under the same conditions in order to improve the quality of the final comet reflectance spectra and to minimise potential variations in spectral slope introduced by the use of just one star. The averaged spectrum of the object was divided by that of each G2V star, and the resulting spectra were normalized to unity at 0.55 $\mu$m to obtain the reflectance spectrum. The final reflectance spectrum of C/2018 F4, binned to a resolution of 50 [Å,]{} is shown in Fig. \[spectrum\].
![Image of C/2018 F4 (PANSTARRS) obtained on 2018 April 12. The image is a 90$\times$90" field; north is up, east to the left. The object is found at the centre of the image and presents a faint coma indicative of some modest comet-like activity.[]{data-label="images"}](Image28.png){width="\linewidth"}
![Visible reflectance spectrum of C/2018 F4 (PANSTARRS), normalized to unity at 0.55 $\mu$m.[]{data-label="spectrum"}](espectroF4.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Results and analysis \[sec:results\]
====================================
In this section, we first analyse the images of C/2018 F4 (PANSTARRS) – the deepest is shown in Fig. \[images\] – to look for signs of comet-like activity, and measure the nuclear magnitude and activity levels. We then analyse its spectral properties, derive its taxonomical classification, and compute its visible spectral slope. Following the procedure described by , we also look for the typical 0.7 $\mu$m absorption band associated with the presence of hydrated minerals and observed on the surface of some primitive asteroids. We finally compare these spectral properties to those of known comet nuclei and dormant comets.
Comet C/2018 F4 observed activity \[sec:comaprop\]
--------------------------------------------------
Comet C/2018 F4 presents a rather obvious and compact faint coma as seen in Fig. \[images\]. The radial profiles of the comet and a field star shown in Fig. \[profiles\] clearly indicate that the point spread function (PSF) of the comet is wider (with a FWHM=6.4 pixels) than that of the field stars (FWHM=4.2 pixels). In order to assess the relative contributions of the nucleus and coma to the observed radial profile of the comet, we performed a simple analysis assuming an isotropic dust coma with surface brightness inversely proportional to the projected cometocentric distance ($\rho$). Using the IRAF task MKOBJECT, we created a synthetic image with two objects: (1) a point-like source and (2) an extended object with a $1/\rho$ profile. We assumed a Moffat PSF with the value of the FWHM measured for the field stars in the image of the comet. The radial profiles of these objects are also shown in Fig. \[profiles\]. We note that the point-like source (labelled as Moffat star profile) fits the profile of the stars in the comet image very well, while the $1/\rho$ profile (labelled as Moffat $1/\rho$ profile) does not fit that of the comet at all. A 50:50 linear combination of the star and $1/\rho$ profiles matches the observed profile of the comet reasonably well, which strongly suggests that the contribution of the nucleus to the total brightness close to the optocentre of the comet is indeed significant.
The apparent magnitude of the comet was measured using several apertures: $r'=21.22\pm0.04$ (6 pixels), $r'=19.90\pm0.04$ (12 pixels), and $r'=19.47\pm0.04$ (18 pixels). The brightness of the comet greatly increases by 1.75 magnitudes when moving from 18 pixel to 6 pixel apertures. On the other hand, the magnitude variation between these two apertures computed for the field stars is only of 0.20. Such a difference is due to the contribution of the observed coma. This clearly shows that the brightness of the comet nucleus, even using the small 6 pixel aperture, is strongly contaminated by the coma as we also showed in the analysis of the profiles. An apparent magnitude $r'=21.22\pm0.04$ is simply a lower limit for the value of the nuclear magnitude of C/2018 F4, which in turn puts a robust limit to the nuclear magnitude and the size of the comet. In the combined profile described above, the coma contribution is 3.7 times larger than that of the nucleus, and thus the nuclear magnitude could be $\sim1.4$ magnitudes fainter. From the apparent magnitude, we derived an absolute nuclear magnitude of $H_{r} > 13.62\pm0.04$ using the procedure described in . Considering the solar colour transformations, the absolute magnitude in the visible is $H_{V} > 14.02\pm0.04$, and assuming an albedo of $p_V = 0.04,$ typical of comet nuclei (see ), this absolute magnitude limit corresponds to a diameter of $D < 10.4$ km for comet C/2018 F4.
![Normalized radial profile of C/2018 F4 (PANSTARRS) in the image shown in Fig. \[images\] (in red) compared to that of a field star (in black). The Moffat profile of a point-like source (solid line in green) with the FWHM of the stars in the images, and the corresponding profile of an extended object (solid line in black) with a $1/\rho$ profile (the profile of an isotropic dust coma) are shown. The solid line in blue is the 50:50 linear combination of the point-like source (nucleus) and $1/\rho$ profile (dust coma). The similarity of the combined profile to the observed one suggests that the nucleus contributes significantly to the overall brightness of the comet.[]{data-label="profiles"}](perfiles.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
In order to evaluate the overall level of cometary activity (i.e. dust production rate) present during the observations, we computed the $Af\rho$ parameter – or product between the albedo, the filling factor, and the radius of the coma – for different cometocentric distances ($\rho$) as shown in Fig. \[Afrho\]. At $\rho=10\,000$ km, $Af\rho = 148\pm13$ cm. Within the context of comet-like activity at large heliocentric distances, this value of $Af\rho$ agrees well with those of P/2008 CL94 (Lemmon) and P/2011 S1 (Gibbs), of 106$\pm$3 cm and 76$\pm$8 cm, respectively and it is slightly below the mean $Af\rho$ value reported for comets observed at similar heliocentric distances by , but still compatible with the less-active comets reported in this paper. The existence of comet-like activity beyond the zone of water-ice sublimation is very well known, and our results show that C/2018 F4 behaves in a similar manner to other comets observed at similar heliocentric distances.
![Variation of $Af\rho$ with $\rho$.[]{data-label="Afrho"}](afrho2.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
C/2018 F4 spectral properties \[sec:specprop\]
----------------------------------------------
A spectral slope of $S' = 4.0 \pm 1.0 $ %/1000[Å]{} is computed for the spectrum of C/2018 F4 following the $S'$ definition in , and considering the 0.55–0.86 $\mu$m wavelength range (where the observed reflectance is well represented by a linear fit). The spectrum is normalized to unity at 0.55 $\mu$m. The quoted uncertainty in the value of $S'$ has been computed as the standard deviation ($\sigma$) of the $S'$ values obtained for each single reflectance spectrum of the object; that is, the reflectance spectrum obtained for each single 900 s exposure time spectrum of the object and each single spectrum of the G2V stars obtained during the night when the observations were completed. The derived uncertainty ($\sim$1.0 % /1000Å) is compatible with the values (1–0.5 %/1000Å) usually obtained under good observational conditions, when several solar analogue stars have been observed. We adopt this value as the error of the computed slope instead of using the error obtained from the linear fit, which is much smaller. Using the online tool for modelling the spectra of asteroids, M4AST[^3] , we obtained the taxonomical classification of C/2018 F4. Its spectrum corresponds to that of an X-type asteroid ( ; ). As described by , M4AST first applies a polynomial fit to the asteroid spectrum, with varying order, and then compares this fit at the corresponding wavelengths to templates of each taxonomical class defined by taxonomy. It then selects the taxonomic class with the smallest chi-squared value.
Only a few visible or near-infrared spectra of comet nuclei have been published, but all of them are featureless with a red slope in the 0.5 to 2.5 $\mu$m region, typical of X- or D-type asteroids and similar to the spectrum of C/2018 F4 presented here (see and references therein). The photometric colours of comets are also typical of X- or D-type asteroids (see e.g. ).
The presence of aqueously altered minerals on asteroid surfaces can be inferred by a shallow spectral absorption band centred at 0.7 $\mu$m. No signatures of this feature are present in the spectrum of C/2018 F4 (see Fig. \[spectrum\]). In any case, the absence of this feature does not mean that there are no hydrated minerals on the surface of the object. Several asteroids with hydrated minerals on their surfaces, inferred by a strong absorption feature in the 3-$\mu$m region, do not present the 0.7 $\mu$m band. In contrast, whenever the 0.7 $\mu$m band is present, the 3 $\mu$m band is also observed (see e.g. ; ). The lack of evidence of water hydration on the surface of C/2018 F4 from its visible spectrum is also compatible with a cometary origin. Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko is devoid of hydrated minerals and the visible spectra of cometary nuclei do not present the features produced by hydrated minerals: the band centred at 0.7 $\mu$m and that at 0.5 $\mu$m. In particular, the visible spectrum of C/2018 F4 is different from those of the so-called Manx comets, long-period comets displaying only residual activity even at small perihelion distances , as no significant dip beyond 0.75 $\mu$m is observed.
The results presented above should be taken with some caution, since the observed spectrum of C/2018 F4 is not exactly that of the comet nucleus; there is an important contribution of the coma ($\sim$ 60% of the flux in the slit corresponds to scattered light from the coma according to the profile analysis presented above). In terms of slope determination and spectral classification, this should not affect our conclusions given the fact that the colour of the comet coma is similar to that of the nucleus (see ). In contrast, such a contribution could have masked the presence of a weak absorption band like the 0.7 $\mu$m one due to aqueously altered minerals.
Dynamics \[sec:dynamics\]
=========================
Aiming at exploring the dynamical evolution of C/2018 F4 (PANSTARRS), we have used data – heliocentric and barycentric orbital elements and their uncertainties – provided by Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Solar System Dynamics Group Small-Body Database (JPL’s SSDG SBDB, ).[^4] Here, the full $N$-body calculations required to investigate the pre- and post-perihelion trajectories of this and other objects have been carried out as described by and do not include non-gravitational forces. The orbit determination in Table \[elements\] did not require non-gravitational terms to fit the available astrometry; therefore, any contribution due to asymmetric outgassing is probably a second-order effect. Neglecting the role of non-gravitational forces in this case is unlikely to have any major impact on our conclusions. When nominal orbits are not used, the Cartesian state vectors are generated by applying the Monte Carlo using the Covariance Matrix method described by and modified here to make it work with hyperbolic orbits; the covariance matrices necessary to generate initial positions and velocities have been obtained from JPL’s <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">horizons</span>,[^5] which is also the source of other input data required to perform the calculations such as barycentric Cartesian state vectors for planets and other solar system bodies. This approach has previously been used to independently confirm that C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS) is a bound and dynamically old Oort cloud comet .
The analysis of the pre-perihelion trajectory of C/2018 F4 might shed some light on its true origin because although its present-day heliocentric orbital determination is nominally hyperbolic (see Table \[elements\]), it may or may not have followed an elliptical path in the past; realistic $N$-body simulations can help in investigating this critical issue. We have performed integrations backward in time of 1024 control orbits of this object; our physical model includes the perturbations by the eight major planets, the Moon, the barycentre of the Pluto–Charon system, and the three largest asteroids. A statistical analysis of the results indicates that about 38% of the control orbits are compatible with the object coming from the interstellar medium at low relative velocity with respect to the Sun. For this hyperbolic subsample and 1 Myr into the past, the average distance to the comet from the Sun was 0.3$\pm$0.2 pc (or 60855 AU), moving inwards at $-$0.5$\pm$0.4 km s$^{-1}$ and projected towards $\alpha=16^{\rm h}~59^{\rm m}~12^{\rm s}$ and $\delta=+75\degr~18\arcmin~10\arcsec$ (255$\pm$13, +75$\pm$2) in the constellation of Ursa Minor (geocentric radiant or antapex) with Galactic coordinates $l=107\fdg41$, $b=+33\fdg18$, and ecliptic coordinates $\lambda=112\fdg56$, $\beta=+80\fdg02$, thus well separated from the ecliptic and the Galactic disc. The study of its post-perihelion trajectory requires the analysis of a similar set of $N$-body simulations, but forward in time; it will reach perihelion on 2019 December 4. Out of 1024 control orbits and after 1 Myr of simulated time, we observe that nearly 51% lead the then unbound object towards interstellar space.
In order to better understand the past, present, and future orbital evolution of C/2018 F4 within the context of other objects with similar osculating orbital elements, we have searched JPL’s SSDG SBDB and found that the heliocentric orbit determination in Table \[elements\] is somewhat similar in terms of perihelion distance, $q$, and inclination, $i$, to those of the long-period comets C/1997 BA6 (Spacewatch), $q= 3.436$ AU, $e = 0.999$, $i = 72$7, and C/2007 M2 (Catalina), $q = 3.541$ AU, $e = 0.999$, $i = 80$9, but also to those of the slightly hyperbolic comets C/1987 W3 (Jensen–Shoemaker), $q = 3.333$ AU, $e = 1.005$ (its barycentric eccentricity is also slightly hyperbolic, 1.000053), $i = 76$7, and C/2000 SV74 (LINEAR), $q = 3.542$ AU, $e = 1.005$ (as in the case of C/2018 F4, its barycentric eccentricity is not hyperbolic, 0.99994), $i = 75$2. In principle, these objects have not been selected to argue for some sort of physical or dynamical association with C/2018 F4, but to compare orbital evolutions of objects with similar values of $q$, $e,$ and $i$. However, it is true that the locations of the orbital poles ($(L_{\rm p}, B_{\rm p}) = (\Omega-90\degr, 90\degr-i)$; see for example ) of C/2000 SV74 and C/2018 F4 are close in the sky, $(294\fdg2, 13\fdg8)$ versus $(296\fdg5, 11\fdg8)$, respectively. A small angular separation between orbital poles is indicative of a fairly consistent direction of the orbital angular momentum, which suggests that the objects are experiencing a similar background perturbation. In this context, C/2000 SV74 and C/2018 F4 may share the same dynamics even if they are not physically related – their arguments of perihelion are nearly 180 apart.
The top panel of Figure \[fig:1\] shows the (past and future) short-term orbital evolution of C/2018 F4 (in green, nominal orbit in Table \[elements\]) and those of a few representative control orbits (in blue). In addition, we show those of the nominal orbits of 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua), C/1987 W3, C/1997 BA6, C/2000 SV74, and C/2007 M2. The black line marks the aphelion distance – $a \
(1 + e)$, limiting case $e=1$, semi-major axis, $a$ – that signals the upper boundary of the domain of dynamically old Oort cloud comets (i.e. $a<40\,000$ AU, see ) as opposed to those that may be dynamically new, i.e. [*bona fide*]{} first-time visitors from the Oort cloud; the red line corresponds to the value of the radius of the Hill sphere of the solar system (see e.g. ). The bottom panels of Figure \[fig:1\] show the barycentric distance as a function of the velocity parameter 1 Myr into the past (left) and into the future (right) for 1024 control orbits of C/2018 F4; the velocity parameter is the difference between the barycentric and escape velocities at the computed barycentric distance in units of the escape velocity. Positive values of the velocity parameter are associated with control orbits that could have been followed by putative visitors from outside the solar system (bottom-left panel) or that lead to ejections from the solar system (bottom-right panel). In summary, our $N$-body simulations and statistical analyses suggest that C/2018 F4 may be a dynamically old Oort cloud comet with a probability of 0.62 or, less likely, an interstellar interloper with a probability of 0.38. Given the fact that the inbound velocity may have been as low as 0.5$\pm$0.4 km s$^{-1}$ , which is inconsistent with the lower limit for interstellar interlopers determined statistically by , C/2018 F4 probably originated within the Oort cloud. In addition, C/1987 W3, C/1997 BA6, C/2000 SV74, and C/2007 M2 seem to be dynamically old comets.
![Evolution of the barycentric distance of 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua), C/1987 W3 (Jensen–Shoemaker), C/1997 BA6 (Spacewatch), C/2000 SV74 (LINEAR), C/2007 M2 (Catalina), C/2018 F4 (PANSTARRS) – all nominal orbits – , and a few representative control orbits of C/2018 F4 (in blue) based on the current orbit determination (top panel). The zero instant of time, epoch JDTDB 2458600.5, 27-April-2019, and only the time interval ($-$100000, 100000) yr are displayed. Values of the barycentric distance as a function of the velocity parameter 1 Myr into the past (left-hand side bottom panel) and 1 Myr into the future (right-hand side bottom panel) for 1024 control orbits of C/2018 F4. \[fig:1\]](evF4N.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"} ![Evolution of the barycentric distance of 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua), C/1987 W3 (Jensen–Shoemaker), C/1997 BA6 (Spacewatch), C/2000 SV74 (LINEAR), C/2007 M2 (Catalina), C/2018 F4 (PANSTARRS) – all nominal orbits – , and a few representative control orbits of C/2018 F4 (in blue) based on the current orbit determination (top panel). The zero instant of time, epoch JDTDB 2458600.5, 27-April-2019, and only the time interval ($-$100000, 100000) yr are displayed. Values of the barycentric distance as a function of the velocity parameter 1 Myr into the past (left-hand side bottom panel) and 1 Myr into the future (right-hand side bottom panel) for 1024 control orbits of C/2018 F4. \[fig:1\]](esF4N.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
Conclusions \[sec:conclusions\]
===============================
In this paper, we have present observations of C/2018 F4 (PANSTARRS) obtained with GTC that we have used to derive the spectral class and visible slope of this minor body as well as to characterise its overall level of cometary activity. Direct $N$-body simulations were carried out to explore its orbital evolution. The object was originally selected to perform this study because early determinations of its orbital elements suggested a possible interstellar origin. Our conclusions can be summarised as follows.
(i) We have determined a lower limit for the absolute magnitude of C/2018 F4, $H_{r} > 13.62\pm0.04$, and an upper limit of the diameter $D < 10.4$km.
(ii) We show that C/2018 F4 has a visible spectrum consistent with that of an X-type asteroid, with an spectral slope $S'=4.0\pm1.0$ %/1000[Å]{} and no signs of hydrated altered minerals. This is consistent with the spectrum of a comet nucleus.
(iii) We show that the PSF of C/2018 F4 is definitely non-stellar and we confirm the existence of a detectable level of comet-like activity when C/2018 F4 was observed at 6.23 AU from the Sun. We obtained an $Af\rho = 148\pm13$ cm measured at $\rho=10\,000$ km, a value slightly below the mean $Af\rho$ value of comets observed at similar heliocentric distances , but still compatible with the level of activity shown by other distant comets.
(iv) The results of the analysis of an extensive set of $N$-body simulations indicate that the probability of C/2018 F4 being a dynamically old Oort cloud comet is about 62%.
(v) Conversely, the probability of C/2018 F4 having entered the solar system from interstellar space during the past 1 Myr is about 38% with an inbound velocity as low as 0.5$\pm$0.4 km s$^{-1}$, inconsistent with the one expected for a true interstellar interloper.
(vi) The current path followed by C/2018 F4 is unstable, the probability of being ejected out of the solar system during the next 1 Myr is slightly above 50%.
Based on our observational and numerical results, we favour an origin in the solar system for C/2018 F4. C/2018 F4 is likely a true representative of the average Oort cloud comet population.
The authors thank the referee A. Fitzsimmons for a constructive and useful report. J. Licandro, M. Serra-Ricart, and J. de León acknowledge support from the AYA2015-67772-R (MINECO, Spain). JdL acknowledges support from from MINECO under the 2015 Severo Ochoa Program SEV-2015-0548. RdlFM and CdlFM thank S. J. Aarseth for providing the code used in this research and A. I. Gómez de Castro for providing access to computing facilities. This work was partially supported by the Spanish ‘Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad’ (MINECO) under grant ESP2015-68908-R. In preparation of this Letter, we made use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System, the ASTRO-PH e-print server, and the MPC data server. Based on observations made with the Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC) installed in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, in the island of La Palma, under Director’s Discretionary Time (program ID GTC2018-096).
[^1]: Based on observations made with the GTC telescope, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, under Director’s Discretionary Time (program ID GTC2018-096).
[^2]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^3]: <http://m4ast.imcce.fr/>
[^4]: <https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi>
[^5]: <https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have investigated electrical transport and shot noise in graphene field effect devices. In large width over length ratio $W/L$ graphene strips, we have measured shot noise at low frequency ($f$ = 600–850 MHz) in the temperature range of 4.2–30 K. We observe a minimum conductivity of $\frac{4e^{2}}{\pi h}$ and a finite and gate dependent Fano factor reaching the universal value of 1/3 at the Dirac point, i.e. where the density of states vanishes. These findings are in good agreement with the theory describing that transport at the Dirac point should occur via evanescent waves in perfect graphene samples with large $W/L$. Moreover, we show and discuss how disorder and non-parallel leads affect both conductivity and shot noise.'
author:
- 'R. Danneau'
- 'F. Wu'
- 'M.F. Craciun'
- 'S. Russo'
- 'M.Y. Tomi'
- 'J. Salmilehto'
- 'A.F. Morpurgo'
- 'P.J. Hakonen'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: 'Evanescent wave transport and shot noise in graphene: ballistic regime and effect of disorder [^1] '
---
[example.eps]{} gsave newpath 20 20 moveto 20 220 lineto 220 220 lineto 220 20 lineto closepath 2 setlinewidth gsave .4 setgray fill grestore stroke grestore
Introduction {#intro}
============
Graphene is a unique two-dimensional material. Its recent discovery has spawned great interest in the scientific community [@geim2007]. Graphene is a gapless semiconductor: the conduction and valence bands touch in two inequivalent points (K and K’, usually called Dirac points) where the density of states vanishes. However, the conductivity at the Dirac point remains finite. Indeed, at the Dirac point, it has been theoretically shown that in perfect graphene, the conduction occurs only via evanescent waves, i.e. via tunneling between the leads [@katsnelson2006a; @tworzydlo2006]. We present measurements of conductivity and noise in graphene strips that support this theory.
Effect of disorder, interactions or carrier statistics can be assessed accurately by probing shot noise in mesoscopic devices [@blanter2000]. These out of equilibrium current fluctuations arise from the granular nature of electron charges. Indeed, shot noise provides a powerful tool to reveal information on fundamental conduction properties of low-dimensional systems which are not accessible via conventional dc transport measurements. For example, such current fluctuations have been used to show that fractional charges can carry current [@saminadayar1997; @depicciotto1997], to demonstrate the fermionic nature of electrons [@henny1999; @oliver1999], and to study many-body phenomena in mesoscopic physics [@safonov2003; @roche2004; @dicarlo2006].
In this article, we address a study of the noise in short and wide graphene strips. Using a home-made low-noise amplification set-up, we measure shot noise as a function of gate voltage in two-terminal field-effect graphene devices. We show that the transport via evanescent wave theory is in good agreement with our results on large width over length ratio $W/L$ samples when the distance between the leads is 200 nm. We show how the disorder affects the conductivity and the shot noise. Additionally, we have measured shot noise in the case of non-rectangular systems, i.e. when the leads are not parallel.
Transport via evanescent waves at the Dirac point
=================================================
Using the scattering matrix formalism (see [@dattabook]), one can express the carrier transport of a mesoscopic system. The conductance of each quantum channel carrying current can be written as $G = g\frac{e^2}{h}T$, where $g$ is the degeneracy (spin and valley) of the system and $T$ the electron transmission probability. When the system is biased, current fluctuations appear and for a single channel they can be described by $\langle (\delta I)^2 \rangle = 2e\langle I \rangle(1-T)$. Shot noise is due to the discreteness of charge [@blanter2000]. It can only be detected when the electron-phonon inelastic scattering length $L_{e-ph}$ and electron-electron inelastic scattering length $L_{e-e}$ are much larger than any sample dimension [@beenakker1992; @nagaev1992; @shimuzu1992; @steinbach1996]. Then, one can write the noise power spectrum which is proportional to the product of the transmission $T$ and the reflection $R = 1 - T$, summed over the $N$ channels: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{I} = \frac{2e^3|V|}{h}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} T_n(1-T_n)\end{aligned}$$ In the limit of low transparency $T_n \ll 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{I} = S_{P} = \frac{2e^3|V|}{h}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} T_n = 2e\langle I \rangle\end{aligned}$$ defining a Poissonian noise induced by independent and random electrons like in tunnel junctions [@blanter2000]. The common way to quantify shot noise is to use the Fano factor $\mathcal{F}$ which is the ratio between the measured shot noise and the Poissonian noise: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F} = \frac{S_I}{S_P} = \frac{S_I}{2e\langle I \rangle} = \frac{\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}T_n(1-T_n)}{\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} T_n}\end{aligned}$$ Then, for a Poissonian process $\mathcal{F} = 1$ (at small transparency $T_n \rightarrow 0$, i.e. when transport occurs via electron tunneling) while $\mathcal{F} = 0$ in the ballistic regime (i.e. in the perfect transmission case $T_n \rightarrow 1$) and $\mathcal{F} = 1/3$ in the case of a diffusive system.
![\[evanescent\]Schematics representing transport via evanescent waves in perfect graphene with large aspect ratio $W/L$. Evanescent states transport occurs when the Fermi energy is set at the Dirac point. Away from the Dirac point, transport occurs via propagating plane waves.](Fig1.eps){width="18pc"}
In graphene, it has been demonstrated that transport at the Dirac point may occur via electronic evanescent waves [@katsnelson2006a; @tworzydlo2006] (illustration in Figure \[evanescent\]). Tworzyd[ł]{}o *et al.* used heavily-doped graphene leads and the wave function matching method to directly solve the Dirac equation in perfect graphene with length $L$ and width $W$ [@tworzydlo2006]. They found that for armchair edges, the quantization condition of the transverse wave vector is defined by $k_{y,n}=\frac{(n+\alpha)}{W}\pi$ where $\alpha = 0$ or $\frac{1}{3}$ for metallic or semiconducting armchair edges. At the Dirac point, the transmission coefficient reads: $$\begin{aligned}
T_n^{Dirac} = \frac{1}{\cosh^{2}(\pi (n+\alpha)\frac{L}{W})}\end{aligned}$$ As we can see, at the Dirac point, graphene has a similar bimodal distribution of transmission eigenvalues as in diffusive systems [@blanter2000]. Finally, in the case of large $W/L \rightarrow \infty$, the mode spacing becoming small, one can replace the sum over the $N $ channels by an integral over the transverse wave vector component $k_y$ to obtain the conductivity and the Fano factor for metallic armchair edges systems: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{Dirac} = G_{Dirac}\frac{L}{W} = \frac{4e^2}{h} \frac{L}{W}\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{dk_y}{\cosh^{2}(k_yL)}=\frac{4e^2}{\pi h}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}_{Dirac} = \frac{\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}T_n^{Dirac}(1-T_n^{Dirac})}{\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} T_n^{Dirac}}\equiv\frac{\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{dk_y}{\cosh^{2}(k_yL)}(1-\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}(k_yL)})}{\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{dk_y}{\cosh^{2}(k_yL)}}=\frac{1}{3}\end{aligned}$$ At the Dirac point, in the case of coherent carrier transport, the conductivity is minimum ($\sigma_{Dirac} = \frac{4e^2}{\pi h}$) and the Fano factor is maximum ($\mathcal{F}_{Dirac} = \frac{1}{3}$) [@tworzydlo2006]. It is important to note that metallic leads [@schomerus2007] do not affect the evanescent wave theory. However, both conductivity and Fano factor are no longer respectively minimum and maximum when the transport in incoherent [@sonin2008]. Moreover, in large samples the minimum conductivity has been measured around $\sigma_{Dirac} = \frac{4e^2}{h}$ [@geim2007; @novoselov2005; @tan2007], which could be explained by the presence of disorder [@badarson2007]. By tuning the carrier density, the Fermi level is moved away from the Dirac point where the density of states is no longer zero. At large density the number of conducting channels increases, the evanescent states are then accompanied by propagating states, the conductivity rises while the Fano factor decreases [@tworzydlo2006]. Note that the duality between evanescent and propagating waves could be studied using multi-probes and cross-correlation measurements [@laakso2008]. The Fano factor for a bilayer system has been predicted to be $\frac{1}{3}$ as well [@snyman2007] or $1-\frac{2}{\pi}$ [@katsnelson2006], i.e. very close to $\frac{1}{3}$. We note that in graphene *pn*-junctions the Fano factor is also very close to $\frac{1}{3}$ [@cheianov2006] and takes values depending on the Landau level filling factors under magnetic field [@abanin2007]. Finally, transport at the Dirac point remains not fully understood. The fact that the distribution function of the transmission probability of the evanescent states is exactly the same as the propagated states in diffusive systems is still unexplained. This resulting exotic shot noise for a ballistic system might be related to relativistic quantum dynamics of confined Dirac fermions which are known to exhibit a jittering motion called *zitterbewegung* [@katsnelson2006a; @tworzydlo2006].
Finally, Tworzyd[ł]{}o *et al.* show how conductivity and Fano factor evolute as a function of the width over length ratio using different boundary conditions [@tworzydlo2006]. In Figure \[evanescent-sigma-F\] is reproduced the behavior of both conductivity and Fano factor as a function of $W/L$ for three different boundary conditions. At small $W/L$, both minimum conductivity and Fano factor take non-universal values. Note that calculations for zigzag edges have been done for the conductivity using tight binding theory [@robinson2007], zigzag edges mixing different values of $k_{y,n}$ which strongly complicates the analytical solution.
Experimental set-up, samples and shot noise measurement technique
=================================================================
Measuring shot noise requires carefully dedicated electronics. There are several ways to detect it such as cross correlation [@saminadayar1997; @depicciotto1997; @henny1999; @oliver1999; @roche2004; @dicarlo2006] or SQUID-based resistance bridge [@jehl2000] techniques. Depending on the nature of the studied system, one must avoid any low frequency noise known as $1/f$ noise (also called Flicker noise). By measuring the noise spectrum density at low frequency (10 Hz) $S_{I} = A\frac{\langle I^2 \rangle}{f^{\beta}}$ where $A$ is the the noise amplitude coefficient and $\beta \sim 1$, we have extracted $A \sim 10^{-8}$ and checked that our set-up is well above the crossover frequency between $1/f$ and shot noise. In this work, we used a sensitive lock-in detection technique (see also [@wu2006; @wu2007; @danneau2008]), to improve the measurement sensitivity. The current is modulated using a sine-wave modulation, $I = I_{DC} + \delta I \sin(\omega t)$ where $I_{DC} \gg \delta I$, for the lock-in detection of noise. Alternatively, shot noise can also be detected using a dc set-up. In order to avoid external spurious signals, the set-up is placed in a Faraday cage. We use the shot noise generated by a tunnel junction, which is Poissonian ($\mathcal{F}$ = 1) to calibrate the graphene sample noise. The tunnel junctions are fabricated of Al/AlO$_{x}$/Al using standard two-angle shadow evaporation in an ultra-high vacuum system. A microwave switch is used to alternatively measure the noise from the graphene sample and the tunnel junction. We use bias-tees to split dc bias and the bias-dependent high-frequency noise signal. The noise signal is first amplified by a low-noise amplifier (LNA) with a noise temperature of $T_n$ = 3.5 K in matching conditions, thermalized at the same temperature as the sample. The noise detection scheme ends with a series of room-temperature amplifiers, and the signal is finally collected by a zero-bias Schottky diode with band-pass filtering of $f$ = 600–850 MHz to cut off EMI from mobile phone frequencies (see Figure \[set-up\](a)). All the data was measured in a helium dewar, in which samples were in a He-gas atmosphere of 1 bar. The resistance of the samples was measured using standard low-frequency ac lock-in technique with an excitation amplitude of 0.3 mV ($\sim$ 3 K) at $\frac{\omega}{2\pi} = 63.5$ Hz, in the temperature range of 4.2–30 K.
[cccccc]{} Sample `A` & Sample `B` & Sample `C` & Sample `D` & Sample `E` & Sample `F`\
$\frac{W}{L}$ = 24 & $\frac{W}{L}$ = 10 & $\frac{W}{L}$ = 3 & $\frac{W}{L}$ = 2 & $\frac{W}{L}$ = 4.2 & $\frac{W}{L}$ = 1.8\
$L$ = 200 nm & $L$ = 200 nm & $L$ = 300 nm & $L$ = 500 nm & $L$ = 950 nm & $L$ = 500 nm\
$\theta$ = 0$^{\circ}$ & $\theta$ = 0$^{\circ}$ & $\theta$ = 0$^{\circ}$ & $\theta$ = 0$^{\circ}$ & $\theta$ = 0$^{\circ}$ & $\theta$ = 8$^{\circ}$\
$V_{D}$ = 19.5 V & $V_{D}$ = 145 V & $V_{D}$ = 100 V & $V_{D}$ = 78 V & $V_{D}$ = 28 V & $V_{D}$ = 22 V\
Graphene sheets are mechanically exfoliated using the Scotch tape technique and transferred from the graphite crystals (the graphite used here is a natural graphite powder) to the surface of a SiO$_{2}$/Si substrate (300 nm thick thermally grown SiO$_{2}$ layer). The silicon substrate is heavily doped and it is used as a back-gate (see Figure \[set-up\](c)). The single graphene layers are located using a three-CCD camera in an optical microscope on the base of the RGB green component shift [@oostinga2008]. After standard e-beam lithography, a bilayer Ti (10 nm) / Au (40 nm) is evaporated followed by lift-off with acetone. Chips are mounted in a homemade sample holder and micro-bonded with Al wire. We report measurements on four samples which are listed in Table \[tab:1\].
The noise power measured from the LNA is a mixture of thermal noise and the shot noise of the sample. It can be defined as a function of the reflected signal $|\Gamma|$. Here $|\Gamma| = \frac{|R-Z_{0}|}{|R+Z_{0}|}$ is the noise signal reflection coefficient when the noise source (the measured sample with a resistance $R$) does not match the circuit (here our cold amplifier is matched to a transmission line having an impedance of $Z_0$ = 50 $\mathrm{\Omega}$). Then, the measured noise power can be expressed: $$\begin{aligned}
P(I) &=& P_{noise}(1-|\Gamma|^{2}) = \mathcal{F} \times
2eV\frac{4RZ_0}{(R+Z_0)^{2}} \nonumber \\ &=& \mathcal{F} \times
2eI \times 4Z_0\left(\frac{R}{R+Z_0}\right)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{noise}=\mathcal{F}2eIR$ is the shot noise generated by the sample at $T=0$ (see Figure \[set-up\](b)).
In our experiments, we used a similar technique as in [@wu2006; @wu2007; @danneau2008] to measure the shot noise and extract the Fano factor. During the noise measurement the sample (with the differential resistance $R_{d} = \frac{dV}{dI}$) is coupled to the LNA with an impedance $Z_{0}$ = 50 $\mathrm{\Omega}$, where $i_{n}^{2}$ marks the full noise at the operating point, including the preamplifier noise and shot noise from the sample.
![\[circuit\]Schematic of the equivalent circuit of our measurement: $R_{d}$ and $Z_0$ represent the resistance of the sample and the cold preamplier respectively, $i_{n}^{2}$ represents the full noise generated by the circuit.](Fig4.eps){width="13pc"}
We have used the electrical equivalent model shown in Figure \[circuit\], to calculate the coupling of the current fluctuations. Then, the noise power transferred to the cold amplifier can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
P_{Z_0}=\left(\frac{R_{d}}{R_{d}+Z_0}\right)^{2}Z_0i_{n}^{2}\end{aligned}$$ and the measured noise signal is: $$\begin{aligned}
P = gain \times BW \times g \times P_{Z_0} = \mathcal{G} \times P_{Z_0}\label{power}\end{aligned}$$ where *gain* refers to the total gain of the amplifier chain, *BW* is the measurement bandwidth, *g* denotes the sensitivity of the Schottky diode noise detector, and $\mathcal{G}$ is the calibration factor. In linear systems such as tunnel junctions or graphene, $R_{d}$ is constant. Using our aforementioned set-up, we can write: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mathcal{G}}\frac{1}{Z_0}\frac{\Delta P}{\Delta I} = \left(\frac{R_{d}}{R_{d}+Z_0}\right)^{2}\frac{\Delta i_{n}^{2}}{\Delta I}\label{first}\end{aligned}$$ As the change of the noise generator $i_{n}^{2}$ is due to the shot noise part: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta i_{n}^{2} = \Delta S_{I} = 2eF_{d} \Delta I \label{second}\end{aligned}$$ where $F_{d}$ is the differential Fano factor: then equation \[power\] reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mathcal{G}}\frac{1}{Z_0}\frac{\Delta P}{\Delta I} = \left(\frac{R_{d}}{R_{d}+Z_0}\right)^{2}2eF_{d}\end{aligned}$$ Since usually $R_d \gg Z_0$, the coupling term $\frac{R_{d}}{R_{d}+Z_0}$ can be taken as 1. From the tunnel junction measurement where $F = F_{d} = 1$ when $eV \gg k_{B}T$, one can derive the calibration factor $\mathcal{G}$. After using it upon the graphene noise measurement, one gets the differential Fano factor $F_{d}$ as a function of the biasing current, and we then define the average Fano factor by integrating $F_{d}$ over the current bias: $$\begin{aligned}
F = \frac{1}{I} \int_{0}^{I} F_{d}dI\end{aligned}$$ which is the common Fano factor when $eV \gg k_{B}T$, and tends to zero around zero bias (due to thermal noise averaging). In terms of current noise, our average Fano factor corresponds to: $$\begin{aligned}
F=\frac{S_I (I)-S_I (0)}{2eI}\end{aligned}$$ For nonlinear system such as carbon nanotubes [@wu2007], noise measurements are sensitive to changes in the sample resistance. We then have to take it into account and calculate corrections by deriving the differential resistance. If we now consider our sample with a differential resistance $R_d$ not constant, we must differentiate equation \[power\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mathcal{G}}\frac{1}{Z_0}\Delta P &=& \Delta \left[\left(\frac{R_{d}}{R_{d}+Z_0}\right)^{2}i_{n}^{2}\right] \nonumber \\
&=& \left( \frac{R_{d}}{R_{d}+Z_0} \right)^{2} \Delta i_{n}^{2} + i_{n}^{2}\times 2\left(\frac{R_{d}}{R_{d}+Z_0}\right) \Delta \left(\frac{R_{d}}{R_{d}+Z_0}\right) \label{diff1}\end{aligned}$$ and if we calculate: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \left(\frac{R_{d}}{R_{d}+Z_0}\right) &=& \frac{(R_d+Z_0)\Delta R_d-R_d\Delta R_d}{(R_d+Z_0)^2}=\frac{Z_0}{(R_d+Z_0)^2}\Delta R_d \label{diff3}\end{aligned}$$ Then we can write equation \[diff1\] as: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mathcal{G}}\frac{1}{Z_0}\frac{\Delta P}{\Delta I} &=& \left( \frac{R_{d}}{R_{d}+Z_0} \right)^{2} \frac{\Delta (i_{n}^{2})}{\Delta I} + 2i_{n}^{2}\left(\frac{R_{d}}{R_{d}+Z_0}\right) \left(\frac{Z_0}{(R_d+Z_0)^2}\right)\frac{\Delta R_d}{\Delta I}
%\nonumber \\ &=& \frac{Z_0}{(R_d+Z_0)^2}\frac{\partial R}{\partial V}R_d = \frac{Z_0}{(R_d+Z_0)^2}\frac{\partial (\frac{\partial V}{\partial I})}{\partial V}R_d \nonumber \\ &=& \frac{Z_0}{(R_d+Z_0)^2}\left(-R_d^2\frac{\partial ^2 I}{\partial V^2}\right)R_{d}
\label{diff2}\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Delta R_d}{\Delta I} &=& \frac{\partial R}{\partial V}R_d = \frac{\partial (\frac{\partial V}{\partial I})}{\partial V}R_d = \left(-R_d^2\frac{\partial ^2 I}{\partial V^2}\right)R_{d}
\label{diff3}\end{aligned}$$ We finally obtain a new expression for equation \[diff1\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\mathcal{G}}\frac{1}{Z_0}\frac{\Delta P}{\Delta I} \quad = \quad 2eF_{d} \quad - \overbrace{2eF_{d}\frac{2Z_{0}}{R_{d}}}^{\mathrm{R_d}\ \mathrm{variation}} - \quad \overbrace{2i_n^2Z_0R_d\frac{\partial^{2}I}{\partial V^{2}}}^{\mathrm{total} \ \mathrm{system} \ \mathrm{noise}}\end{aligned}$$ The first order correction comes from the measured shot noise due to $R_d$ variations and the second order corrections is caused by the total system noise due to the non-linearity, $i_n^2$ corresponding to the full noise at the operating point including the noise due to the LNA. Note that in our shot noise measurements in graphene, the correction is taken into account in the extraction of $F$ even though it is very small.
Figure \[curve-TJ\](a) shows a schematic of a typical noise curve example that can be measured using our experimental set-up. As we mentioned in the previous parts of this article, shot noise gives information that cannot be extracted from classical dc transport measurements. However, it can be only detected if the frequency is high enough to overcome the $1/f$ noise. Shot noise occurs when the sample is biased; this is an out of equilibrium noise (also called excess noise). At low bias, thermal noise, originating from the random thermally excited vibration of the charge carriers, is predominant. Its spectral density can be defined as $S_I = kT\Delta f$, where $\Delta f$ is the noise bandwidth of the LNA. Thermal noise extends over all frequencies up to the quantum limit when $\hbar \omega > k_{B}T$ [@beenakker2003]. When the bias is large enough ($eV > k_BT$), the noise versus bias curve becomes linear and the detected noise is purely due to the shot noise. The slope of the linear part corresponds to the Fano factor. The minimum noise at zero bias is a mixture of the thermal noise of both the LNA and the sample.
Figure \[curve-TJ\](b) illustrates the very high resolution of our experimental set-up on a typical tunnel junction sample of resistance $R_{T}$ = 8 k$\mathrm{\Omega}$. The data are fitted using a formula similar to the one originally introduced by Khlus [@khlus1987] which describes the cross-over from thermal to shot noise when $eV \sim k_{B}T$ : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equaKhlus}
S_{I}= \frac{4k_{B}T_{n}}{Z_{0}}+\mathcal{F}\frac{2e|V|R}{\left(R+Z_{0}\right)^2}
\coth\left(\frac{e|V|}{2k_{B}T} \right)\label{equa3}\end{aligned}$$
where $T_n$ is the thermal noise of the LNA. Note that here, the thermal noise of the sample is neglected.
Shot noise in graphene
======================
Now we focus our work on shot noise. We used the experimental set-up and the technique to extract the Fano factor presented in Section 3. We have divided this section in three parts. In the first part, we will show that our measurements are well described by the evanescent wave theory and demonstrate that transport in graphene can be ballistic. In the second part, we will see how disorder affects the Fano factor and we will compare our findings with the existing theories modeling disordered graphene. Finally, we will show how non-parallel leads affect shot noise.
Ballistic regime
----------------
We first present measurements on samples that have a distance between the leads $L \leq 500$ nm (i.e. samples `A`, `B`, `C`, `D`). Sample `A` has a very large aspect ratio. In Figure \[WoverL24\](a), we can see the resistance and conductivity of sample `A` as a function of the gate voltage (i.e. charge carrier density). All of our graphene samples show a maximum resistance in positive gate voltage $V_{gate}$ values. This means that at zero gate voltage, the Fermi level lies in the valence band because our samples are non-intentionally *p*-doped, probably due to oxygen gas adsorption [@schedin2007]. We clearly observe a maximum resistance and a minimum conductivity of around $\frac{4e^{2}}{\pi h}$ at the Dirac point, despite the chemical doping. From our measured conductivity values, it seems that adsorbed gas on a graphene sheet does not create strong scattering centers and thus does not affect dramatically the transport properties of our samples. For sample `A`, we obtain a minimum conductivity which is the one expected for large aspect ratio graphene strips [@tworzydlo2006] and observed experimentally in recent experiments [@miao2007]. It is important to note that the resistance of our graphene samples is nearly independent of the bias voltage $V_{bias}$, regardless of whether the measurement is taken at or far from the Dirac point (see Figure \[WoverL24\](b), as well as Figure \[WoverL2\](b), Figure \[WoverL4.2\](b) and Figure \[WoverL1.8\](b)). A non-linear behavior of the resistance, like in carbon nanotubes [@wu2007], should be taken into account since noise measurements are sensitive to the sample resistance.
In Figure \[WoverL24\](c), we can see the current noise per unit bandwidth as a function of the $V_{bias}$ measured at the Dirac point at $T$ = 8.5 K in sample `A`. Using the Khlus formula (equation \[equaKhlus\]) which describes the cross-over from thermal to shot noise when $eV \sim k_{B}T$, we have fitted and extracted the Fano factor $\mathcal{F}$ [@khlus1987].
Since the resistance of our graphene samples is bias-independent, we may fit Khlus formula (equation \[equaKhlus\]) to our data using only $\mathcal{F}$ as a fitting parameter at fixed temperature $T$. Note that when dealing with the integrated differential Fano factor, the excess noise $\frac{4k_{B}T_{n}}{Z_{0}}$ can be neglected. Using equation \[equaKhlus\], we have fitted and extracted the Fano factor $\mathcal{F} = 0.318$ at $T = 9$ K . We have also used our tunnel junction calibration technique to extract the average Fano factor $F$ [@wu2006; @wu2007; @danneau2008] to check the accuracy of our measurements. We found $F$ = 0.338 at the Dirac point (at $V_{bias}$ = 40 mV).
Our measurements seem to confirm that transport at the Dirac point may occur via evanescent waves [@katsnelson2006a; @tworzydlo2006]. The two extracted Fano factors $\mathcal{F}$ and $F$ as well as the minimum conductivity are very close to the expected theoretical values of 1/3 and $\frac{4e^{2}}{\pi h}$ respectively at the Dirac point for a perfect graphene strip with large $W/L$ [@tworzydlo2006]. Note that the Fano factor in this case is also the one expected for a diffusive mesoscopic system at the Dirac point. In reference [@tworzydlo2006], the authors demonstrate that the Fano factor should decrease as the charge carrier density increases which should not happen for a diffusive system (see the next subsection for the influence of disorder). In Figure \[WoverL24\](d), we can see a mapping of the average Fano factor $F$, calculated by integrating the differential Fano factor $F_{d}$ as described in Section 3, as a function of the bias voltage $V_{bias}$ and the gate voltage $V_{gate}$. A clear dependence of $F$ on gate voltage (i.e. the charge carrier density) is observed, with a clear drop (about a factor of 2) of the Fano factor at large carrier density confirming, in turn, that our results are in good agreement with the evanescent state theory [@tworzydlo2006], and that charge carriers in our sample do not undergo any inelastic scattering. Note that we cannot obtain a quantitative agreement with the evanescent mode theory, because doping by the leads may cause variation of the gate coupling capacitance and because the presence of non-uniform doping, that does not strongly scatter the charge carriers, also affects the electronic density of states. Nevertheless, the gate voltage scale is found to be larger than the one found in [@tworzydlo2006]. Comparing our data with a square lattice contact model in perfect graphene strips with large $W/L$ [@laakso2007], we observe that the capacitance $C_{gate}$ in our sample is smaller by a factor of $\sim$ 9 compare to the one that gives a simple two infinite plane capacitor model (i.e. $C_{gate}$ $\sim$ 12 aF$\mu m^{-2}$ instead of 115 aF$\mu m^{-2}$). We note that despite the presence of doping molecules on top of our graphene strip, the Fano factor remains equal to $\frac{1}{3}$, which is in a good agreement with a recent theory modeling fractal conductors [@groth2008].
We notice that the Fano factor is barely affected by temperature (up to $T$ = 30 K). This indicates that both the length $L$ and the width $W$ are smaller than the electron-phonon inelastic scattering length $L_{e-ph}$. If this condition were not fulfilled, the Fano factor would decrease, approximatively as inversely proportional to $N = \frac{L_{e-ph}}{ \max (W,L)}$ (note that the actual form of $L_{e-ph}$ would be model dependent [@blanter2000]). Since our shot noise measurements do not depend on temperature (between 4 and 30 K) and with our contacts being highly transparent, the presence of inelastic scattering mechanism in the graphene sample and at its interfaces with the leads can be ruled out. It is important to note that bad contacts can only increase the Fano factor toward the limit of two symmetrical tunneling barriers in series: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F} = \frac{R_{T1}^{2} + R_{T2}^{2}}{(R_{T1}+R_{T2})^{2}}=\frac{1}{2}\end{aligned}$$ This is not the case of our samples in which the Fano factor has never been measured higher than $\frac{1}{3}$.
In addition to sample `A`, we measured two other samples with large width over length ratios, samples `B` and `C` (all having $W/L\geq$ 3). The average Fano factor $F$ as a function of $\delta V = V_{gate} - V_{Dirac}$ is plotted in Figure \[F-all\] for samples `A`, `B` and `C`. All samples were *p*-doped, the Dirac points being at positive gate voltages, but only for one of these three samples we could reach the Dirac point (sample `A`). The gate voltages corresponding to the Dirac point for the two other samples were estimated from their conductivity curves. Despite the high doping level of the samples, the Fano factor seems to behave universally and tends to zero at very high density. This, indeed, demonstrates that graphene can behave as a ballistic conductor, contradicting recent calculations [@ziegler2007]. Despite the probable presence of some disorder in our system, the transport regime can be considered to be ballistic on our sample length scale.
We also measured sample `D` which has a much smaller aspect ratio ($W/L =$ 2). In Figure \[WoverL2\](a), we can see that the minimum conductivity reaches a much larger value than the sample with large $W/L$ ($\sim 6 \frac{e^{2}}{ h} \gg \frac{4e^{2}}{\pi h}$). We also verify that the resistance $R$ of the sample can be considered to be constant as a function of the bias (see Figure \[WoverL2\](b)). The spectral density of current noise as a function of $V_{bias}$ is shown in Figure \[WoverL2\](c). We observe that the data are well fitted at low bias using the Khlus formula. However, we can see a deviation at large bias which indicates here, a reduction of the Fano factor, presumably due to electron-phonon coupling [@blanter2000]. The Fano factor reaches $F =$ 0.196 at the Dirac point and eventually decreases substantially at large charge carrier density. A mapping of the average Fano factor $F$ as a function of bias $V_{bias}$ and gate voltage $V_{gate}$ is displayed in Figure \[WoverL2\](d). We observe that the determination of $\mathcal{F}$ in Figure \[WoverL2\](c) yields almost the same result: $\mathcal{F}= F = 0.19$ at the Dirac point. Our measurements are in good agreement with the results of [@tworzydlo2006] calculated for the case of metallic armchair edge for small $W/L$ for the Fano factor. Note that there is a discrepancy for the minimum conductivity which should be $\sim 1.1\frac{4e^2}{\pi h}$.
Effect of disorder
------------------
Disorder can dramatically influence electronic transport in mesoscopic conductors. Fano factor of $\frac{1}{3}$ has been predicted [@blanter2000] and measured in the case of diffusive systems [@henny1999a]. Multi-walled carbon nanotubes have shown some more exotic values, maybe due to electron-electron interactions in this one-dimensional system [@wu2007a]. Recent measurements in disordered graphene [@dicarlo2008] have shown a gate-independent Fano factor and a value higher than $\frac{1}{3}$ but smaller than $\frac{1}{2}$ (which is the maximum obtainable value for two symmetrical tunnel junctions), which could be due to bad graphene-contact interfaces (see previous section) or strong potential disorder [@lewenkopf2008].
In the previous sections, we have seen that given the zero density of states at the Dirac point in graphene, transport occurs via evanescent modes instead of propagating modes [@tworzydlo2006]. Nevertheless, defects like vacancies [@peres2006] or dislocations [@carpio2008] can enhance locally the density of states at the Dirac point, which becomes finite, or create localized states which could create magnetic moments hampering charge carrier transport [@pereira2006]. As a consequence, in graphene with disorder, transport at the Dirac point might occur via a combination of evanescent and propagating modes due to presence of scattering. Indeed, perfect infinite two-dimensional graphene must be perfectly flat. Defects should curve this perfect plane and create roughness as in suspended membranes [@ledoussal1992]. Such ripples have been observed in suspended graphene [@meyer2007] and are believed to be intrinsic [@fasolino2007]. However, the origin of these corrugations on exfoliated graphene deposited on SiO$_{2}$/Si substrate [@ishigami2007; @stolyarova2007] is still debated. Ripples have been clearly observed in graphene grown epitaxially on SiC [@varchon2008]. In fact, it is believed that ripples could be the origin of the charge impurity formations at the Dirac peak [@dejuan2007; @kim2007]. However, there is not yet a consensus as to the origin of these charge impurities [@dejuan2007; @kim2007; @hwang2007; @nomura2006; @morozov2008]. Such charge puddles [@martin2007] creating potential scattering centers should influence conduction in graphene [@hwang2007]. Another limiting factor in the carrier mobility is the interaction with the substrate [@fratini2008]. It was shown that intrinsic carrier mobility could be as high as 200 000 cm$^2$V$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$ [@morozov2008]. This was achieved using suspended structure [@bolotin2008] after current annealing [@moser2007]. However, mobility achievable in graphene on SiO$_{2}$/Si substrate is on the order of $\mu$ = 20 000 cm$^2$V$^{-1}$s$^{-1}$ so far, corresponding to elastic mean free path $l_e \sim$ 500 nm at a carrier density $n = 5 \times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ [@tan2007].
Recent theories showed that disorder should enhance conductivity in graphene via impurity resonant tunneling [@titov2007]. Such counterintuitive behavior can be understood as a consequence of the absence of intervalley scattering [@morpurgo2006] and the chirality conservation [@katsnelson2006b]. It was also shown that weak disorder may induce anomalously large conductance fluctuations at high charge carrier density [@rycerz2007]. By modeling smooth potential disorder, San Jose *et al.* have shown that near the Dirac point at length scales $\ll L,W$, disorder increases the minimum conductivity and lowers the Fano factor at the Dirac point, down to 0.243 for one-dimensional disorder and to 0.295 for the two-dimensional case [@sanjose2007]. A diffusive system should not display any gate dependence. This was demonstrated for long-range disorder in [@lewenkopf2008]. A gate-dependent Fano factor appears once the disorder strength is reduced.
We have measured shot noise in sample `E` which has a large $W/L$ and large distance between the leads, approaching 1 $\mu$m. In Figure \[WoverL4.2\](a), the resistance $R$ and the conductivity $\sigma$ are plotted versus gate voltage $V_{gate}$. The resistance curve is not as peaked as it should be, and in fact, the Dirac point seems to be truncated probably due to the presence of disorder. Note that the graphene sheet is, again, *p*-doped. We also see that the minimum conductivity is no longer $\frac{4e^{2}}{\pi h}$ but much larger, which is also in agreement with the fact that disorder should increase the conductivity in graphene [@titov2007]. In Figure \[WoverL4.2\](b), we see that the resistance remains constant when the bias is tuned.
From our noise measurements, we observe a strong decrease of the Fano factor at the Dirac point compared to $\frac{1}{3}$ expected by the evanescent wave theory. Figure \[WoverL4.2\](c) shows the noise spectral density measured on sample `E` at $T$ = 12 K. Using Khlus formula, we extract a Fano factor at the Dirac point $\mathcal{F}$ = 0.256. The fit is not perfect at high bias probably due to electron-phonon coupling. We also note that the curve is slightly asymmetrical. The average Fano factor gives a smaller value of about 0.23 (see Figure \[WoverL4.2\](d)). These values are in good agreement with the model which takes into account one dimensional smooth potential disorder [@sanjose2007]. In Figure \[WoverL4.2\](d), we observe that the Fano factor is reduced by tuning the gate voltage $V_{gate}$, proving that the disorder present in our sample in smoother than in [@dicarlo2008].
Non-parallel leads
------------------
In this last part, we present measurements on conductivity and shot noise in sample `F` which has non-parallel leads. In the frame of the evanescent wave theory for metallic armchair edges and rectangular samples, one would expect to measure a sub-Poissonian shot noise smaller than $\frac{1}{3}$ (around $\mathcal{F} \sim 0.17$ for $W/L$ = 1.8). Figure \[WoverL1.8\](a) displays the resistance $R$ and the conductivity $\sigma$ as a function of gate voltage $V_{gate}$, showing a maximum resistance at a positive gate voltage, sample `F` being *p*-doped. We note that the minimum conductivity is much higher than the value predicted by the evanescent wave theory. Figure \[WoverL1.8\](b) confirms that the graphene strip behaves as an ohmic system. In Figure \[WoverL1.8\](c), we can see current noise per unit bandwidth $S_{I}$ as a function of bias voltage $V_{bias}$ at the Dirac point. We note that the noise seems to be a bit unstable. Using Khlus formula, we have fitted the data and extracted a Fano factor at the Dirac point $\mathcal{F}$ = 0.087. This value has been confirmed by extracting the average Fano factor $F$. Surprisingly, by tuning the gate voltage $V_{gate}$ we do not observe that the Fano factor is maximum at the Dirac point and varies when the charge carrier density is tuned. As shown in Figure \[WoverL1.8\](d), the Fano factor is barely affected by the gate voltage which is similar to what has been as seen by DiCarlo *et al.* [@dicarlo2008], but with a much larger Fano factor value $> 0.35$.
In the model describing transport occurring via evanescent waves at the Dirac point [@katsnelson2006a; @tworzydlo2006], the condition for quantization of the transverse wave vector is essential to finally obtain the transmission eigenvalue distribution. The lead cross-section determines the transverse part of the wave function. If the leads are non-parallel or not rectangular, one can expect that the condition for quantization of the transverse and longitudinal modes are no longer fulfilled. The mixing of the transverse and the longitudinal modes may change the distribution function of the transmission probabilities of the evanescent states, acting similarly as the effect of disorder [@robinson2007]. Consequently, both conductivity and Fano factor should be modified by non-parallel leads. However, to our knowledge, there is no model available considering the effect of sample geometry on conductivity and Fano factor.
Conclusions
===========
We have studied transport and noise in graphene strips. Shot noise measurements were performed in four different cases. We have seen a gate-dependent shot noise in short graphene strips with large and small $W/L$. At the Dirac point, we observed that for large $W/L$ both minimum conductivity and Fano factor reach universal values of $\frac{4e^2}{\pi h}$ and 1/3 respectively. At very large density, the Fano factor tends to zero which is the value expected for a ballistic system. For $W/L$ smaller than 3, the Fano factor is lowered and the minimum conductivity increases. These findings are well explained by the evanescent wave theory describing transport at the Dirac point in perfect graphene. When $L$ is large enough, we see a significant reduction of the Fano factor at the Dirac point, reaching a value of 0.23, which is in good agreement with recent models taking into account smooth potential disorder like charge puddles [@sanjose2007]. Finally, in the case of non-parallel contacts, quantized transverse modes being mixed up, the measured Fano factor is no longer maximum at the Dirac point and almost gate-voltage independent, even though a clear maximum resistance is observed.
We thank A. Castro Neto, Y. Hancock, A. Harju, T. Heikkilä, A. Kärkkäinen, M. Laakso, C. Lewenkopf, E. Mucciolo, M. Paalanen, P. Pasanen, E. Sonin, P. Virtanen and J. Wengler for fruitful discussions.
A.K. Geim, and K.S. Novoselov, Nature Mat. **6**, 183 (2007).
M.I. Katsnelson, Eur. Phys. J. B **51**, 157 (2006).
J. Tworzyd[ł]{}o, B. Trauzettel, M. Titov, A. Rycerz, and C.W.J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 246802 (2006).
Ya. M. Blanter, and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rep. **336**, 1 (2000).
L. Saminadayar, D. C. Glattli, Y. Jin and B. Etienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. **79**, 2526 (1997).
R. de Picciotto, M. Reznikov, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, G. Bunin, and D. Mahalu, Nature **389**, 162 (1997).
M. Henny, S. Oberholzer, C. Strunk, T. Heinzel, K. Ensslin, M. Holland, and C. Schönenberger, Science **284**, 296 (1999).
W.D. Oliver, J. Kim, R.C. Liu, Y. Yamamoto, Science **284**, 299 (1999).
S.S. Safonov, A.K. Savchenko, D.A. Bagrets, O.N. Jouravlev, Y.V. Nazarov, E.H. Linfield, and D.A. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 136801 (2003).
P. Roche, J. Ségala, D.C. Glattli, J.T. Nicholls, M. Pepper, A.C. Graham, K.J. Thomas, M.Y. Simmons, and D.A. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 116602 (2004).
L. DiCarlo, Y. Zhang, D. T. McClure, D.J. Reilly, C.M. Marcus, L.N. Pfeiffer, and K.W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 036810 (2006).
S. Datta, Electronic transport in mesoscopic systems, Cambridge University Press (1995).
C.W.J. Beenakker and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B **46**, 1889 (1992).
K. Nagaev, Phys. Lett. A **169**, 103 (1992).
A. Shimizu and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. **69**, 1403 (1992).
A.H. Steinbach, J.M. Martinis, and M.H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. Lett. **76**, 3806 (1996).
H. Schomerus, Phys. Rev. B, **76** 045433 (2007).
E.B. Sonin, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 233408 (2008).
K.S. Novoselov, A.K. Geim, S.V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M.I. Katsnelson, I.V. Grigorieva, S.V. Dubonos, and A.A. Firsov, Nature **438**, 197 (2005).
Y.-W. Tan, Y. Zhang, K. Bolotin, Y. Zhao, S. Adam, E.H. Whang, S. Das Sarma, H.L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 246803 (2007).
J.H. Bardarson, J. Tworzyd[ł]{}o, P.W. Brouwer, and C.W.J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 106801 (2007).
M.A. Laakso and T.T. Heikilä, arXiv:08064528.
I. Snyman and C.W.J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B, **75** 045322 (2007).
M.I. Katsnelson, Eur. Phys. J. B **52**, 151 (2006).
V.V. Cheianov and V.I. Fal’ko, Phys. Rev. B **74**, 041403(R) (2006).
D.A. Abanin and L.S. Levitov, Science **317**, 641 (2007).
J.P. Robinson and H. Schomerus, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 115430 (2007).
X. Jehl, M. Sanquer, R. Calemczuk, and D. Mailly, Nature **405**, 50 (2000).
F. Wu, L. Roschier, T. Tsuneta, M. Palaanen, T.H. Wang, and P.J. Hakonen, AIP Conf. Proc. **850**, 1482 (2006).
F. Wu, P. Queipo, A. Nasibulin, T. Tsuneta, T.H. Wang, E. Kauppinen and P.J. Hakonen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 156803 (2007).
R. Danneau, F. Wu, M.F. Craciun, S. Russo, M.Y. Tomi, J. Salmilehto, A.F. Morpurgo, and P.J. Hakonen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 196802 (2008).
J.B. Oostinga, H.B. Heersche, X. Liu, A.F. Morpurgo, and L.M.K. Vandersypen, Nature Mat. **7**, 151 (2008).
C.W.J. Beenakker and C. Schönenberger, Phys. Today **56**, 37 (2003).
V.A. Khlus, Zh. Ekps. Teor. Fiz. **93**, 2179 (1987) \[Sov. Phys. JETP **66**, 1243 (1987)\].
F. Schedin, A.K. Geim, S.V. Morozov, E.W. Hill, P. Blake, M.I. Katsnelson, and K.S. Novoselov, Nature Mat. **6**, 652 (2007).
F. Miao, S. Wijeratne, Y. Zhang, U.C. Coskun, W. Bao, and C.N. Lau, Science **317**, 1530 (2007).
M.A. Laakso, private communication.
C.W. Groth, J. Tworzyd[ł]{}o and C.W.J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 176804 (2008).
K. Ziegler, Physica E **40**, 2622 (2007).
M. Henny, S. Oberholzer, C. Strunk, and C. Schönenberger, Phys. Rev. B **59**, 2871 (1999).
F. Wu, T. Tsuneta, R. Tarkiainen, D. Gunnarsson, T.-H. Wang, and P.J. Hakonen, Phys. Rev. B **75**, 125419 (2007).
L. Dicarlo, J.R. Williams, Y. Zhang, D.T. McClure, and C.M. Marcus, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 156801 (2008).
C.H. Lewenkopf, E.R. Mucciolo, and A.H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 081410(R) (2008).
N.M.R. Peres, F. Guinea, and A.H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 125411 (2006).
A. Carpio, L.L. Bonilla, F. de Juan, and M.A.H. Vozmediano, New J. Phys. **10**, 053021 (2008).
V.M. Pereira, F. Guinea, J.M.B. Lopes dos Santos, N.M.R. Peres, and A.H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 036801 (2006).
P. Le Doussal and L. Radzihovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. **69**, 1209 (1992).
J.C. Meyer, A.K. Geim, M.I. Katsnelson, K.S. Novoselov, T.J. Booth, and S. Roth, Nature **446**, 60 (2007).
A. Fasolino, A.H. Los, and M.I. Katsnelson, Nature Mat. **6**, 858 (2007).
M. Ishigami, J.H. Chen, W.G. Cullen, M.S. Fuhrer, and E.D. Williams, Nano Lett. **7**, 1643 (2007).
E. Stolyarova, K.T. Rim, S. Ryu, J. Maultzsch, P. Kim, L.E. Brus, T.F. Heinz, M.S. Hybertsen, and G.W. Flynn, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA **104**, 9209–9212 (2007).
F. Varchon, P. Mallet, J.-Y. Veuillen, and L. Magaud, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 235412 (2008).
F. de Juan, A. Cortijo, and M.A.H. Vozmediano, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 165409 (2007).
E.-A. Kim, and A.H. Castro Neto, arXiv:0702562.
E.H. Hwang, S. Adam, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 186806 (2007).
K. Nomura, A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 256602 (2006).
S.V. Morozov, K.S. Novoselov, M.I. Katsnelson, F. Schedin, D.C. Elias, J.A. Jaszczak, and A.K. Geim, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 016602 (2008).
J. Martin, N. Akerman, G. Ulbricht, T. Lohmann, J.H. Smet, K. von Klitzing, and A. Yacoby, Nature Phys. **4**, 144 (2008).
S. Fratini and F. Guinea, Phys. Rev. B, **77** 195415 (2008).
K.I. Bolotin, K.J. Sikes, Z. Jiang, M. Klima, G. Fudenberg, J. Hone, P. Kim, H.L. Stormer, Solid State Commun. **146**, 351 (2008).
J. Moser, A. Barreiro, and A. Bachtold, Appl. Phys. Lett. **91**, 163513 (2007).
M. Titov, Europhys. Lett. **79**, 17004 (2007).
A.F. Morpurgo, and F. Guinea, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 196804 (2006).
M.I. Katsnelson, K.S. Novoselov, and A.K. Geim, Nature Phys. **2**, 620 (2006).
A. Rycerz, J. Tworzyd[ł]{}o, and C.W.J. Beenakker, Europhys. Lett. **79**, 57003 (2007).
P. San-Jose, E. Prada and D.S. Golubev, Phys. Rev. B, **76** 195445 (2007).
[^1]: This work was supported by the Academy of Finland, the EU CARDEQ contract FP6-IST-021285-2 and the NANOSYSTEMS contract with the Nokia Research Center.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report the discovery of eight new giant planets, and updated orbits for four known planets, orbiting dwarf and subgiant stars using the CORALIE, HARPS, and MIKE instruments as part of the Calan-Hertfordshire Extrasolar Planet Search. The planets have masses in the range 1.1-5.4’s, orbital periods from 40-2900 days, and eccentricities from 0.0-0.6. They include a double-planet system orbiting the most massive star in our sample (HD147873), two eccentric giant planets (HD128356$b$ and HD154672$b$), and a rare 14 Herculis analogue (HD224538$b$). We highlight some population correlations from the sample of radial velocity detected planets orbiting nearby stars, including the mass function exponential distribution, confirmation of the growing body of evidence that low-mass planets tend to be found orbiting more metal-poor stars than giant planets, and a possible period-metallicity correlation for planets with masses $>$0.1 , based on a metallicity difference of 0.16 dex between the population of planets with orbital periods less than 100 days and those with orbital periods greater than 100 days.'
author:
- |
J.S. Jenkins$^{1}$[^1], H.R.A. Jones$^2$, M. Tuomi$^2$, M. Díaz$^1$, J.P. Cordero$^1$, A. Aguayo$^1$, B. Pantoja$^1$, P. Arriagada$^3$, R. Mahu$^4$, R. Brahm$^5$, P. Rojo$^1$, M.G. Soto$^1$, O. Ivanyuk$^6$, N. Becerra Yoma$^4$, A.C. Day-Jones$^1$, M.T. Ruiz$^1$, Y.V. Pavlenko$^{2,6}$, J.R. Barnes$^7$, F. Murgas$^8$, D.J. Pinfield$^2$, M.I. Jones$^9$, M. López-Morales$^{10}$, S. Shectman$^{11}$, R.P. Butler$^3$, D. Minniti$^{12}$\
$^1$Departamento de Astronomia, Universidad de Chile, Camino el Observatorio 1515, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile, Casilla 36-D\
$^2$Center for Astrophysics, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane Campus, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK, AL10 9AB\
$^3$Carnegie Institution of Washington, Dept. of Terrestrial Magnetism, 5241 Broad Branch Rd. NW, 20015, Washington D.C., USA\
$^4$Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Universidad de Chile, Av. Tupper 2007, PO Box 412-3, Santiago, Chile\
$^5$Instituto de Astrofísica, Facultad de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago, Chile\
$^6$Main Astronomical Observatory, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Golosiiv Woods, Kyiv-127, 03680 Ukraine\
$^7$Department of Physical Sciences, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK\
$^8$Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, Via Lactea, E38205, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain\
$^9$Center of Astro-Engineering UC, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Santiago, Chile\
$^{10}$Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138\
$^{11}$Carnegie Institution of Washington, The Observatories, 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101-1292, USA\
$^{12}$Departamento de Ciencias Fisicas, Universidad Andres Bello, Republica 220, Santiago, Chile
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
date: Submitted January 2011
title: 'New Planetary Systems from the Calan-Hertfordshire Extrasolar Planet Search'
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: planetary systems; planets and satellites: formation; stars: activity; stars: low-mass; stars: solar-type
Introduction
============
After the discovery and confirmation of the hot Jupiter Dimidium (aka. Helvetios $b$ or 51 Pegasi $b$) in 1995, our view of giant planets was changed forever. Giant planets orbiting dwarf stars like the Sun have been found to inhabit many regions of the parameter space. The first of these were found orbiting their stars with periods much shorter than those of Jupiter in our solar system (e.g. [@mayor95]; [@marcy96]). More recently as the number of giant planets has grown, a new population of *eccentric gas giants* has been shown to exist (e.g. [@jones06]; [@tamuz08]; [@arriagada10]), making up a large fraction of the known systems, at least around main sequence stars since the same high fraction does not appear to be present around giant stars ([@jones14]). These planets seem to span the full range of masses from the sub-Jupiter range all the way up to the mass boundary between giant planets and brown dwarfs.
It has been thoroughly demonstrated that there is a clear bias to metal-rich stars hosting giant planets across the currently sampled range of orbital separations ([@fischer05]; [@sousa11]), a bias that seems to hold for stars beyond the main sequence (e.g. [@reffert15]; [@soto15]; [@jones16]). In comparison, recent work appears to show that stars that host lower-mass planets have a metallicity distribution that is indistinguishable from those that host no known planets at all ([@udry07]; [@jenkins13a]; [@sousa11]; [@buchhave15]). Furthermore, @jenkins13a suggests there exists a boundary that delimits a planet desert for the lowest mass planets in the metal-rich regime. Such results show there is a fundamental relationship between the proto-planetary disc metallicity and the mass of planets that form in these discs, indicating further study of the planetary mass function and its relationship with metallicity is warranted.
Since metallicity plays a key role in the formation of the observed planetary systems, explained well by nature’s merging of core accretion and planet migration (e.g. [@ida04]; [@mordasini12]), and now we are reaching a population size where less obvious correlations can reveal themselves, studying the current population of known planets can provide a window into the fundamentals of planet formation and evolution for the stars nearest to the Sun.
In 2007 we started a radial velocity planet search program on the HARPS instrument at La Silla Chile, with the goal of finding more gas giant planets orbiting super metal-rich stars to increase the statistics, whilst also following up any discoveries to search for transit events. The first results from this work and the target sample were discussed in @jenkins09 and since then our program has expanded to make use of the CORALIE spectrograph [@jenkins11a; @jenkins11b; @jenkins13b]. This current paper announces the first planets from this survey detected using CORALIE and goes on to study the planet mass-metallicity plane to search for correlations between these two parameters.
In this work we describe the latest efforts from our Calan-Hertfordshire Extrasolar Planet Search, which builds on previous work by this group. We include the new giant planets we have detected in this program with the large sample of gas giants detected by radial velocity measurements that already exist in the literature, in order to continue the search for emerging correlations that allow us a more stringent insight into the nature of these objects. In $\S~\ref{observations}$ we describe the measurements used in this work. In $\S~\ref{star}$ we discuss the sample selection, introduce the new giant planet detections from this survey, and discuss some characteristics of their host stars. In $\S~\ref{results}$ we perform tests of the mass function and its relationship to stellar metallicity, along with searching for correlations between these parameters and planetary orbital period and we briefly discuss the impact of these results. Finally, in $\S~\ref{conclusions}$ we summerise the main points of the present work.
Observations and Reduction {#observations}
==========================
The radial velocity datasets for these stars were observed using the precision radial velocity spectrographs CORALIE, HARPS, and MIKE. Both the CORALIE and HARPS spectrographs are physically located at the ESO La Silla Observatory in Chile, where CORALIE is mounted on the Swiss Euler telescope and HARPS is fed by light from the ESO 3.6m telescope. The MIKE spectrograph is located at the Las Campanas Observatory and is mounted on the Magellan Clay 6.5m telescope.
In this work, 570 radial velocities are reported, with a fairly even split between CORALIE and HARPS observations, in comparison to the smaller fraction of MIKE data. The baseline of observations for the CORALIE data run from 2009 November 25$^{\rm{th}}$ until 2015 October 23$^{\rm{rd}}$ (BJD 2455160.53623 - 2457318.85147), whereas the HARPS data runs from 2007 May 28$^{\rm{th}}$ until 2013 September 28$^{\rm{th}}$ (BJD 2454248.60231 - 2456563.90982) showing that the HARPS data covers a longer baseline but the CORALIE data has better sampling coverage in general for these targets. The MIKE velocities run from 2003 August 13$^{\rm{th}}$ until 2009 July 7$^{\rm{th}}$ (BJD 2452864.57934 - 2455019.6938), covering a baseline of six years that overlaps with the HARPS baseline but not the CORALIE data.
CORALIE
-------
The analysis of CORALIE data involves the normal echelle reduction steps, such as debiasing the images using CCD bias frames, order location and tracing using polynomial fitting methods and aperture order filtering, pixel-to-pixel sensitivity correction (flatfielding) by building a normalised master flatfield image and dividing out the master flatfield from the other images, scattered-light removal by measuring the contribution to the total light profile in the inter-order regions, order extraction using a profile fitting method ([@marsh89]), and finally building a precise 2D wavelength solution that is good to $\sim$2.5 overall precision ([@jordan14]; [@brahm16]). The final steps in the analysis include cross-correlating the individual spectra with a binary mask (either G2, K0, K5, or M2 depending on the spectral type of the star, see [@baranne96] and [@pepe02]) and fitting the cross-correlation function (CCF) with a gaussian to measure the radial velocity, along with the width of the CCF to generate realistic uncertainties. The instrumental drift is then measured and removed from the overall velocity by performing a second cross-correlation between the simultaneously measured Thorium-Argon (ThAr) lamp (simultaneously referring to observations where the second optical fibre illuminates the spectrograph with ThAr light) and a previously measured double ThAr observation where both fibres have been fed by light from the ThAr calibration lamp. These double ThAr measurements are generally taken every 1.5-2 hours throughout the night to continually reset the wavelength solution zero-point. These steps were discussed in @jordan14, however the overall performance in term of stability is shown in Appendix \[appendix\_stable\].
An important additional step in the calculation of the radial velocities from CORALIE is the characterisation of the offset between the data collected prior to the November 2014 upgrade of the instrument. As part of this upgrade, the CORALIE circular fibres were replaced with octagonal fibres to increase illumination stability, the double-scrambler was reintroduced into the system, and a focal mirror that focuses light on the guiding camera was replaced. Such instrumental upgrades are expected to introduce systematic offsets in the radial velocity measurements compared to pre-upgrade observations.
In an attempt to account for the offset between the CORALIE reference velocities observed before and after the upgrade, we first determined this offset in our two radial velocity reference targets, HD72673 and HD157347. We denote the mean estimate for the offset $x_{0}$ based on these reference targets as $\mu_{0}$ and its standard error as $\sigma_{0}$. We then used these numbers to construct a prior probability for the offset $x_{1}$ in the first data set of our sample such that $\pi(x_{1}) = \mathcal{N}(\mu_{0}, \sigma_{0}^{2})$. This prior was used to calculate a posterior for the offset and we denote the mean and standard deviation of this obtained posterior with $\mu_{1}$ and $\sigma_{1}$, respectively. After that, we adopted the refined estimate of the offset of $\mu_{i} \pm \sigma_{i}$ to construct the prior for the offset $x_{i+1}$ in the next data set, such that $\pi(x_{i+1}) = \mathcal{N}(\mu_{i}, \sigma_{i}^{2})$. This process, called ’Bayesian updating’ because the prior is updated into a posterior density that is in turn used as as the next prior, was repeated until all the data sets were analysed. This process helps to account for all the information regarding the offsets from all the data sets without having to analyse them simultaneously. As a result, we summarise the information regarding the offset as a probability distribution that is almost Gaussian in the sense that the third and fourth moments are very close to zero. This density has a mean of 19.2 ms$^{-1}$ an a standard deviation of 4.8 ms$^{-1}$ , which indicates that an offset in the reference velocity of roughly 20 ms$^{-1}$ is significantly present in the CORALIE data sets after the upgrade for the stars included in this work.
HARPS
-----
For HARPS, the steps are similar to those mentioned above, but the data is automatically processed by the HARPS-DRS version 3.5 which is based in general on the procedure explained in @baranne96. The nightly drift of the ThAr lines are found to be below 0.5 and including the other sources of uncertainty such as centering and guiding ($<$30 ), a stability of less than 1 is found for this spectrograph over the long term (see [@locurto10]).
MIKE
----
For the radial velocities measured using the MIKE spectrograph, the reduction steps are similar but the analysis procedure is different. MIKE uses a cell filled with molecular iodine (I2) that is placed directly in the beam of light from the target star before entering the spectrograph, and this is used to record the instrument point spread function (PSF) and provide a highly accurate wavelength fiducial. The full analysis procedure is explained in @butler, but in short, the velocities are measured by comparing each star+I2 spectrum to that of a template measurement of the same star. This template is observed without the I2 cell in place, such that one can deconvolve the instrument’s PSF from the template observation, usually accomplished by observing a rapidly rotating B-star with the I2 cell in place before and after the template observation and extrapolating the PSF from these observations to that of the template. The deconvolved template can then be used to forward model each observation by convolving it with a very high resolution and high S/N I2 spectrum and a modeled PSF. The final stability of MIKE is found to be between that of CORALIE and HARPS, around the 5 level of velocity precision.
The Stars and their Doppler Signals {#star}
===================================
\[tab:values\]
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------- ----------------- --------------------- -----------------
Spectral Type$_{Hipp}$ G8IV G5IV/V G5IV/V G5V K3V G6V
$B-V_{Hipp}$ 0.761$\pm$0.002 0.747$\pm$0.014 0.660$\pm$0.021 0.686$\pm$0.015 1.017$\pm$0.015$^*$ 0.773$\pm$0.004
$V$ 8.40 8.05 9.11 8.83 8.29 9.20
$\pi$ (mas) 12.67$\pm$0.62 11.71$\pm$0.58 12.82$\pm$0.61 13.74$\pm$0.83 38.41$\pm$0.77 15.23$\pm$1.18
distance (pc) 78.93$\pm$3.86 85.40$\pm$4.23 78.00$\pm$3.71 72.78$\pm$4.40 26.03$\pm$0.52 65.66$\pm$5.09
log$R'$$_{\rm{HK}}$ -5.23 -5.24 -4.95 -5.03 -5.07 -5.12
Hipparcos $N$$_{\rm{obs}}$ 92 98 107 92 72 96
Hipparcos $\sigma$ 0.014 0.009 0.017 0.016 0.013 0.016
$\Delta$$M_{V}$ 1.478 1.914 0.108 0.405 0.553 0.349
$T$$_{\rm{eff}}$ (K) 5577$\pm$100 5650$\pm$100 5950$\pm$100 5688$\pm$100 4875$\pm$100 5505$\pm$100
$L_{\rm{\star}}$/$L_{\odot}$ 2.41$\pm$0.18 3.84$\pm$0.19 1.17$\pm$0.06 1.40$\pm$0.09 0.36$\pm$0.01 0.81$\pm$0.06
$M_{\rm{\star}}$/$M_{\odot}$ 1.03$\pm$0.05 1.28$\pm$0.05 1.12$\pm$0.05 1.02$\pm$0.05 0.65$\pm$0.05 0.95$\pm$0.05
$R_{\rm{\star}}$/$R_{\odot}$ 1.67$\pm$0.07 2.05$\pm$0.05 1.02$\pm$0.05 1.22$\pm$0.06 0.85$\pm$0.02 0.99$\pm$0.08
$[$Fe/H$]$ 0.39$\pm$0.10 0.40$\pm$0.10 0.29$\pm$0.10 0.25$\pm$0.10 0.17$\pm$0.10 0.22$\pm$0.10
4.03$\pm$0.05 3.92$\pm$0.03 4.47$\pm$0.05 4.27$\pm$0.05 4.52$\pm$0.06 4.42$\pm$0.08
U,V,W (km/s) 22.2,-56.5,-29 -14.2,-24.0,4.5 -37.5,-16.3,-17.3 72.2,-2.0,-15.8 30.8,-28.7,8.8 -24.4,-49.5,3.7
(km/s) 2.1$\pm$0.2 3.1$\pm$0.3 2.9$\pm$0.2 2.7$\pm$0.2 1.3$\pm$0.1 1.5$\pm$0.1
Age (Gyrs) 9$\pm$3 5$\pm$3 2$\pm$3 8$\pm$3 10$\pm$5 5$\pm$5
Spectral Type$_{Hip}$ G1V G6V G3IV G8V F9IV/V
$B-V_{Hip}$ 0.575$\pm$0.012 0.711$\pm$0.025 0.713$\pm$0.013 1.018$\pm$0.095 0.581$\pm$0.006
$V$ 7.96 9.18 8.21 9.36 8.06
$\pi$ (mas) 9.53$\pm$0.99 12.00$\pm$1.52 15.44$\pm$0.84 15.39$\pm$1.72 12.86$\pm$0.73
distance (pc) 104.93$\pm$10.90 83.33$\pm$10.56 64.77$\pm$3.52 64.98$\pm$7.26 77.76$\pm$4.41
log$R'$$_{\rm{HK}}$ -5.27 -4.99 -5.12 -5.18 -4.99
Hipparcos $N$$_{\rm{obs}}$ 88 84 120 67 163
Hipparcos $\sigma$ 0.011 0.014 0.014 0.019 0.017
$\Delta$$M_{V}$ 1.337 0.508 0.943 1.373 0.627
$T$$_{\rm{eff}}$ (K) 5972$\pm$100 5726$\pm$100 5655$\pm$100 5426$\pm$100 6097$\pm$100
$L_{\rm{\star}}$/$L_{\odot}$ 5.99$\pm$0.62 1.28$\pm$0.16 1.91$\pm$0.10 0.70$\pm$0.08 2.95$\pm$0.17
$M_{\rm{\star}}$/$M_{\odot}$ 1.38$\pm$0.05 1.10$\pm$0.05 1.08$\pm$0.05 1.02$\pm$0.05 1.34$\pm$0.05
$R_{\rm{\star}}$/$R_{\odot}$ 2.29$\pm$0.10 1.15$\pm$0.13 1.44$\pm$0.05 0.95$\pm$0.11 1.54$\pm$0.06
$[$Fe/H$]$ -0.03$\pm$0.10 0.16$\pm$0.10 0.11$\pm$0.10 0.09$\pm$0.10 0.27$\pm$0.10
3.86$\pm$0.05 4.36$\pm$0.10 4.15$\pm$0.05 4.49$\pm$0.11 4.19$\pm$0.04
U,V,W (km/s) 18.7,-18.2,3.2 -39.6,-46.2,10.2 -20.0,-18.7,-29.1 13.3,9.8,-20.5 -29.1,-15.0,+7.2
(km/s) 5.9$\pm$0.5 1.8$\pm$0.1 2.2$\pm$0.2 1.5$\pm$0.1 3.9$\pm$0.3
Age (Gyrs) 4$\pm$3 3$\pm$3 8$\pm$3 11$\pm$4 2$\pm$3
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------- ----------------- --------------------- -----------------
\* - colour calculated from magnitudes drawn from the Tycho-2 catalogue ([@hog00]).\
We assign a standard $\pm$100K uncertainty to the measurements and $\pm$0.10 dex to the metallicities.\
$\pi$ values come from @vanleeuwen07 and all other Hipparcos parameters are taken from @perryman97.\
Evolutionary bulk properties and spectrally measured indices were either computed in this work or taken from @jenkins08, @jenkins11a, and @murgas13.\
$[$Fe/H$]$ abundances, spectroscopic values, and rotational velocities were calculated using the procedures in @pavlenko12 and taken from @ivanyuk16.
The selection of the Calan-Hertfordshire Extrasolar Planet Search (CHEPS) target sample is discussed in @jenkins09 but we outline the main selection criteria here. The stars are generally selected to be late-F to early-K stars, with a $B-V$ range between 0.5-0.9, and with a small number of redder stars included to allow the study of activity correlations and timescales between activity indicators and the measured Doppler velocities. The positions of the CHEPS sample on a colour-magnitude diagram are shown in Fig. \[hr\_plot\] (squares) compared to a general selection of nearby stars from the Hipparcos catalogue (circles), along with the targets discussed in this work (stars). The magnitude limits we set are between 7.5-9.5 in the $V$ optical band and after preliminary screening with the FEROS spectrograph ([@jenkins08]), we predominantly selected chromospherically quiet stars, and those that are metal-rich (primary sample having log$R'_{\rm{HK}}$ indices $\le$ -4.9 dex and \[Fe/H\] $\ge$ +0.1 dex, with some stars outside of these selection limits to use as comparisons). The positions of the stars reported here on an HR-diagram are shown in the inset plot in Fig. \[hr\_plot\]. The Y2 isomass tracks are also shown ([@demarque04]) for masses of 1.0-1.3 , increasing in mass towards higher luminosities, and with a fixed metallicity of +0.2 dex. The characteristics of the targets we discuss in this work are shown in Table \[tab:values\].
Since the planets reported here are gas giants, the radial velocity signals of these stars are fairly large, and hence one might expect that we can detect frequencies for all of them using standard periodogram analyses to hunt for power peaks in the Fourier power spectrum, or minimum mean square error (MMSE) spectrum (e.g. [@dawson10]; [@jenkins14a]). However, the search for the best solutions can be complicated, particularly for combined data sets from independent spectrographs because the sets have different baselines, data samplings, and uncertainties that all have to be accounted for in a search for periodic signals. The signals we discuss in this work are a mixture of well, and moderately well sampled data, such that some signals are more problematic to detect than others. Moreover, the inclusion of a linear trend that could be present in the data of a given target due to a long period companion, will cause considerable correlations to the probability densities of the model parameters.
In Appendix \[appendix0\] we show the MMSE power spectra for our sample of stars and it is clear that a number of deep troughs are present in the data, yet some sets show no significant power troughs over the frequency space searched. We thus applied the delayed-rejection adaptive-Metropolis algorithm (DRAM; [@haario06]) together with tempered Markov chains when searching for solutions to our Keplerian models (see [@tuomi14a; @tuomi14b]) and the simpler adaptive-Metropolis algorithm ([@haario01]) when obtaining estimates for the model parameters. This method has previously been applied in @tuomi13a, @jenkins13a, @jenkins13c, and @jenkins14b, for example. The vertical dashed lines in the MMSE periodograms mark the positions of these detected signals.
The DRAM algorithm works by using a sequence of proposal densities that are each narrower than the last. Here “narrower” is to be understood as a multivariate Gaussian proposal density, on which the adaptive-Metropolis algorithm is based, that has a smaller variance for at least one of the parameters in the parameter vector. In short, if a value proposed by drawing it from an initial proposal density is rejected, we continue by modifying the proposal density with respect to the period parameter(s) by multiplying it with a factor of 0.1 such that another value is proposed from a narrower area surrounding the current state of the chain. This enables us to visit the areas of high probability in the period space repeatedly and reliably and to see which periods correspond to the highest values of the posterior probability density.
We applied a statistical model that contains reference velocities of each instrument, a linear trend, Keplerian signals, and excess white noise. By simplifying the statistical model in @tuomi14b by removing the intrinsic correlations that we do not expect to play a significant role due to the low number of measurements and the (relatively) high amplitude variations in the data, the model can be written as
$$\label{eq:rv_model}
m_{i,l} = \gamma_{l} + \dot{\gamma}t_{i} + f_{k}(t_{i}) + \epsilon_{i,l}$$
where $m_{i,l}$ is the $i$th measurement made by the $l$th telescope/instrument, $\gamma_{l}$ is the systemic velocity offset for each instrument, $\dot{\gamma}$ represents the linear trend, $f_{k}$ is the superposition of $k$ Keplerian signals at time $t_{i}$, and $\epsilon_{i,l}$ is a Gaussian random variable with zero mean and a variance of $\sigma_{l}^{2} + \sigma_{i}^{2}$, where $\sigma_{l}$ is a free parameter in our analyses that represents the stellar jitter noise and $\sigma_{i}$ is the measurement uncertainty. We use prior probability densities as described in @tuomi12 but apply an informative prior density for the orbital eccentricities such that $\pi(e) \propto \mathcal{N}(0, 0.3^{2})$ that penalises, but does not exclude, eccentricities close to unity ([@anglada-escude13]; [@tuomi13b]). Therefore, given the previous tests performed using this model, in particular using high-precision HARPS data, we expect this model to represent a sufficiently accurate description of the velocities analysed in the current work. The good agreement between the parameters published for the stars we discuss that overlap with previous work, is testament to the model’s applicability.
Posterior densities for the periods, semi-amplitudes, and eccentricities for all signals are shown in Appendices \[appendix1\], \[appendix2\], and \[appendix3\], and below we discuss each of the systems independently. Note that all the signal fits are shown phase folded to highlight the phase coverage we have observed. We did not show the posteriors for the residuals to any of the systems (more than a single planet model fit) unless we detected a unique solution that relates to a second Doppler signal.
HD9174
------
HD9174 is classed as a G8 subgiant star in the Hipparcos catalogue ([@perryman97]) since it has a distance from the main sequence ($\Delta M_V$) of 1.5 and a $B-V$ colour of 0.76. The star is also extremely metal-rich, with an \[Fe/H\] of nearly +0.4 dex, indicating a high probability of hosting a giant planet. A signal with a semi-amplitude of 21 has been detected with a period of nearly 1200 days. The star is very chromospherically quiet and exhibits low rotational velocity, indicating it is an ideal subgiant to search for orbiting exoplanets using the radial velocity method, and hence we do not believe the signal is induced by activity features, and therefore conclude that HD9174 hosts an orbiting planet.
In order to understand the significance of the detected signals we present here, we calculated log-Bayesian evidence ratios for each of the signals presented here based on the MCMC samples drawn from a mixture of prior and posterior densities, as discussed in @newton94 (see Eqs. 15 $\&$ 16). This is a version of importance sampling that uses a mixed distribution to obtain a sampling distribution that has “heavier” tails than the posterior (see [@nelson16] for further discussion of this method). We note that all of these signals are so strong that they would pass essentially any meaningful significance test, from likelihood-ratio tests to tests applying any other information criteria.
The log-Bayesian evidence ratio for the signal in the data of HD9174 was found to be 42.1 for the 1-planet model. The signal is also readily apparent in the MMSE periodogram. No secondary signal was detected. Considering we set the threshold boundary for a statistically significant signal to be at the level of $10^4$, or 9.21 in log-Bayesian units, it is clear that this signal is very significant. Our best fit to the data yields a non-circular eccentricity, only at the level of around 0.12, and with a stellar mass commensurate with that of the Sun, the orbiting planet has a minimum mass of 1.11 . The phase folded velocities and model fit are shown in Fig. \[phased1\]
HD48265
-------
HD48265 is classed in the Hipparcos catalogue as a G5IV/V star, however we find a $\Delta M_V$ of 1.9, therefore this star is a subgiant. Again, it is extremely metal-rich, towards the top end of the metallicity scale, since it’s \[Fe/H\] is found to be +0.4 dex. A planetary companion to this star was previously published in @minniti09 and an update to the planet’s orbital parameters was published in @jenkins09. Here we report our latest orbital solution for this system, including more HARPS velocities and with the addition of CORALIE and MIKE data.
We found a signal with a period of 780 days and with a semi-amplitude of 28 (Fig. \[phased2\]) in the radial velocities of HD48265. The log-Bayesian evidence for this signal is 103.1, well above the significance threshold. Although there is a trough in the MMSE close to this period when compared to the surrounding parameter space, it is significantly lower than the noise floor at shorter periods, in particular around a period of 20 days (deepest trough), therefore the MMSE periodogram can not be used to confirm the existence of this signal. We studied this 20 day trough to look for evidence of a signal here but nothing was clear. In fact, this trough was found to be dependent on the noise properties of the data, since when the jitter parameter was considered in the periodogram analysis the evidence pointed towards a period of $\sim$40 days, close to twice the period, indicating it is an artifact of the interference pattern from the window function beating with the real signal in the data.
The evolved nature of the star ensures that it is an inactive and slowly rotating star and hence it is unlikely that stellar activity is the source of these signals. The minimum mass of the planet is found to be 1.47 and a non-zero eccentricity was found for the signal. We note that a significant linear trend was also found that possibly indicates more companions that await discovery in this system, particularly at longer orbital periods. The method also indicated that a shorter period signal may be present, with a period close to 60 days, yet the current data does not allow us to confirm this as a genuine second planet since the signal disappears when we introduce the linear activity correlation parameters in the analysis. Also, this signal could be an alias of the detected planetary signal.
The planetary parameters we find here are generally in good agreement with those published in @minniti09 and @jenkins09, however the period we quote is significantly larger than that found by Jenkins et al. by $\sim$80 days. The differences in the periods are attributed to the lower number of high precision HARPS data in that work, which was causing the fitting algorithm to weight heavily towards those data points, even though they were much fewer compared to the MIKE data. This had the effect of significantly increasing the precision of the fit compared to Minniti et al., but in the presence of a linear trend, it also skewed the orbital period to lower values. All other parameters are in excellent agreement within the uncertainties.
HD68402
-------
The star HD68402 is classed as G5IV/V, though since we find a $\Delta M_V$ of around 0.1 magnitudes, we believe the star to be a dwarf. The metallicity of HD68402 is found to be +0.29 dex. A signal with a semi-amplitude of over 50 was found at a period ($\sim$1100 days) similar to that in the HD9174 data. The MMSE shows two long period troughs for this data, with the detected signal found to be the second trough behind a slightly stronger trough close to 3000 days. The signal was found to have an eccentricity of 0.03, but to within the limits it can be considered as circular.
Given the mass of HD68402 is 1.12 , we compute a minimum mass of just over 3 for the planet. The phase folded velocities for the planetary signal are shown in Fig. \[phased3\]. Since the log-Bayesian evidence is 49.4, strongly confirming the existence of a signal, and it was also found in the MMSE analysis, and by a manual fitting approach, the solution is significantly well constrained, even though there is a small gap in the phase folded curve.
HD72892
-------
This G5V star is located at a distance of 73 pc from the Sun and has a metallicity of +0.25 dex. The star is also very inactive (log$R'_{\rm{HK}}$ = -5.02) and a slow rotator (= 2.5 ) representing an excellent target to search for planets. We have detected a signal with a period of nearly 40 days and semi-amplitude of 320 . The signal has a log Bayesian evidence value of 903.0, confirming the signal at very high significance. Given the S/N ratio between the signal amplitude and the HARPS and CORALIE uncertainties, we fully expected a large evidence ratio to confirm the nature of the signal. The signal is also clearly apparent in the MMSE periodogram as the strongest trough, adding to its reality.
We find a mass for the star of 1.02 , leading to a planetary minimum mass of 5.5 . This super-Jupiter also has appreciable eccentricity, at the level of 0.4, and the final Keplerian model to the phase folded velocities are shown in Fig. \[phased4\]. We note that the solution gives rise to a transit probability for this star of 1.6%, a relatively high likelihood of transit for such a planet-star separation.
HD128356
--------
HD128356 is the coolest star we have included in the CHEPS sample and is classed as a main sequence star by Hipparcos (K3V). We find the star to have a \[Fe/H\] of almost +0.2 dex, and with a $\Delta M_V$ of 0.55, it may be a subgiant star, or at least in the process of evolving onto the subgiant branch.
Using our Bayesian approach we detected a signal with a semi-amplitude of 37 and period approaching 300 days that had a log-Bayesian evidence ratio of 144.5. The star is found to be a very slow rotator, having a of only 1.3$\pm$0.2 , and with a low chromospheric activity of log$R'_{\rm{HK}}$ of -4.8. We note that this activity level is significantly lower than the one reported in @jenkins11a, due to an updated $B-V$ colour used here. The colour used in Jenkins et al. was drawn from the Hipparcos catalogue ($B-V =$ 0.685), yet the Tycho-2 catalogue magnitudes ([@hog00]) give a colour $>1$, agreeing with what is expected for a mid-K star. Even if the star was moderately active, we would still expect the jitter to be low since mid-K type stars are not as $Doppler-noisy$ as earlier type stars for a given activity level (e.g. [@isaacson10]). This, combined with the very slow rotation of the star, indicates that it is likely a signal with a peak-to-peak amplitude of nearly 80 is not caused by modulated activity effects, especially with a period close to 300 days and eccentricity of 0.8.
The signal detected in our MCMC analysis is also clearly apparent in the MMSE, being the deepest trough, despite the high eccentricity. However, an additional trough at a much longer period is also approaching a similar level of significance. There is also no apparent correlations with the activity indicators, as discussed in the next section, nor are there any detected periods in the activity measurements. Given the multi-method signal detection and lack of activity correlations, we can confidently conclude that the signal we detected has a Doppler origin, and since the mass of HD128356 was found to be around 0.65 , the measured minimum mass for the planet is 0.9 .
HD143361
--------
The star HD143361 was previously shown to have a planet with a period of 1057 days ([@minniti09]; [@jenkins09]) and we have been conducting further reconnaissance to search for additional companions and to better constrain the orbital characteristics of the previously detected planet. The host star is a chromospherically quiet (log$R'_{\rm{HK}}$ = -5.12 dex) and metal-rich (\[Fe/H\] = +0.22 dex) G6V star, located at a distance of 66 pc.
Our Bayesian search found a signal with a period of 1046 days with a Bayesian evidence of 491.9, relating to a planet orbiting the star with a minimum mass of 3.5 (Fig. \[phased6\]). From the MMSE periodogram the signal is clearly detected, being one of the most significant periodogram detection’s in our sample. The final parameters are in good agreement with those published in Minniti et al. and Jenkins et al. The orbital period found here is lower by 40 days ($\sim$4%) compared to that published in Minniti et al. but only lower by 11 days ($\sim$1%) to that published in Jenkins et al., and both are in agreement within the quoted uncertainties, which are a factor of 28.1 and 6.3 lower here than in those previous two works, respectively. Although in agreement within the quoted uncertainties, our semi-amplitude is higher than those published in the previous two works, by 9.1 and 7.1 , respectively. No strong evidence for a second companion was found in this system with the current data set.
HD147873
--------
The star HD147873 is the earliest type star in this sample of planet-hosts and is reported as a G1V star in the Hipparcos catalogue. Given its distance of 105 pc, the star is a little brighter than 8 magnitudes in $V$. The star also appears to have a solar metallicity (\[Fe/H\] = -0.03 dex), is extremely inactive (log$R'_{\rm{HK}}$ = -5.27 dex), and rotates at the level of nearly 6 . We find a Y2 evolutionary track mass for HD147873 of 1.38 .
The Bayesian search for signals in the Doppler data for this star detected two strong periodic signals with semi-amplitudes of 170 and 50 for HD147873$b$ and $c$ respectively. The periods of the signals were found to be at 117 days for the stronger signal and 492 days for the weaker of the two signals. The log-Bayesian evidences we found for these signals were 1131.5 and 145.2. The MMSE periodogram also detected both these signals rather easily; the second becoming detectable in the residuals of the data once the first signal was removed, as shown in Appendix \[appendix0\]. We find planetary minimum masses of 5.1 and 2.3 for the short and longer period planets, respectively. Both Keplerian fits to the data are shown in the upper and middle plots in Fig. \[phased7\]. The inner planet is also only one of two in this sample that has a transit probability of over 2%, a value that encourages the search for transits from intermediate period planets.
Given we have discovered two giant planets with a semimajor axis difference of only 0.84 AU between them, we decided to test if the system architecture was dynamically stable. We ran Gragg-Burlich-Stoer integrations in the Systemic Console ([@meschiari09]) over a period of 10 Myrs to study the evolution of the orbits of both planets. We find the eccentricity of the orbits librate with a period of around 12000 years but the system itself remains dynamically stable across this timespan. Systems with multiple giant planets are interesting laboratories for dynamical studies and this system may warrant further detailed dynamical study, especially if more massive companions are discovered with the addition of more data.
HD152079
--------
HD152079 is classed as a G6 main sequence star in the Hipparcos catalogue and our previous work found it to be inactive (=-4.99 dex) and metal-rich (+0.16 dex in \[Fe/H\]), which may explain the 0.5 magnitude $\Delta M_V$. We found the mass of the star to be 1.1 . This is also one of the stars in this sample with a previously announced planet candidate detected in orbit ([@arriagada10]).
A signal with a period of 2900 days and semi-amplitude of 31 was detected in the Doppler data of HD152079. The log-Bayesian evidence ratio was found to be 99.1, highly significant, and the signal was found to have an eccentricity over 0.5. It is likely for this data set that the moderate eccentricity of the signal is hampering its detection in the MMSE periodogram. In addition, there is the presence of a linear trend in the data that indicates there is a long period secondary companion to this star, and since linear trends are not considered in the MMSE model, the interference here could also be confusing the algorithm. Yet there is a fairly strong trough showing at a period of $\sim$1400 days, which is close to half the Bayesian detected signal, and could be related to the Doppler signal, or an additional companion that is at a 2:1 resonance site, which could also explain the eccentric shape of the one planet signal ([@marcy01]; [@anglada-escude10]). In any case, we found the minimum mass of HD152079$b$ to be 2.2 and the Keplerian model fit is shown in Fig. \[phased8\]. These values are in good agreement with those presented in Arriagada et al., except the precision quoted here is much higher. For instance, the period of 2097$\pm$930 days quoted in their work has been constrained to 2899$\pm$52 days here, a factor of 18 increase in precision and pushing the planet’s orbit upwards by nearly 900 days. This precision increase is also mirrored directly in the semi-amplitude precision, lowering it from 58$\pm$18 to 31.3$\pm$1.1 .
HD154672
--------
This star has a Hipparcos classification of G3IV, confirmed by our measurement of 0.94 magnitudes from the main sequence. Part of the elevation from the main sequence can also be explained by the metallicity enrichment of 0.11 dex. The star is also a slow rotator, having a of 2.2 and was found to be very chromospherically inactive (= -5.12 dex). The position on the HR-diagram gives rise to a mass of 1.08 .
A signal with a period of 164 days and semi-amplitude of 176 was found in the Doppler timeseries of HD154672, with a log-Bayesian evidence ratio of 1709.2, the most significant signal in this data set. The signal is also clearly apparent in the MMSE periodogram, the period trough being significantly stronger than any other periods across the parameter space. The eccentricity of the signal was found to be 0.6, giving rise to a planet with a minimum mass of nearly 5 . The values we find are in good agreement with the values previously published for this planet in @lopez-morales08, with the period agreeing to within one hour and the minimum mass being slightly lower here by only 0.23 , but well within the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties. Given the inclusion of higher quality data in this analysis, we find the jitter for this star to be 2 , a factor two lower than that quoted in Lopez-Morales et al., demonstrating that a significant fraction of their jitter was instrumental noise. The model fit is shown in Fig. \[phased9\].
Our search for additional planets in the combined data sets did not yield any positive results, therefore no firm evidence exists for any additional companions in this system. If the eccentricity from this planet is genuine and not due to the super-position of mixed signals from other giant planets in resonant orbits (see [@anglada-escude10]; [@wittenmyer12]), then the transit probability for this object is found to be the highest in the current sample of intermediate and long period planets, at 2.5%.
HD165155
--------
The Hipparcos catalogue classifies HD165155 as a G8 main sequence star, however with a elevation above the main sequence of 1.4, this star can be considered as a subgiant. The star is located at a distance of 65 pc, and from spectroscopy we have found a activity index of -5.18 dex, a rotational velocity of 1.5 , and a \[Fe/H\] metallicity index of 0.09 dex. Comparison to Y2 evolutionary models yield a mass for the star of 1.02 .
A signal has been detected in the radial velocity data for HD165155 with a period of 435 days and a semi-amplitude of 76 . The log-Bayesian evidence for the signal was found to be 168.9, securely above the significance threshold. The eccentricity was found to be 0.20 and therefore the final minimum mass of the companion is calculated as 2.9 (Fig. \[phased10\]). A two-planet model search produced statistically significant evidence for a second signal in the data, however given the limited number of measurements we could not confirm a unique secondary signal at this time. No statistically significant troughs were detected in the MMSE periodogram for this star, which may be due to the presence of a secondary signal that is interfering with the primary signal. Indeed, the inclusion of a strong linear trend was necessary to constrain this signal, and since linear trends are not included in the MMSE modeling approach, this trend is likely the reason why the MMSE approach failed to detect this signal.
HD224538
--------
The main Hipparcos catalogue lists HD224538 as a F9 dwarf or subgiant located at a distance of 78 pc. With a calculated $\Delta M_V$ of 0.63 and a high overabundance of metals in the star (\[Fe/H\]=+0.27 dex), the possibility remains that this star is either on the main sequence or crossing into the subgiant branch. The star is both a slow rotator (= 3.9 ) and chromospherically inactive (= -4.99 dex). From comparisons to Y2 isomass tracks on a HR-diagram we found a mass of 1.34 for HD224538.
Our Bayesian algorithm found a signal with a period of 1189 days, a semi-amplitude of 107 , and an eccentricity of 0.46, shown in Fig. \[phased12\]. The log-Bayesian evidence ratio for the signal was found to be highly significant at 391.0. The MMSE periodogram also clearly detected this signal. Therefore a planet with a minimum mass of 6.0 is found to be orbiting this star. This is reminiscent of the gas giant planet 14 Her $b$ that has a broadly similar mass, period, and eccentricity ([@butler03]) and such planets appear to be rare. Even though 14 Her is an early K-dwarf star it does have a super solar metallicity (+0.43$\pm$0.08 dex) similar to HD224538, likely necessary to form such high-mass planets. No additional statistically significant signals were found in the current data set.
Line Modulation Tests
---------------------
Although these stars are very inactive and slowly rotating and the Doppler signals we have detected are generally very large compared to the uncertainties (most are significantly larger than 20 ), it is useful to rule out line modulations that could originate from stellar activity as the source of the variations. The activity parameters employed are the calciumiiHK line doublet, the bisector span (BIS), the CCF FWHM, the $H\alpha$ line, and the He I D3 line. These indices were selected since they have previously been shown to be good tracers of stellar magnetic activity, and/or spectral line modulations (e.g. [@queloz01]; [@robertson14]; [@santos10]). In Fig. \[activity\] we show four of the tests we have carried out to rule out these modulations as the source of the detected radial velocity shifts for the star HD128356, originally believed to be the most active star in the sample due to the erroneous $B-V$ colour. We note that we do not show the CCF FWHM test for this star since there is large variations with a few outliers, but no correlation exists.
In the upper plot of Fig. \[activity\] we show how the BIS values vary as a function of the radial velocity datasets. The BIS values for HARPS were taken from the HARPS-DRS and measured following the method explained in @queloz01. The CORALIE BIS values were calculated using a similar procedure. No significant correlation between the radial velocities and the BIS measurements are found and we highlight this by showing the best fit linear trend to the data. The unweighted Pearson rank correlation coefficient has a value of 0.23, signifying a weak correlation, however when the correlation is weighted by the measurement uncertainties on the radial velocity and BIS values, the coefficient drops to 0.11, or no evidence at all for any correlation.
We also searched for a correlation between the chromospheric activity $S$-indices and the velocities as a second useful discriminant that activity is not the source of the observed variations. The measurement of these $S$-indices for HARPS was briefly discussed in @jenkins13a and therefore here we only discuss the CORALIE activity measurement method in Appendix \[appendix\_act\]. In any case the method for both is similar, except for HARPS we use the extracted 1D order-merged spectrum, whereas for CORALIE spectra we perform the calculations using the extracted 2D order-per-order spectrum, similar to the method discussed in @jenkins06.
The second plot in Fig. \[activity\] shows these chromospheric activity $S$-indices as a function of the radial velocity measurements and no apparent correlation is found. The best unweighted linear fit is shown by the solid line and confirms the lack of any correlation between the two parameters. The correlation coefficient also confirms this since an unweighted $r$ coefficient of -0.09, similar to the weighted BIS, is not statistically significant, dropping even lower when considering the weights.
The lower two plots in the figure show the linear correlations against the measured H$\alpha$ and He I D3 activity indicators, respectively. These indices were calculated following the methods discussed in @santos10. For both of these indices, no significant correlation is found when combining the CORALIE and HARPS data. Some moderate correlation between the He I index and the velocities is seen, with an unweighted $r$ correlation coefficient of -0.64 for the HARPS only measurements, decreasing to -0.39 when the CORALIE measurements are added. Judging by the lower panel in the figure, no striking correlation is apparent, given what would be expected for this level of correlation, and once the measurement uncertainties are included to weight the correlation coefficient, the value drops significantly to be in agreement with zero correlation. In fact, we can see that the majority of the data are uncorrelated, from radial velocities between -25 - +55 , with only a few offset data points clustered around -40 driving the correlation. As an aside, if we apply the relationships in @saar and @hatzes02 to calculate the spot coverage expected for a star with the rotational period of HD128356, in order to produce a radial velocity amplitude in agreement with that observed here, then $\sim$5% of disk spot coverage is required, which would likely exhibit as photometric variations that are not observed (see below).
Although the activity indicators for the other stars reported in this work show no evidence for any strong linear correlations, measured by the Pearson Rank correlation coefficient, against the radial velocities, we report the moderately correlated data sets ($|0.5| \ge r \ge |0.75|$). For HD48265 the HARPS BIS values correlate with the radial velocities with a $r$ value of 0.59$\pm$0.25, indicating some moderate correlation between the two parameters. We also note that both the H$\alpha$ and He I indices have values of 0.47 and -0.41, respectively, yet there are large parts of parameter space that are under-sampled by including only the HARPS data alone. When adding in the CORALIE measurements we find these values decrease to 0.22, 0.12, and -0.33 for the three quantities respectively, with uncertainties of $\pm$0.16, indicating that these correlations are not the source of the velocity signal for this star.
The star HD68402 shows HARPS velocity correlations with the BIS and He I indices with $r$ values of 0.79 and 0.52, respectively. We note that there are only five HARPS data points for this star so no result here can be deemed significant. Furthermore, once the CORALIE values are included we find values of 0.01 and 0.12 for these parameters respectively. When including the CORALIE measurements we find a moderate correlation appears between the velocities and the CCF FWHM measurements ($r =$ 0.52$\pm$0.23). Again there appears no significant correlations in the analysis.
Another star with a limited number of HARPS spectra (eight measurements) that give rise to an apparent moderate correlation between the radial velocities and activity indicators is HD72892. The HARPS CCF FWHM and He I measurements have Pearson rank correlation coefficients of 0.58 and 0.73, respectively, with uncertainties of $\pm$0.38. When the CORALIE measurements are added to the HARPS data we find this correlation becomes insignificant, with values of only -0.47 and 0.10, respectively, and uncertainties of $\pm$0.19. However, the $H\alpha$ indices now exhibit a moderate correlation with the velocities ($r =$ 0.57). The signal for this star has an amplitude of nearly 320 and a period of $\sim$40 days. Although 40 days is a plausible rotational period for this type of very inactive G5 dwarf star, the fact that it is so inactive indicates that such a large signal would be difficult to produce through spot rotation. In fact, if we calculate the spot coverage as above, then 20-25% of disk spot coverage is required, which can be ruled out based on the photometric stability and the low measurement.
For HD152079 the HARPS $H\alpha$ index correlates with the velocities with a correlation coefficient $r$ of 0.66$\pm$0.24, although none of the the other indicators show any evidence for correlations, and when adding the CORALIE data, the correlation coefficient decreases to a value of only 0.47$\pm$0.17. We note that the variations in the measurements are only changing at the few $\times$10$^{-3}$ level, from 0.203 to 0.208 in our HARPS $H\alpha$ index.
The star HD165155 shows a correlation between the velocities and the HARPS CCF FWHM with a value of -0.66$\pm$0.23, although with a large spread. Addition of the CORALIE CCF FWHM decreases the value to 0.12$\pm$0.17, rendering this result insignificant.
HD224538 shows moderate correlation between the velocities and the $H\alpha$ indices at the level of 0.69$\pm$0.22 in the HARPS data, and at the level of 0.27$\pm$0.15 when the CORALIE values are included. Again the variation is only at the few $\times$10$^{-3}$ level, which is likely to be insignificant.
The periodogram analysis for each of the five activity indicators did not reveal any significant periods that could explain the detected signals in any of the stars considered here (see Appendix \[appendix5\]), however a few features do appear. For the star HD72892 there are emerging peaks in the periodograms of the BIS, FWHM, $S$ and He I indices at periods between 11-13 days, and although this region is distinct from the detected planetary signal, these may be linked to the rotational period of the star, however there is a peak in the window function at 22.5 days that could be giving rise to a peak at the first harmonic in these indices. For HD128356, the moderately active star, both the BIS and FWHM timeseries show peaks that agree with a period around 1250 days that has no counterpart in the window function, meaning this could be a magnetic cycle, but it is far from the detected Doppler signal period. HD147873 does show a unique peak close to the lower period signal in the radial velocities in the He I indices with a period of around 120 days, yet the peak is not significant. The H$\alpha$ indices show an emerging peak with a period of $\sim$70 days as the strongest signal for HD165155 that could point to the rotation period for this star but there is a window function peak emerging at 63.5 days, that is likely unrelated to this peak, but is worthy of note. In any case, neither of these are related to the detected Doppler signal in the radial velocities. Finally, the star HD224538 shows evidence for two peaks in the periodograms of the BIS and H$\alpha$ indices that are in good agreement with signals with periods of 20 days, which again could be a good candidate for the rotational period for this star, however the fifth strongest peak in the window function is found to be at 19 days, meaning there is a non-insignificant probability that this peak is being boosted by the sampling.
Photometric Analysis
--------------------
We decided to photometrically search for a secure rotational period for these stars by employing frequency analyses of the $V$-band All Sky Automated Survey (ASAS; [@pojmanski97]) photometric data. We have previously shown that such analyses can shed light on the rotational periods of planet-host stars and/or short period and long period magnetic cycles (e.g. [@anglada-escude13]; [@jenkins14b]). We tend to focus on the best quality data, ASAS grade A or B using the smallest ASAS apertures that are best for point sources, and typical baselines cover $\sim$9 years at a sampling cadence of $\sim$3 days. Out of all the 11 planet-hosts considered in this work, six show evidence for a significant rotational period or long period magnetic cycle in the photometry, and these are summarised below, with particular focus paid to HD165155.
The six stars showing evidence for a photometric signal in the ASAS timeseries are HD68402, HD147873, HD152079, HD154672, HD165155, and HD224538, and the Lomb-Scargle periodograms for these six stars are shown in Appendix \[appendix4\]. We do not show the periodograms for the remaining six stars since they exhibit no significant frequency peaks. The periodogram for HD68402 shows two strong peaks emerging at periods of 312 days and 2000 days. Neither of these signals reside at periods close to the detected Doppler signal in the radial velocities, however their strength suggests there may be some long term magnetic cycle at play within this star.
The stars HD147873, HD152079, HD154672, and HD224538 all show evidence for long period modulated spot activity, with periods at the extremities of the data timeseries and periodogram sampling $\sim$5000–10000 days. These could be real long term spot cycles or they could be sampling features to due to the limited baselines of the data sets. However, none of these features appear to coincide with the detected radial velocity signal periods, or harmonics there-of. HD154672 has a velocity signal detected at just over 160 days, far from any long period magnetic cycle, whereas the signal in the HD224538 velocities has a period of a few thousand days, which could agree with any potential photometric signal in the ASAS data that is not due to the limited data baseline. However, our analysis never indicated any correlations were evident between the radial velocities and the activity indicators for this star, and its inactive nature, along with the strength of the radial velocity signal ($K =$ 110 ), would make an activity origin unlikely for a star of this type. The evidence from these analyses points to the origin of the detected signals as being due the gravitational influence of orbiting planets.
The star HD152079 has a detected signal in the velocities with a period of a few thousand days, which is approaching the regime where a long period magnetic cycle could be present due to the ASAS photometric periodogram, yet the amplitude of this signal is a little over 30 for this very inactive star. The structure of the long period signals in the power spectrum of these stars are very similar, which argues that the frequencies emerge due to the sampling baseline. A further secondary peak exists in the photometric periodogram for this star at $\sim$830 days. Since this is too short to be associated with the signal in the radial velocities, it is not the origin of that signal but could be a possible sampled magnetic cycle. In any case, the nature of the radial velocity signal is likely Doppler and from an orbiting planetary mass candidate.
We note that for HD147873 and HD224538, additional peaks arise in the periodograms at periods that could be in the range of rotational periods for stars with these types of rotational velocities and stellar radii, or could relate to additional magnetic cycles. For HD147873, there is a strong peak at a period of 29.5 days, very close to the lunar cycle, and since this period was found to arise in other ASAS timeseries, it is likely this is a sampling alias and not the star’s rotational period. For HD224538, the next strongest peak is located at 385 days, with again the 29.5 day period being detected. The 385 day peak is within a small cluster of peaks that surround the Earth’s orbital period, therefore it is likely this is another sampling alias. Hence, it is unlikely that we have made a significant detection of the rotational period for any of these stars, with only tentative detections of long period magnetic cycles.
Finally, we discuss the photometric analysis for the star HD165155 independently, since there is an indication of a peak in the periodogram that is close to the period of the detected signal in the RV measurements. Given that the signal is rather strong, it is unlikely that activity is the source of the signal at this type of period. We also note that the orbital separation is too large to produce star-planet interactions that could cause any photometric signal. From the ASAS periodogram in Appendix \[appendix4\] we can see that again a long period signal emerges, but after this signal, there are two fairly strong peaks with periods of 454 and 344 days. The 454 day signal is the second strongest after the long period peak and it closely matches the period of the signal in the radial velocities at 452 days, indicating the signal could arise from activity or pulsations. As mentioned above, no similar periodicities were found in the activity indicators and since the Hipparcos photometry for this star only consists of 67 measurements, with a scatter in the data of 0.019 magnitudes, no significant periodicity was found in this data either. We also note that by removing the long period trend with periods of 10000 days or more removes the signal at 454 days, signifying it is linked to this long period trend and therefore likely not a true magnetic cycle that could induce such a radial velocity signal as we observe.
There exists a small possibility that the detected radial velocity signal is not of Doppler origin and is due to line asymmetries from stellar activity on this subgiant star, even though the existence of this photometric period is difficult to causally connect to the origin of the radial velocity signal without corroborating periodicities in the spectral activity indicators. Without garnering more data, and since the detected photometric peak in the periodogram could be an alias that is associated with a longer period signal or the window function of the data, we still consider the radial velocity signal as due to an orbiting companion. If, on the other hand, the signal in the velocities is genuinely of astrophysical origin, this data set would serve as a warning when trying to understand the origin of signals in radial velocity timeseries of subgiant stars, even when the signal amplitude is relatively large, and there are no correlations or periodicities in the spectral activity indicators. Thorough searches of existing photometric data should always be performed, where possible, to help to confirm the reality of proposed planetary systems.
----------------------------------------- ------------------- ----------------- --------------- ------------------- ---------------- -----------------
Orbital period $P$ (days) 1179$\pm$34 780.3$\pm$4.6 1103$\pm$33 39.475$\pm$0.004 298.2$\pm$1.6 1046.2$\pm$3.2
Velocity amplitude $K$ (m/s) 20.8$\pm$2.2 27.7$\pm$1.2 54.7$\pm$5.3 318.4$\pm$4.5 36.9$\pm$1.2 72.1$\pm$1.0
Eccentricity $e$ 0.12$\pm$0.05 0.08$\pm$0.05 0.03$\pm$0.06 0.423$\pm$0.006 0.57$\pm$0.08 0.193$\pm$0.015
$\omega$ (rad) 1.78$\pm$0.66 6.0$\pm$2.4 0.3$\pm$2.3 6.010$\pm$0.014 1.47$\pm$0.08 4.21$\pm$0.06
M$_0$ (rad) 3.5$\pm$1.3 4.9$\pm$1.4 6.0$\pm$2.2 2.714$\pm$0.010 3.1$\pm$0.7 3.21$\pm$0.14
() 1.11$\pm$0.14 1.47$\pm$0.12 3.07$\pm$0.35 5.45$\pm$0.37 0.89$\pm$0.07 3.48$\pm$0.24
Semimajor axis $a$ (AU) 2.20$\pm$0.09 1.81$\pm$0.07 2.18$\pm$0.09 0.228$\pm$0.008 0.87$\pm$0.03 1.98$\pm$0.07
$\gamma_{\rm{HARPS}}$ (m/s) -7.2$\pm$1.4 -1.5$\pm$1.6 -34.2$\pm$8.2 -37.8$\pm$1.7 -0.1$\pm$1.9 -1.2$\pm$0.8
$\gamma_{\rm{CORALIE}}$ (m/s) -1.6$\pm$3.0 -4.3$\pm$2.6 -10.6$\pm$4.6 48.7$\pm$3.2 9.4$\pm$2.7 3.4$\pm$2.2
$\gamma_{\rm{MIKE}}$ (m/s) – -3.5$\pm$1.4 – – – -26.6$\pm$1.2
$\sigma_{\rm{HARPS}}$ (m/s) 1.8$\pm$0.6 6.0$\pm$0.6 1.7$\pm$0.9 2.2$\pm$0.7 3.9$\pm$0.7 2.3$\pm$0.6
$\sigma_{\rm{CORALIE}}$ (m/s) 2.2$\pm$1.0 2.7$\pm$1.1 2.0$\pm$1.0 2.0$\pm$1.0 2.1$\pm$1.0 1.8$\pm$0.9
$\sigma_{\rm{MIKE}}$ (m/s) – 2.8$\pm$0.8 – – – 2.8$\pm$0.8
$\dot{\gamma}$ \[ms$^{-1}$year$^{-1}$\] – – – – – –
$P_{T}$ 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 1.6% 0.4% 0.2%
N$_{\rm{Obs}}$ 29 57 20 32 60 80
$\ln B(k,k-1)$ 42.1 103.1 49.4 903.0 144.5 491.9
Orbital period $P$ (days) 116.596$\pm$0.023 491.54$\pm$0.79 2899$\pm$52 163.967$\pm$0.009 434.5$\pm$2.1 1189.1$\pm$5.1
Velocity amplitude $K$ (m/s) 171.5$\pm$1.2 47.9$\pm$1.7 31.3$\pm$1.1 176.3$\pm$0.7 75.8$\pm$3.0 107.0$\pm$2.4
Eccentricity $e$ 0.207$\pm$0.013 0.23$\pm$0.03 0.52$\pm$0.02 0.600$\pm$0.004 0.20$\pm$0.03 0.464$\pm$0.022
$\omega$ (rad) 1.40$\pm$0.05 0.73$\pm$0.20 5.67$\pm$0.06 4.63$\pm$0.01 3.7$\pm$0.2 0.40$\pm$0.03
M$_0$ (rad) 1.65$\pm$0.07 3.09$\pm$0.20 0.8$\pm$0.8 3.60$\pm$0.02 0.9$\pm$0.8 0.3$\pm$0.3
() 5.14$\pm$0.34 2.30$\pm$0.18 2.18$\pm$0.17 4.73$\pm$0.32 2.89$\pm$0.23 5.97$\pm$0.42
Semimajor axis $a$ (AU) 0.522$\pm$0.018 1.36$\pm$0.05 3.98$\pm$0.15 0.59$\pm$0.02 1.13$\pm$0.04 2.28$\pm$0.08
$\gamma_{\rm{HARPS}}$ (m/s) 59.0$\pm$1.2 – -37.9$\pm$7.0 5.2$\pm$0.7 -59.6$\pm$18.7 -15.3$\pm$1.5
$\gamma_{\rm{CORALIE}}$ (m/s) 5.4$\pm$2.2 – -44.8$\pm$8.5 -44.6$\pm$2.0 -87.7$\pm$20.1 27.0$\pm$2.7
$\gamma_{\rm{MIKE}}$ (m/s) 37.6$\pm$3.1 – -13.6$\pm$6.8 28.2$\pm$1.2 – 55.9$\pm$4.3
$\sigma_{\rm{HARPS}}$ (m/s) 2.6$\pm$0.7 – 1.5$\pm$0.6 2.1$\pm$0.5 5.8$\pm$0.6 2.9$\pm$0.6
$\sigma_{\rm{CORALIE}}$ (m/s) 1.9$\pm$0.9 – 2.0$\pm$1.0 2.2$\pm$1.0 3.7$\pm$1.2 2.0$\pm$1.0
$\sigma_{\rm{MIKE}}$ (m/s) 2.4$\pm$1.0 – 2.7$\pm$0.8 3.6$\pm$0.7 – 5.2$\pm$0.7
$\dot{\gamma}$ \[ms$^{-1}$year$^{-1}$\] 2.94$\pm$0.68 – 1.72$\pm$0.47 – 4.00$\pm$1.19 –
$P_{T}$ 2.3% 0.7% 0.1% 2.5% 0.4% 0.2%
N$_{\rm{Obs}}$ 66 – 50 72 38 50
$\ln B(k,k-1)$ 1131.5 145.2 99.1 1709.2 168.9 391.0
----------------------------------------- ------------------- ----------------- --------------- ------------------- ---------------- -----------------
The uncertainties on the and semimajor axis consider the uncertainties on our stellar mass estimate of 10%.\
The $\gamma$ offset is the value after subtracting off the mean of the data set.\
The $\sigma$ terms parameterise the excess noise in our model fits, aka jitter.\
The ln B(k,k-1) are generally the 1-planet models (e.g. B(1,0)) except for HD147873 which is a 2-planet model (B(2,1)).\
$P_{T}$ is each planet’s transit probability.\
N$_{\rm{Obs}}$ are the total number of radial velocities per target star.\
Planet Population Distributions {#results}
===============================
The high metallicity selection bias in our program means we are generally targeting gas giant planets. The working hypothesis being that if such planets are formed through core accretion processes, then large cores can form quickly due to the enrichment of the proto-planetary disk, which gives the planetesimals sufficient time to accrete gaseous material to reach large masses after they cross the critical core mass limit of around 10 ([@mizuno80]).
Mass Function
-------------
The observed mass distribution is a key observational constraint for planet formation models, a constraint which has previously been fit by smooth power law trends with indices around -1 (e.g. [@butler06]; [@lopez12]). In Fig. \[new\_func\] we show the results of applying an exponential function to the data, which we found to be more suited to the current distribution of exoplanets that have been detected over a wide range in stellar mass
$$f(m) = A \times e^{msin(i)} + B$$
where $f(m)$ is the model function that we fit to the data and $A$ and $B$ are the scaling parameter and offset of the model that are left as free parameters to be found following a maximum likelihood procedure with the following Gaussian likelihood function:
$$\mathcal{L}(\Theta) = -0.5 \times \log(2\pi) - \sum_i \log(\sigma_{t,i}) - \frac{\sum_i (y_i-f(m)_i)^2}{\sigma_{t,i}^2}$$
$$\sigma_{t,i} = \sqrt{\sigma_{p,i}^2 + \sigma_{e,i}^2}$$
Here $\mathcal{L}$ is the likelihood function for parameters $\Theta$, $y$ is the observed data (mass function histogram points) for all $i$ histogram points, and $\sigma_p$ and $\sigma_e$ are the Poisson uncertainties and any excess uncertainty for each of the values, respectively. This procedure finds the following values for the modeled parameters 0.89$\pm$0.03, 0.030$^{+0.004}_{-0.003}$, and 0.034$^{+0.009}_{-0.002}$ for $A$, $B$, and $\sigma_e$, respectively. The uncertainties on these parameters were determined using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) procedure in Python, employing the emcee numerical package ([@foreman13]). We used 100 walkers and ran chains of 10000 steps in length, with a 1000 step burn-in, which relates to a final chain length of 900,000 steps, with a final mean acceptance rate of 49%. The parameter values we measure are insensitive to small changes in the bin size used in the histogram, which we set to be 0.5, a value that allows enough samples in most of the bins to reflect the smoothly varying distribution.
At the right of Fig. \[new\_func\] we show the parameter extent probed by the chains, where we used uniform priors for the parameters except the excess uncertainty, where we employed a Jeffries prior where the probability is proportional to 1/$\sigma$. The distribution of the parameters are well confined to the region around the maximum likelihood value for each, showing the model we put forward is an acceptable representation of the current exoplanet mass function. We note that the $A$ and $B$ parameters follow Gaussian distributions, whereas the excess noise parameter is more like a skewed Gaussian or Poisson distribution, where the lower 1$\sigma$ credibility limit is found to be close to the maximum likelihood value of 0.03. In any case, it seems that the mass function appears to be fairly well described by an exponential function.
Mass-Metallicity Functions
--------------------------
As Fig. \[met\_mass\] shows, we tested if there was any metallicity dependence in the mass function. In order to test this we split the sample into three metallicity bins, a high metallicity bin (\[Fe/H\]$\ge$+0.2 dex), an intermediate metallicity bin (-0.1$\le$\[Fe/H\]$<$+0.2 dex), and a low metallicity bin (\[Fe/H\]$<$-0.1 dex). These bin sizes allowed a useful number of samples in each bin to statistically probe the distributions.
Metallicity splitting gives us probabilities (D-statistics) from two-tailed KS-tests of 8% (0.165) that the high metallicity bin and the low metallicity bin are drawn from the same parent population, and 6% (0.161) that the intermediate metallicity planet-hosts and the low metallicity planet hosts are also drawn from the same population. By combining the high metallicity bin and the low metallicity bin values and comparing those to the intermediate metallicity bin, the probability is essentially the same, only dropping the D-statistic by 0.01, with a probability of only 6% that the two populations are statistically similar. To perform this test we decided to remove the lowest mass planets from the metal-poor and intermediate-metallicity samples since @jenkins13a shows that there appears to be a correlation between the mass and metallicity in the low-mass regime. Therefore, we only consider planets with minimum masses above 0.0184 as this is the lowest mass planet in the high metallicity sample, neglecting the exceptional case of the planet orbiting Alpha Centauri B ([@dumusque12]) that @hatzes13 and @rajpaul15 claim may be attributed to other phenomena like stellar activity or sampling ghosts.
In order to firm up these statistics we also ran the samples through the Anderson-Darling (AD) test, which generally tends to be more sensitive than the standard KS test since it gives more statistical weight to the tails of the distribution. From these tests we found p-values of 2% and 5% for the comparison between the high metallicity and low-metallicity samples, and between the intermediate and low-metallicity samples, respectively. This is in good agreement with the KS test results, indicating that there is a correlation between mass and metallicity, whereby metal-rich stars produce many more Jupiter-mass planets compared to super-Jupiters, but metal-poorer stars produce a higher fraction of super-Jupiters than Jupiters compared to the metal-rich population. However, the current sample of host star properties were not drawn from a homogeneous source and therefore the heterogeneous nature of the data could be influencing the results.
To try to circumvent this problem, we decided to search for our sample of exoplanet-hosts in the SWEET-Cat catalogue ([@santos13]). The SWEET-Cat is a project that plans to eventually contain all exoplanet host star properties like and metallicity that have been measured using high resolution spectroscopy in a homogeneous fashion. We were able to find 93% of our sample in the SWEET-Cat, but some of these were not measured homogeneously. From this sample we reran the KS tests and found probabilities of 9.1% that the high and low metallicity bins are drawn from the same parent population and 13.8% that the intermediate and low metallicity bins are drawn from the same distribution.
A further step that was taken was to remove even more information but improve the homogeneity of the sample. We selected only those stars with a homogeneous flag of 1 in the SWEET-Cat, which means that the properties of these stars were measured using the same general methodology. This selection resulted in a 20% loss of information but still contained a total sample size of 358 planet-hosts, however the low metallicity bin only contained 64 stars, whereas the high and intermediate bins have sample sizes of 131 and 163 objects, respectively. The KS test probabilities are now significantly lower than the full sample, having values of 38.0% and 52.0% that the high and intermediate mass functions are statistically similar to that of the low metallicity bin. These tests likely show that currently there are no statistically significant correlations between planetary mass and the metallicity of their host stars, as claimed by @mortier12, and the overabundance of Jupiter’s is not due to the enhanced formation of such planets as a function of metallicity. We did not run the SWEET-Cat samples through the AD test since the results were shown to be very similar to the KS tests for the full sample.
Other Observational Properties
------------------------------
Within the period-mass plane some features can be seen in the metallicities of exoplanet host stars. An examination of the left plot in Fig. \[properties\] reveals that there is a broad mix of metallicities for the gas giant planets and the planets we publish here are located predominantly in the upper right quadrant of the plot, with only two having periods below 100 days.
### Host Star Metallicities
It appears that the lowest mass planets are found mostly on short period orbits, due to the inherent sensitivities of Doppler surveys, and they also appear to orbit metal-poor stars in general, hence the dominance of the black points towards the bottom left of the left hand panel in Fig. \[properties\]. This result was previously highlighted by @jenkins13a, revealing a ’planet desert’ for the most metal-rich stars, and subsequent confirmation has also been discussed in @marshall14. The nature of this desert could be explained by core accretion theory whereby the lower density discs have limited metals to form cores, whereas the high density discs can readily form high-mass cores that quickly grow to more massive objects, crossing the critical core mass limit and becoming gas giants. In fact, the metallic properties of all planets with periods of less than 100 days appears to be different when we compare planets more massive or less massive than 0.1 . In the plot, this is shown by the significantly higher fraction of red data points above a mass of 0.1 compared to below that limit.
More directly we can test the reality that the metallicity distribution for planets with periods of 100 days or less have a different metallicity distribution by again applying an AD test to the sample of known exoplanets. We chose to apply the sample to the homogeneous samples that we previously cross-matched with the SWEET-Cat list. This test reveals a T-statistic of 8.54 when adjusted for all non-unique values, revealing a probability of 2$\times10^{-4}$ that these samples are statistically similar. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test yields a similar probability value (4$\times10^{-4}$) with a D-statistic of 0.375. The histograms of both populations are shown in the top plot of Fig. \[met\_hist\_sub100\]. Although the two histograms appear to show similar forms, the host stars that contain lower-mass planets currently has a flatter shape than the host stars containing higher-mass planets in this period space. Although the sample sizes are small, 48 objects in the low-mass population for example, it does appear that the lowest-mass planets are drawn from a different metallicity sample when compared with the most massive planets, within the limits of the current data set. In the future with many more discoveries of very low-mass planets orbiting the nearest stars from Doppler surveys, since these represent the most precise metallicities that can be measured, trends such as those discussed here can be tested at a higher level of statistical significance.
Further to this, the high-mass planet sample may indicate there is a non-uniform metallicity distribution as a function of period. To test this we split the high-mass planet sample into two bins with orbital periods less than or equal to 100 days and those beyond 100 days. The binned histogram for both samples is shown in the lower plot of Fig. \[met\_hist\_sub100\], and although the distributions appear less discrepant than the mass cut in the top plot, there is an indication of a functional change in the metal-poor regime. The AD test of the metallicities from these samples returns a T-statistic of 7.62, leading to a probability of 4$\times10^{-4}$ that the samples are similar. This time the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test reveals a slightly smaller probability of the null hypothesis, returning a value of 8$\times10^{-3}$ and a D-statistic of 0.223. Therefore we find that, in general, short period giant planets have higher metallicities than those at longer periods, with a mean value of \[Fe/H\] of 0.16 dex for the sub-100 day planets and a value of 0.06 dex for the giant planets with orbital periods longer than 100 days, as suggested by @sozzetti04 and @pinotti05.
@mordasini12 constructed global population synthesis models of forming planets in a range of disc environments to search for expected correlations between planetary orbital parameters and bulk compositions against disc properties. They found that planets tend to migrate more in low-metallicity discs compared to more metal-rich discs because the cores that form in the low-metallicity environment need to migrate more to undergo enough collisions to grow to the critical mass limit and transition from Type I migration to the slower Type II migration. They suggest no clear correlation between semimajor axis, or orbital period, exists because the planets in low-metallicity discs also form further from the central star than in the high-metallicity discs, and so the increased efficiency of migration in the low-metallicity environment is compensated by the increased distance the planets need to travel inward towards the star.
These modeling efforts tend to be at odds with the findings we have made unless certain conditions apply. If giant planets in metal-poor discs migrate more then we would expect to see the opposite result, unless the planets start their journeys very far out in the disc before arriving at their current locations. In addition, another scenario could be that the low-metallicity discs are dispersed faster than high-metallicity discs through photo-evaporation ([@yasui09]; [@ercolano10]). This effect is thought to be due to the lower optical depth of the disc allowing the UV and X-ray flux to pass deeper into the disc, dispersing the inner regions faster, meaning there is no remaining gas and dust for the planet to interact with, essentially halting its migration earlier when compared to a planet migrating through a metal-rich disc. Finally, in the Mordasini et al. model, they predominantly consider mostly inward migration of cores, however recent work has shown that disc structure is important in defining the dominant torques that drive planet migration and in the inner discs that are heated by the intensity of the young star’s radiation field, corotation torques dominate over the differential Linblad torques, leading to outward migration of the cores ([@kretke12]). Further to this, random walk motion too can be important for migrating low-mass cores ([@nelson04]; [@laughlin04]; [@nelson05]) and dead-zones in the disk can subsequently halt the migration of forming low-mass cores ([@balmforth01]; [@li09]; [@yu10]). All of these processes could lead to the preservation of a period-metallicity relationship that favours short period planets predominantly being found orbiting more metal-rich stars and longer-period planets being found in more metal-poor environments.
Orbital Eccentricities
----------------------
In the right plot in Fig. \[properties\] we show the same period-minimum mass plane, yet this time the colour scaling highlights the eccentricity distribution. We can see that the majority of the short period planets ($P \le$10 days) are generally found to have circular orbits, a fact that can be attributed to the planets tidal interactions with the host star that tends to circularised their orbits. We also see that the majority of the low-mass planets are found on circular orbits too (black points), in comparison to the high-mass planets where a significant fraction of them have moderate-to-high eccentricities (red points). Note that there is also a selection bias towards the detection of higher eccentricities that depends on the quantity of radial velocity data points that describes a given signal ([@otoole09]), whilst high eccentricity also elevates the amplitude of a given Doppler signal, which can sometimes make them easier to detect.
If we again split the planets up into two mass bins, where the low-mass planets have minimum masses of $\le$0.1 and the high mass bin comprises all planets with minimum masses above this limit, the eccentricity means and standard deviations of the two populations are 0.13 and 0.12 for the low-mass planet population and 0.25 and 0.21 for the high-mass planet sample. Taken at face value, the increased standard deviation for the higher mass sample tells us the spread in eccentricities in this mass regime is higher than for the lower mass planets. There is a strong bias here where the low-mass planet sample has a significantly lower mean orbital period, with a much higher fraction of planets orbiting close enough to the star to be quickly circularised through tidal dissipation of the orbits. Furthermore, there is a tendency to fix the eccentricity to zero when performing Keplerian fits to radial velocity data, in order to remove this additional degree of freedom and the degeneracy with other parameters being fit at the same time.
Summary {#conclusions}
=======
We have used the CORALIE, HARPS and MIKE spectrographs to discover eight new giant planets orbiting seven super metal-rich stars, and a star of solar metallicity, along with updated orbits for four previously published planets. We include radial velocity data prior- and post-2014 CORALIE upgrade and our Bayesian updating method returned a systematic offset of 19.2$\pm$4.8 between the two velocity sets for our stars. The new planets cover a wide area of the giant planet parameter space, having a range of masses, periods, and eccentricities, including a double planet system that was found orbiting the most massive star in our list, and a 14 Herculis $b$ analogue that has a minimum mass of $\sim$5.5, an orbital period of nearly 1200 days, and significant eccentricity (e=0.46), adding another member to the sub-population of massive eccentric planets orbiting super metal-rich stars.
We introduced our method for measuring the chromospheric $S$-index that is a measure of the magnetic activity of Sun-like stars using CORALIE spectra. These activities, along with bisector measurements, CCF FWHM’s, H$\alpha$ indices, HeI indices, and Hipparcos and ASAS photometry, were used to rule out the origin of the planetary Doppler signal as being due to line modulations from rotationally influenced star spot migration or other activity phenomena like chromospheric plage or stellar pulsations.
We show that the mass function for planets is well described by an exponential function with a scaling parameter of 0.89$\pm$0.03 and an offset of 0.030$^{+0.004}_{-0.003}$. We confirm the lack of the lowest-mass planets orbiting metal-rich stars and we also find a period-metallicity correlation for giant planets. The population of planets with masses $\ge$0.1 and orbital periods less than 100 days is found to be more metal-rich than the same mass planets with orbital periods greater than 100 days. The difference is significant at the 0.004% level and the mean difference is found to be 0.16 dex between the two populations. This result could be describing the formation locations of planets in the early disks, with metal-rich disks forming planets in the inner regions and metal-poor disks forming planets further out in the disk, or that giant planets migrate more in metal-rich disks, due to a stronger torque interaction between the high surface density disk and the migrating planet.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the anonymous referee for providing a fair and helpful report. We are also thankful for the useful discussions with Francois Menard and to Andres Jord[á]{}n for providing access to the CORALIE pipeline. JSJ acknowledges funding by Fondecyt through grants 1161218 and 3110004, partial support from CATA-Basal (PB06, Conicyt), the GEMINI-CONICYT FUND and from the Comité Mixto ESO-GOBIERNO DE CHILE, and from the Conicyt PIA Anillo ACT1120. MJ acknowledges financial support from Fondecyt project \#3140607. DM is supported by the BASAL CATA Center for Astrophysics and Associated Technologies through grant PFB-06, by the Ministry for the Economy, Development, and Tourism’s Programa Iniciativa Científica Milenio through grant IC120009, awarded to Millenium Institute of Astrophysics (MAS), and by FONDECYT Regular grant No. 1130196. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database and the VizieR catalogue access tool, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
Stable Star Results {#appendix_stable}
===================
To confirm the stability of the CORALIE pipeline reduction and analysis procedure we have observed a star known to be radial velocity stable at the $\sim$2 level that should provide an ideal test candidate for our method. HD72673 is a bright ($V$=6.38), nearby (12.2 pc), and inactive ( = -4.946 [@isaacson10]) G9 dwarf star that has a metallicity of -0.38$\pm$0.04 dex ([@marsakov88]; [@santos04]; [@valenti05]), and a mass and age of 0.814$\pm$0.032 and 1.48$^{+5.44}_{-1.48}$ Gyrs ([@takeda07]), respectively.
In the upper panel of Fig. \[hd72673\_harps\] we show the radial velocity timeseries for HD72673 observed with HARPS that was taken from the ESO Archive[^2]. The data span a baseline of over 1900 days in total and comprise 363 individual radial velocity measurements where we have removed 5$\sigma$ outliers that corresponded to bad weather observations, and therefore had very low S/N data, like the point at BJD-2453724.79378. After subtracting off the mean of the data, which we use as our standard flat noise model, we find a rms of 1.44 . The lower panel shows the same data except zoomed in on the most densely sampled observing epoch (BJD 2453500 - 2454000). Some structure is found in the radial velocities throughout this epoch and could be the first signatures of low-amplitude Doppler shifts induced by orbiting low-mass planets, or stellar activity signals affecting the velocities. In any case the HARPS velocities agree that HD72673 does not show large radial velocity variations and is a useful star for testing the precision we can achieve with our CORALIE pipeline.
CORALIE Observations
--------------------
Over the course of four years we have performed 108 observations of the star HD72673 with CORALIE, combining data from this project and also from the HAT-South ([@bakos12]) CORALIE observations. The sampling and time baseline provide an excellent diagnostic test of the long term stability that is currently attained with the CORALIE using the procedure described in @jordan14.
For the observations of HD72673 we aimed to get a S/N of around 100 across the optical regime of interest, leading to typical integration times of $\sim$5 minutes. Fig. \[hd72673\_rv\] shows the full radial velocity dataset as a function of time and clearly we see only a small linear trend over the full baseline of observations. No large systematic trends are found in our dataset and the gradient of the best fit we show is 0.004 /day, well below the intrinsic scatter of our procedure. The rms scatter for the full data is found to be 10.9 , however after removing a 5-$\sigma$ outlier due to low S/N we arrive at a scatter of 8.7 , or 8.6 after subtraction of the linear trend shown in the figure. Therefore, we consider the precision of the CORALIE observations to be 9 , consistent with the precision reported by @jordan14, but covering a longer time baseline.
MMSE Periodograms
=================
The minimum mean square error periodograms from the radial velocity timeseries data discussed in this work. The vertical dashed lines mark the signals detected by the MCMC search algorithm.
MCMC Posterior Densities
========================
Here we show the posterior densities from our MCMC search for signals in the radial velocities for all targets in this work. We show the densities from the samplings for the periods, semiamplitudes, and eccentricities for all signals.
CORALIE Chromospheric Activity Indices {#appendix_act}
======================================
We measure the CORALIE activities using only four echelle orders, even though the regions we require for the $S_{\rm{MW}}$ passbands are found across five orders. We drop one of the orders (order 4) due to an excess of noise at the blue end, which is due to the position of the echellogram where the V passband is found and therefore including this order enhances the uncertainty in the $S$-index and, in general, artificially increases the activity value making each star appear more active than it really is. We note that this could be taken out by calibration to other chromospheric indexes. We show the CORALIE extraction regions in Fig. \[cor\_passes\].
We compute the activities by integrating the square continuum V (3891-3911Å) and R (3991-4011Å) bandpasses and taking the ratio of these against the integrated flux in the triangular core bandpasses, described in the following series of equations:
$$\label{eq:activity}
f_{j,i} = \Im_{j,i} * B_{j,i} * \delta\lambda$$
$$S_{cont} = \frac{ \sum{(f_{V,i} + f_{R,i})} }{ \sum{(B_{V,i} + B_{R,i}) * \delta\lambda} }$$
$$S_{core} = \frac{ \sum{(f_{K,i} + f_{H,i})} }{ \sum{(B_{K,i} + B_{H,i}) * \delta\lambda} }$$
$$\sigma_{S_{cont}} = \frac{ \sqrt{ \sum{ \left( \sqrt{(\sigma_{f_{V,i}}^2 + \sigma_{f_{R,i}}^2)} \right) }^2 } }{ \sum{(B_{V,i} + B_{R,i}) * \delta\lambda} }$$
$$\sigma_{S_{core}} = \frac{ \sqrt{ \sum{ \left( \sqrt{(\sigma_{f_{K,i}}^2 + \sigma_{f_{H,i}}^2)} \right) }^2 } }{ \sum{(B_{K,i} + B_{H,i}) * \delta\lambda} }$$
The cont and core subscripts represent the continuum and core regions of the spectrum respectively, $\Im$ is the flux measured in each wavelength domain ($i$), $j$ here denotes either the V,R,K, or H bandpass regions, and $\delta\lambda$ is the wavelength step (dispersion), which at the resolution of CORALIE is $\sim$0.023Å.
Activity Indicator Periodograms
===============================
Lomb-Scargle periodograms of the activity indicators measured from the CORALIE and HARPS timeseries spectra.
ASAS Periodograms
=================
Lomb-Scargle periodograms of the ASAS timeseries $V$-band photometric data for the six stars that show peaks that could be related to magnetic activity on the surface of the star.
Radial Velocities
=================
Here we provide all radial velocities that are discussed in this work.
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------
CORALIE HARPS
2455160.5362269 7.2 9.0 2455188.6187049 10.77 0.55
2455161.5372730 -11.8 9.0 2455883.6145165 -10.66 0.86
2455162.5377306 30.2 9.0 2455885.5904695 -12.54 1.03
2455467.6819298 -35.8 9.0 2456183.7872355 12.43 0.48
2455468.7578863 -25.8 9.0 2456184.6697746 9.39 0.79
2455878.6618959 -8.9 9.0 2456184.8402196 8.10 0.92
2455879.6756525 -5.9 15.0 2456185.7970768 13.90 0.55
2456160.7988170 6.0 9.0 2456442.9352036 3.98 0.69
2456164.7903294 38.0 9.0 2456461.9331703 0.26 0.74
2456307.5567717 23.0 9.0 2456463.8950719 1.48 0.77
2456308.5698681 20.0 9.0 2456561.7814364 -13.46 0.50
2456675.6083797 -22.0 9.0 2456562.5748725 -12.24 0.86
2456676.6025593 -16.0 9.0 2456563.6078357 -13.76 0.78
2456881.8675908 -20.2 12.0
2456882.8265879 -17.2 12.0
2456883.7721760 -13.2 12.0
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------ -------------- ------- -----
CORALIE HARPS MIKE
2455208.6992489 1.8 9.0 2454365.8248037 -32.25 0.77 2452920.8629 20.6 6.9
2455209.7264368 10.8 9.0 2454366.8740710 -25.18 0.99 2453431.6073 -30.2 2.5
2455210.7165285 -29.2 9.0 2454367.8521212 -29.87 0.62 2453455.5573 -35.0 2.6
2455465.8329696 16.8 9.0 2454580.5231386 22.43 0.64 2453685.8138 15.0 2.9
2455468.8765488 27.8 9.0 2454581.5537085 23.60 0.56 2453774.6744 25.0 3.3
2455877.7963300 -4.2 15.0 2454724.8337096 -14.14 0.59 2453775.6763 12.4 5.2
2455878.7843441 13.8 9.0 2454725.8177884 -13.78 0.53 2453784.6887 25.4 2.6
2455879.7984724 10.8 9.0 2454726.7789038 -14.84 0.80 2453811.5943 24.3 2.5
2455969.6052648 -19.2 9.0 2455651.5366350 -15.41 0.56 2453987.9168 -7.7 2.9
2455970.7499814 -17.2 9.0 2455883.7630397 -7.88 0.70 2454078.7826 -17.9 3.0
2455971.7266404 -21.2 9.0 2455885.7426863 -1.10 0.92 2454081.7133 -23.4 2.8
2456034.5026492 13.8 9.0 2455992.5816638 18.09 0.56 2454137.6436 -20.7 2.5
2456037.5096202 37.8 9.0 2455994.5576882 23.81 0.61 2454138.6670 -28.7 2.6
2456164.8925279 15.8 9.0 2456183.8678319 52.75 0.59 2454189.5669 -29.5 4.4
2456378.6064455 -15.2 9.0 2456185.8516258 57.16 0.66 2454483.6148 28.5 3.0
2456379.5444957 -21.2 9.0 2456442.4578668 -16.22 0.91 2454501.6725 21.5 2.4
2456380.6001445 -6.2 9.0 2456444.4478133 -14.86 1.07 2454522.6219 25.4 2.7
2456381.5979512 -15.2 9.0 2456562.8313800 -12.48 0.73
2456733.6079032 2.9 9.0
2456736.5950580 19.9 10.0
2456753.5245324 3.9 10.0
2456754.5405659 7.9 10.0
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------ -------------- ------- -----
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------
CORALIE HARPS
2455268.5536332 11.4 9.0 2456442.5125503 -21.04 1.51
2455269.5471815 0.4 9.0 2456444.4892384 -17.13 1.66
2455270.5544347 4.4 9.0 2456562.9026514 12.99 1.46
2456034.5316938 -45.6 9.0 2456563.8260976 13.44 1.51
2456037.5405384 -31.6 9.0 2456563.9098232 11.72 2.07
2456307.7270563 -32.6 9.0
2456308.7455901 -18.6 9.0
2456675.7326419 47.4 16.0
2456675.7405950 64.4 17.0
2456735.5968024 45.0 12.0
2456736.6337750 33.0 14.0
2456752.5562350 38.0 13.0
2456754.5693098 53.0 15.0
2456823.4935737 33.0 15.0
2456825.4656166 8.0 12.0
2457075.6564372 -43.1 14.0
2457318.8514672 -19.1 14.0
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- --------- ------
CORALIE HARPS
2455698.5075694 223.8 9.0 2456442.5223438 -195.55 1.12
2455699.5368477 337.8 9.0 2456443.5281580 -167.05 1.77
2455700.5250521 444.8 9.0 2456444.5101783 -134.83 1.36
2455968.7197064 -111.2 9.0 2456448.4605785 144.30 1.29
2455969.7048152 -77.2 9.0 2456449.4624615 248.19 0.82
2455970.6308925 -55.2 9.0 2456450.4614518 357.16 1.21
2455972.6288495 61.8 9.0 2456462.4520834 -114.51 1.13
2456034.5646797 -129.2 9.0 2456463.4499736 -137.72 1.69
2456037.5717726 -156.2 9.0
2456307.7713660 -110.3 9.0
2456308.7833076 -126.3 9.0
2456378.6598031 159.7 9.0
2456379.5959537 128.7 9.0
2456463.4576754 -57.3 9.0
2456464.4530818 -80.3 14.0
2456465.4567122 -111.3 9.0
2456467.4802779 -147.3 16.0
2456675.7562736 -196.3 9.0
2456734.6035167 134.1 11.0
2456752.6156272 -176.9 13.0
2456754.5855485 -154.9 13.0
2456824.4911691 -138.9 15.0
2457184.4724902 -161.0 13.0
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- --------- ------
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------
CORALIE HARPS
2455268.9086205 -22.1 9.0 2454248.6023117 16.75 1.66
2455269.8196218 -34.1 9.0 2454248.6108994 21.79 1.69
2455349.6784180 -16.1 9.0 2454248.6176931 17.99 0.69
2455350.6814856 14.9 9.0 2454367.5031968 -31.24 0.66
2455351.6612024 -4.1 9.0 2454369.5091063 -37.97 2.49
2455352.6667444 -6.1 9.0 2454577.6158842 35.96 0.48
2455609.8365887 -27.1 14.0 2454578.5680249 35.50 0.52
2455611.8334577 -13.1 9.0 2454581.7357981 41.67 0.47
2455699.7015878 9.9 9.0 2455271.8690903 -23.11 0.36
2455967.8551252 27.9 9.0 2455649.7321937 -6.46 0.46
2455968.8240257 39.9 9.0 2455650.7148680 -6.51 0.49
2455970.8305273 20.9 9.0 2455651.7295683 -7.26 0.50
2455971.7742759 31.9 9.0 2455786.4827996 50.87 0.51
2455972.8507044 46.9 9.0 2455787.4566297 49.97 0.36
2456034.8259987 11.9 9.0 2455992.7730262 9.21 0.39
2456037.8192588 27.9 9.0 2455993.7048066 9.29 0.52
2456160.4758000 -6.1 9.0 2456063.6469346 34.67 0.78
2456164.4757457 -9.1 9.0 2456064.6145915 35.94 0.45
2456381.7122851 15.9 9.0 2456065.6564584 36.26 0.43
2456463.5427541 -23.1 9.0 2456183.4873901 -31.26 0.60
2456464.6240954 -35.1 9.0 2456442.6772101 -46.63 0.46
2456465.6419917 -45.1 9.0 2456443.6828424 -46.21 0.77
2456467.5931893 -26.1 16.0 2456444.6629996 -45.18 0.91
2456467.6621264 -24.1 9.0 2456450.4938930 -40.30 0.62
2456676.8044908 19.8 9.0 2456462.6290393 -36.01 0.54
2456734.7225188 -35.2 10.0 2456463.5862333 -35.50 0.80
2456752.8173417 -30.2 12.0 2456562.4755850 -3.37 0.56
2456823.7074373 1.8 14.0
2456825.7157702 6.8 12.0
2456881.5522933 4.8 12.0
2456882.5702439 20.8 15.0
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------ --------------- --------- ------
CORALIE HARPS MIKE
2455269.8328453 31.9 12.0 2454253.7711993 10.50 3.17 2452864.57934 43.03 7.14
2455269.8477334 30.9 12.0 2454253.7786414 9.06 2.22 2453130.83712 -6.28 2.65
2455349.6897288 9.9 14.0 2454367.5565354 -23.81 1.09 2453872.73696 28.04 2.62
2455349.7090115 6.9 15.0 2454368.5376348 -23.64 1.13 2453987.50506 38.49 3.45
2455350.6957245 -5.2 17.0 2454578.7885789 -83.52 0.83 2453988.49460 25.06 2.81
2455350.7085995 -11.2 22.0 2454581.8076461 -81.90 0.92 2454190.80550 0.00 3.43
2455351.6772114 3.9 13.0 2455271.8809609 19.62 0.77 2454217.84734 -7.02 3.38
2455351.6921046 -0.2 14.0 2455649.7540214 -83.51 0.94 2454277.65819 -29.11 3.43
2455352.6804150 -8.2 13.0 2455786.5132754 -30.99 0.89 2454299.55951 -37.73 3.04
2455352.6925204 2.9 12.0 2455992.7979663 55.69 1.23 2454300.58038 -36.03 2.51
2455465.4819439 -37.2 19.0 2455993.7269629 65.78 0.89 2454339.50049 -52.16 3.39
2455465.4921698 -41.2 18.0 2456063.6718947 68.27 2.14 2454501.87197 -94.15 3.01
2455466.4810091 -44.2 20.0 2456064.6371793 65.24 0.87 2454650.68383 -105.06 6.82
2455467.4908225 -36.2 13.0 2456065.6805773 64.11 0.80 2454925.87115 21.04 2.76
2455786.5181546 -28.2 13.0 2456184.5078021 53.36 0.84 2454963.75707 34.93 3.05
2455787.5128697 -32.2 12.0 2456442.6901584 -22.67 0.90 2454965.78744 31.39 2.82
2455788.5005189 -18.2 12.0 2456443.6959898 -19.26 1.96 2455019.67861 27.65 2.46
2455967.8637123 48.8 14.0 2456444.7117386 -20.46 1.79
2455969.8564628 55.8 14.0 2456462.6564547 -25.82 0.97
2455970.8440395 49.8 14.0
2455971.8236578 61.8 14.0
2455972.8379866 52.8 14.0
2456034.8111668 73.8 14.0
2456037.8046599 73.7 12.0
2456160.4914594 49.7 11.0
2456161.4914636 58.7 12.0
2456162.5761051 53.7 18.0
2456164.4909267 46.7 12.0
2456381.7216801 -14.3 15.0
2456381.7325023 -13.3 14.0
2456463.6056985 -23.3 12.0
2456465.6944440 -22.3 12.0
2456467.5744277 -75.3 23.0
2456554.5120400 -28.3 16.0
2456554.5219817 -49.3 20.0
2456555.5573278 -33.3 13.0
2456676.8679860 -68.4 14.0
2456734.7382463 -61.4 12.0
2456752.8000194 -39.4 13.0
2456754.7548507 -51.4 13.0
2456823.7338512 -33.4 13.0
2456825.7551623 -36.4 13.0
2456881.6125148 5.6 12.0
2456882.6036411 17.6 15.0
2457281.5366030 71.5 19.0
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------ --------------- --------- ------
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- --------- ------ --------------- -------- ------
CORALIE HARPS MIKE
2455268.8296124 66.7 9.0 2454365.5676419 -165.09 4.83 2453189.66944 0.00 3.38
2455269.8954986 58.7 9.0 2454580.8338639 86.26 2.48 2453190.64093 -9.92 3.36
2455270.8623072 41.7 9.0 2454581.8459239 77.96 1.73 2453191.65473 -5.91 3.56
2455349.7478270 4.7 9.0 2454724.4802846 -117.74 1.27 2453551.62308 -72.79 5.00
2455351.7263025 -9.3 9.0 2454725.4983255 -121.37 1.56 2454339.53949 134.00 4.93
2455352.7243194 3.7 9.0 2454726.4832450 -120.54 1.57 2455001.70315 156.04 4.48
2455465.5203302 38.7 9.0 2455271.8407105 124.30 1.42
2455466.5103888 25.7 9.0 2455649.7654997 -73.82 2.01
2455467.5077317 39.7 9.0 2455786.5492317 -102.21 2.08
2455468.4926389 32.7 9.0 2455787.4838577 -93.49 1.66
2455786.5547221 -195.3 9.0 2455787.6993011 -92.88 2.53
2455787.5512296 -190.3 9.0 2455788.4587689 -86.93 1.92
2455788.5404119 -170.3 9.0 2455788.6109888 -91.50 2.10
2455968.8355111 100.7 9.0 2455788.7074614 -83.90 3.01
2455970.8644298 74.7 9.0 2455992.8338522 -77.92 1.67
2456034.8536087 -19.3 9.0 2455993.7871396 -80.38 2.00
2456037.8611090 8.7 9.0 2455994.7989047 -90.35 2.11
2456160.5035894 15.7 9.0 2456063.7089752 250.12 3.48
2456161.5099351 22.7 9.0 2456064.7231089 258.36 1.87
2456164.5890537 55.7 9.0 2456183.4686863 223.49 3.03
2456307.8687079 112.7 9.0 2456184.4750146 219.57 3.41
2456308.8690886 117.7 9.0 2456442.7882798 95.12 2.19
2456381.7577061 -119.3 9.0 2456444.7375998 62.78 3.16
2456463.6629499 -189.3 9.0
2456464.6620073 -190.3 9.0
2456554.5635006 144.7 9.0
2456555.4998324 118.7 9.0
2456676.8378428 -0.3 9.0
2456733.8400326 -56.8 12.0
2456734.7541033 -50.8 11.0
2456735.7646576 -55.8 11.0
2456736.8330743 -47.8 12.0
2456752.8898318 50.2 14.0
2456754.7704681 76.2 13.0
2456823.7610291 -155.8 14.0
2456824.7569383 -181.8 14.0
2456825.8288093 -168.8 14.0
2456881.6254682 130.2 14.0
2456882.6396241 151.2 13.0
2456883.5912828 149.2 13.0
2457179.6595698 -126.8 16.0
2457180.6006537 -127.8 15.0
2457181.5978747 -142.8 13.0
2457182.5980141 -120.8 13.0
2457183.7046858 -119.8 14.0
2457184.6231976 -111.8 13.0
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- --------- ------ --------------- -------- ------
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------ -------------- ------- -----
CORALIE HARPS MIKE
2455786.6489688 -41.7 9.0 2454253.8065363 -20.75 1.75 2452917.4972 -24.3 6.2
2456463.6745808 14.3 9.0 2454367.5811986 -22.95 1.00 2453542.6649 22.5 3.3
2456464.7049704 17.3 9.0 2454579.8264105 -29.21 0.72 2453872.8022 -8.5 2.5
2456465.6766024 8.3 9.0 2455649.8008277 -30.70 1.01 2453987.5436 -10.3 2.8
2456555.5745883 -0.8 9.0 2455650.7595904 -29.43 0.96 2453988.5202 -12.6 2.7
2456676.8549118 2.2 15.0 2455651.8003619 -29.35 0.84 2454190.8274 -13.7 2.9
2456733.8533258 -1.2 13.0 2455786.5261504 -22.51 0.96 2454277.6950 -19.7 3.4
2456734.8495354 -17.2 11.0 2455787.5966780 -22.46 0.85 2454299.6134 -19.6 3.3
2456735.8130233 -10.2 12.0 2455992.9178275 1.25 1.01 2454725.5353 -35.1 2.6
2456736.8653294 7.8 15.0 2455993.8444865 3.09 0.93 2454925.9161 -29.2 2.4
2456752.8688188 8.8 12.0 2456064.7106335 19.86 0.89 2454963.7753 -22.6 2.7
2456754.7851172 0.8 14.0 2456184.5322797 44.23 0.93 2454993.7093 -27.5 2.4
2456823.7916933 16.8 13.0 2456442.7259868 24.77 0.90 2455001.7291 -25.3 2.9
2456824.7696220 -3.2 13.0 2456443.7319729 27.81 1.62 2455017.6624 -28.5 2.4
2456825.8154610 -8.2 13.0 2456444.7714764 25.93 1.28 2455019.6938 -22.5 2.2
2456881.6859346 10.8 13.0 2456462.7752093 19.99 1.30
2456882.6527789 -10.2 12.0 2456561.5772596 18.97 1.25
2456563.5044073 18.41 1.18
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------ -------------- ------- -----
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- --------- ------ --------------- --------- ------
CORALIE HARPS MIKE
2455268.8925184 -51.4 9.0 2454367.5951401 225.90 0.69 2453189.71323 -141.83 2.89
2455286.7126041 -133.4 12.0 2454368.6185060 227.85 1.10 2453190.70833 -143.62 2.73
2455286.7482435 -137.4 12.0 2454578.8112608 82.73 0.61 2453191.72040 -147.14 3.33
2455287.7447603 -130.4 12.0 2454581.8703510 71.32 0.52 2453254.50616 175.30 2.60
2455287.7803973 -136.4 12.0 2455271.8920649 -18.52 0.63 2453596.68926 130.45 3.10
2455288.7337184 -139.4 11.0 2455649.8248173 -195.00 0.66 2453810.90968 -5.00 2.56
2455288.7776633 -138.4 12.0 2455786.5972307 -87.04 0.66 2453872.81362 260.75 2.45
2455349.7906916 161.6 10.0 2455993.8674482 -126.00 0.78 2454189.87086 -80.09 3.62
2455350.8687367 177.6 10.0 2455994.8361631 -98.02 0.83 2454189.87898 -90.28 3.52
2455351.7067623 173.6 10.0 2456063.7424430 53.14 1.25 2454190.84022 -57.35 2.84
2455352.7571340 172.6 9.0 2456064.7465191 50.37 0.66 2454215.86050 242.59 2.52
2455353.6007870 135.6 10.0 2456065.7448182 48.70 0.74 2454216.78927 243.77 2.54
2455354.6329905 151.6 10.0 2456183.5270912 188.65 0.85 2454217.87254 250.94 2.76
2455354.7244421 136.6 11.0 2456442.7630531 -86.65 0.69 2454277.70250 67.40 2.74
2455355.6194464 135.6 11.0 2456443.7800510 -86.90 1.29 2454299.62096 0.00 2.64
2455355.7115550 148.6 11.0 2456462.7983801 -163.39 0.91 2454339.55738 -145.72 4.15
2455433.5945428 -58.4 11.0 2456462.8102434 -164.91 1.02 2454501.89596 -143.22 2.71
2455434.5939320 -68.4 10.0 2456561.4986867 39.66 0.85 2455018.68932 213.92 2.17
2455467.5419737 -152.4 11.0 2456563.5280947 36.30 0.89
2455468.5360292 -140.4 11.0
2455786.6672674 -128.5 10.0
2456034.8785575 94.5 9.0
2456037.8864541 86.5 9.0
2456160.5115180 -99.5 11.0
2456161.5235072 -68.5 12.0
2456164.5556060 60.5 13.0
2456381.7967325 47.5 10.0
2456463.6867223 -212.5 10.0
2456464.7194041 -226.5 10.0
2456734.8670344 -17.5 9.0
2456735.8301098 -20.5 9.0
2456823.8058978 153.5 11.0
2456825.8537984 178.5 11.0
2456882.6789128 44.5 11.0
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- --------- ------ --------------- --------- ------
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------
CORALIE HARPS
2455698.7379179 -70.4 9.0 2454577.8573518 70.07 0.70
2455786.6994564 36.6 13.0 2454578.8259992 67.18 0.80
2455786.7108277 75.6 13.0 2454579.8512477 67.69 0.74
2455787.6641024 35.6 12.0 2455650.8171652 -83.60 1.14
2455787.6754805 35.6 12.0 2455786.6216504 -5.87 1.04
2455788.6765746 48.6 13.0 2455787.4979049 -3.44 0.96
2455788.6875372 67.6 13.0 2455788.6355855 -1.89 1.07
2456034.9332917 20.6 12.0 2455993.8895322 -6.64 1.23
2456381.8066463 54.6 12.0 2455994.8596255 -7.98 1.57
2456381.8190355 47.6 12.0 2456063.7543293 -35.54 1.82
2456463.7613374 59.6 9.0 2456064.7595490 -35.45 0.96
2456464.7345595 11.6 9.0 2456065.7693045 -33.41 2.68
2456555.5907771 -42.4 11.0 2456183.5412473 -15.93 1.13
2456555.6041047 -39.4 9.0 2456442.8006921 14.89 1.18
2456733.8878823 145.2 10.0 2456443.8064819 19.51 2.63
2456735.8673459 111.2 10.0 2456444.8081381 17.67 1.57
2456754.8071800 115.2 13.0 2456461.7756434 13.11 1.08
2456823.8481613 112.2 11.0 2456462.8238912 9.33 1.42
2456825.8695333 89.2 11.0 2456463.7557595 11.89 1.71
2456881.7083646 99.2 11.0 2456561.4867891 -62.19 1.12
2456883.6490320 85.2 10.0
2457077.8839217 120.2 13.0
2457183.7828036 -250.8 16.0
2457184.6886555 -250.8 15.0
2457312.5069791 -254.8 17.0
2457318.4944200 -279.8 16.0
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- -------- ------
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- --------- ------ --------------- -------- ------
CORALIE HARPS MIKE
2455196.5457833 -63.9 9.0 2454365.6728323 -72.92 0.84 2453189.91295 -2.66 2.86
2455197.5258897 -62.9 9.0 2454724.7162997 87.00 0.93 2453190.91771 0.00 3.27
2455198.5268449 -54.9 9.0 2454725.6845580 87.50 1.02 2453191.91314 7.12 2.85
2455352.9431841 -89.9 9.0 2454726.6664725 89.44 0.65 2453254.73446 -13.98 3.23
2455465.6728602 -55.9 9.0 2454727.6026469 87.24 0.83 2454338.83927 3.92 3.86
2455468.6569334 -51.9 9.0 2455786.8072676 -5.84 0.80 2454339.75448 -7.75 3.09
2455497.5904524 -52.9 9.0 2455787.6269341 -12.49 0.96
2455514.6207088 -42.9 9.0 2455787.8105224 -16.34 0.73
2455786.8585090 37.1 9.0 2455787.9313791 -14.21 0.82
2455787.8646502 25.1 9.0 2455788.5991810 -14.30 1.26
2455788.8218648 53.1 19.0 2455788.7826534 -14.01 1.33
2455877.6116650 93.1 22.0 2455883.5865245 46.83 1.19
2455878.5958784 92.1 9.0 2455885.5121047 54.40 1.30
2455879.6063410 108.1 9.0 2455885.5744505 52.39 1.53
2455969.5203878 158.1 16.0 2455885.7033086 51.81 1.43
2455970.5204393 167.1 16.0 2456064.9384446 67.21 0.85
2456160.6541736 -25.9 16.0 2456183.7248653 -67.99 0.86
2456164.7802416 -4.9 16.0 2456185.6754003 -70.76 1.02
2456554.6541123 -68.9 9.0 2456442.9267855 -116.37 1.14
2456554.6624176 -54.9 9.0 2456461.8887446 -110.55 1.03
2456555.7132051 -76.9 9.0 2456561.7050322 -109.01 0.97
2456675.5534417 -27.9 16.0
2456824.9242966 5.9 13.0
2457317.6711775 -3.1 36.0
----------------- --------- ------ ----------------- --------- ------ --------------- -------- ------
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Based on data obtained from the ESO Science Archive Facility under request number JJENKINS 50958.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
=cmss10 scaled 1728 =cmssbx10 scaled 1200
[ Hamiltonian dynamics for Einstein’s action in G$\rightarrow$0 limit ]{}\
\[3em\]
[Alberto Escalante]{}\
[ *Instituto de F[í]{}sica Luis Rivera Terrazas, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, (IFUAP).\
Apartado postal J-48 72570 Puebla. Pue., México\
LUTh, Observatoire de Paris, Meudon, France,\
*]{} ([email protected], [email protected])\
[Abstract]{}\
The Hamiltonian analysis for the Einstein’s action in $ G\rightarrow0 $ limit is performed. Considering the original configuration space without involve the usual $ADM$ variables we show that the version $ G\rightarrow0 $ for Einstein’s action is devoid of physical degrees of freedom. In addition, we will identify the relevant symmetries of the theory such as the extended action, the extended Hamiltonian, the gauge transformations and the algebra of the constraints. As complement part of this work, we develop the covariant canonical formalism where will be constructed a closed and gauge invariant symplectic form. In particular, using the geometric form we will obtain by means of other way the same symmetries that we found using the Hamiltonian analysis.
[I. INTRODUCTION]{}
Hamiltonian analysis for Einstein’s theory of gravity has been great topic of study in the last years. As we know, the history begins with the work reported by Arnowitt-Deser-Misner ($ADM$) where the $3+1$ split of the space time allows us to study the Hamiltonian dynamics, the constraints and the symmetries of general relativity theory. In the $ADM$ work, the fundamental variables to preform the Hamiltonian analysis are considered the 3-metric and its respectively conjugate momenta [@1]. However, when we try to make progress in the quantization of the theory this program presents difficulties, because the no linearly of the gravitational field is manifested in the constraints. In this manner, at quantum level to work with these variables (ADM variables) presents several problems.\
In the 80’s, the panorama becomes to be clarified thanks to the greats works developed by Ashtekar introducing a kind of new variables for studying the Hamiltonian dynamics for the gravitational field [@2; @3; @4]. The use of these new variables leads to a important simplification of the equations of the theory. In this program, both the constraints and the evolution equations of the canonical general relativity become simple polinomials of the field variables. Nevertheless, the price to pay for these simplifications is that the Astekar’s variables are complex, and therefore Ashtekar canonical formulation describes complex general relativity. In order to obtain the real physical degrees of freedom one needs to append a posteriori appropiate reality conditions [@5; @6]. After the Asthekar’s works, the study of canonical gravity in its classical or quantum form has been of great interest in the literature [@7; @8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13], especially in the loop quantum gravity context [@14; @15].\
On the other hand, in recently works has been proposed to study using the Ashtekar formulation the $ G\rightarrow0 $ limit of Euclidean or complexified general relativity, where the quantization of the theory in the loop representation is obtained and infinite dimensional space of exact solutions to the constraints are found [@16]. The study of Einstein’s theory in this limit becomes to be relevant because we could make progress to study a different approach to perturbation theory at quantum level. As we know, the standard way for studying this important part in gravity is making the perturbation around a classical background metric, but in the process the relevant symmetries of Einstein’s theory are lost, namely the background independence and diffeomorphisms. However, the model reported in [@16] marks a big difference respect to the standard treatment because in the limit the symmetries of general relativity are not lost. Thus, we could have now a new starting point to analyze in the mentioned limit a full diffeomorphism invariant and background independent theory.\
On the other side, in this same context we find in [@17] other different proposal, where setting the $ G\rightarrow0 $ limit for general relativity written in the first order formalism and under a change of variables, the theory becomes to be a copy of abelian $BF$ topological field theory. Furthermore, using a kind of ($ADM$) variables the Hamiltonian analysis for the theory is performed, allows us to find a connection with parametrized field theory [@17; @18]. It is important to observe that the models purposed in [@16] and [@17] are quite different. In the first one model, the Astekar’s variables has been used and the relevant results reported are that Euclidean general relativity in the $ G\rightarrow0 $ limit is not a free theory because the model has two degrees of freedom. In the second one model, we find that in $ G\rightarrow0 $ limit general relativity expressed in the first oder formalism becomes to be a free field theory.\
With all these antecedents, the purpose of this paper is to report the Hamiltonian analysis for the model presented in [@17] without involve the $ADM$ variables. The reason to do this is simple, we wish to report the symmetries and the constraints of the theory from other point of view. This is, in this work we report the Dirac’s analysis using only the dynamical variables implicated in the action. In this way, we are showing that is possible to obtain the same physical information for the theory without resort to ADM variables. We finish our analysis developing the covariant canonical formalism for the theory under study, and we obtain by means of a different way the symmetries found using the Hamiltonian method. Therefore, in this work we are establishing the bases to quantize the theory in forthcoming works.\
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we present a pure Dirac analysis for general relativity in $ G\rightarrow0 $ limit. As important part that we will find in this section are the extended action, the extended Hamiltonian and the identification of the first and second class constraints. In addition, with the complete classification of the constraints we carry out the counting of the physical degrees of freedom and we present the Dirac bracket for the theory. In Section II.I, using Catellani’s algorithm we will find the gauge symmetries for the theory. In particular we we prove that the theory under study is invariant under diffeomorphisms. In Section III, using basic concepts of symplectic geometry we construct a closed and gauge invariant symplectic form on the covariant phase space, which turns represent a complete covariant canonical description of the theory. Using the present geometric form, we reproduce the results found with the Hamiltonian method. In Section IV, we give some conclusions and prospects .\
\[c2\] **II. Hamiltonian analysis**\
As we know, the Einstein’s action for gravity written in the first order formalism is expressed by [@14; @16] $$S[e, \omega]=\frac{1}{4}\int_M \epsilon^{IJKL} e_I \wedge e_J \wedge R_{KL} [\omega ] ,
\label{eq1}$$ where $e^I= e^I{_{\mu}} dx^{\mu}$ is the one-form tetrad field, $R^{IJ}[\omega]= \frac{1}{2} R^{IJ}{_{\mu \nu}} dx^\mu \wedge dx^\nu$ is the curvature of the $SO(3,1)$ 1-form connection $\omega_{\nu}{^ {IJ}}$ with $R^{IJ}{_{\mu \nu}}= \partial_\mu \omega_{\nu}{^ {IJ}} - \partial_\nu \omega_{\mu}{^ {IJ}} + G (\omega_{\mu}{^ {IK}}\omega_{\nu}{_K{^J}}-\omega_{\nu}{^ {IK}}\omega_{\mu}{_K{^J}} )$. Here, $G$ is the gravitational coupling constant, $\epsilon^{IJKL}$ is the completely antisymmetric object with $\epsilon^{0123}=1$, $\mu, \nu=0,1,..,3$ are spacetime indices, $x^\mu$ are the coordinates that label the points fo the 4-dimensional manifold $M$ and $I, J= 0,1..,3$ are internal indices that can be raised and lowered by the internal Lorentzian metric $\eta_{IJ}= (-1,1,1,1)$.\
Setting the $G\rightarrow 0$ limit , the above action becomes to be $$S[e,\omega]= \frac{1}{8}\int_M \epsilon^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu } \epsilon^{IJKL} e_{I \alpha} e_{J \beta} (\partial_\mu \omega_{\nu}{^ {IJ}} - \partial _\nu \omega_{\mu}{^ {IJ}}) dx^4.
\label{eq2}$$ where $\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }$ is the volume 4-form. Calculating the variation of the action (\[eq2\]) we find the next equations of motion $$\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }\partial_{[\mu} e_{\nu]I} =0,
\label{eq3}$$ and $$\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu } \partial_\mu B_{I \alpha \beta}=0,
\label{eq4}$$ here, the two-forms $B{^{I}}_{\alpha \beta}$ are defined by $B{^{I}}_{\alpha \beta}= - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{IJKL} e_{[\alpha J} \omega_{\beta] KL}$, provided that the tetrad is non-degenerate, $B^I$ has inverse $\omega_{\alpha IJ}= \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{IJKL} e^{\beta K} \left( B{^{L}}_{\alpha \beta} - \frac{1}{2} e^{\gamma L} e_{\alpha N} B{^{N}}_{\beta \gamma} \right)$. We can see that equation (\[eq3\]) implies that $e_{\alpha I}= \partial_\alpha f_I$, so $g_{\mu \nu}=\eta_{IJ}\partial_\mu f^I\partial_\nu f^J$. Which corresponds to (locally) Minkowski spacetime [@17].\
With all these preliminar results, using the variable $B$ and integrating by parts we can rewrite the action (\[eq2\]) in the next form $$S[B, e]= \frac{1}{2}\int_M \epsilon^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu} B{^{I}}_{\alpha \beta } (\partial_\mu e_{\nu I}- \partial_{\nu}e_{\mu I} )dx^4.
\label{eq5}$$ Thus, we can obtain from (\[eq5\]) the same equations of motion given in (\[eq3\]) and (\[eq4\]) considering to $B$ and $e$ as our new dynamical variables. It is remarkable to note that the action (\[eq1\]) which has an $SO(3,1)$ connection $\omega_{\nu}{^ {IJ}}$, in the $G\rightarrow0$ limit (\[eq2\]) becomes to be a collection of six $U(1)$ connections and the tetrad field $e^I{_\mu}$ is a collection of four gauge invariant vector fields, we will prove this point performing the Hamiltonian analysis in the next lines.\
The starting point of this work is the action (\[eq5\]), but to difference of the paper reported in [@17] we will not involve a kind of $ADM$ variables for performing the Hamiltonian analysis, in spite of in the canonical gravity context the standard way for developing the Hamiltonian dynamics is using these variables. The reason to do this is because in this work we aim to report the Dirac’s method working with the full configuration space, this is, we will develop the Dirac analysis using only the configuration variables involved in the action (\[eq5\]), namely $B,e$. In this way, we can know the constrains in his complete form without fix any gauge, the symmetries, the extended action and the extended Hamiltonian for the theory. Of course, if we wish we can obtain the results reported by Nuno [*et. al*]{} [@17] as particular case of this paper considering the second class constraints as strong equations. Thus, with this letter we are establishing the basis to quantize the theory described by (\[eq5\]) which will be reported in forthcoming works.\
By performing the 3+1 decomposition in the action (\[eq5\]) we find $$S[B,e]= \int \left[ \eta^{abc} B_{I ab} \dot{e}{^{I}}_c + \frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc} B_{I0a} (\partial_b e{^{I}}_{c}-\partial_c e{^{I}}_b ) - (\eta^{abc}B_{Iab } ) \partial_ce{^{I}}_0 \right] dx^4,
\label{eq6}$$ where $ \eta^{abc}=\epsilon^{0abc}$, $a,b,c=1,2,3$. From (\[eq6\]), we can identify the Lagrangian density given by $${\mathcal{L}}= \eta^{abc} B_{I ab} \dot{e}{^{I}}_c + \frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc} B_{I0a} (\partial_b e{^{I}}_{c}-\partial_c e{^{I}}_b ) -(\eta^{abc}B_{Iab } ) \partial_ce{^{I}}_0.
\label{eq7}$$ Dirac’s method calls for the definition of the momenta $(\Pi{_{I}}^{\alpha \beta}, \Pi{_{I}}^{\alpha}) $ canonically conjugate to $(B{^{I}}_{\alpha \beta}, e{^{I}}_{\mu})$ [@19] $$\Pi{_{I}}^{\alpha \beta}= \frac{\delta {\mathcal{L}} }{ \delta \dot{B}{^{I}}_{\alpha \beta} }, \quad \quad \Pi{_{I}}^{\alpha}= \frac{\delta {\mathcal{L}} }{ \delta \dot{e}{^{I}}_{\mu} },
\label{eq8}$$ on the other hand, the matrix elements of the Hessian $$\frac{\partial^2{\mathcal{L}} }{\partial (\partial_\mu B{^{I}}_{\alpha \beta } ) \partial(\partial_\mu B{^{J}}_{\rho \sigma } ) }, \quad \frac{\partial^2{\mathcal{L}} }{\partial (\partial_\mu e{^{I}}_{\alpha } ) \partial(\partial_\mu B{^{J}}_{\rho \sigma } ) }, \quad \frac{\partial^2{\mathcal{L}} }{\partial (\partial_\mu e{^{I}}_{\alpha } ) \partial(\partial_\mu e{^{J}}_{\beta } ) },
\label{eq9}$$ are identically zero, the rank of the Hessian is zero. Thus, we expect 40 primary constraints. From the definition of the momenta (\[eq8\]) we identify the next 40 primary constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\phi{_{I}}^{0}&:=& \Pi{_{I}}^{0} \approx 0 ,\nonumber \\
\phi{_{I}}^{a}&:=& \Pi{_{I}}^{a} - \eta^{abc}B_{I bc} \approx 0, \nonumber \\
\phi{_{I}}^{0a}&:=& \Pi{_{I}}^{0a} \approx 0, \nonumber \\
\phi{_{I}}^{ab}&:=& \Pi{_{I}}^{ab} \approx 0.
\label{eq10}\end{aligned}$$ The canonical Hamiltonian density for this system has the next form $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{H}}_{c}&=& \dot{e}{^{\mu}}_{I} \Pi{_{I}}^{\mu}+ \dot{B}{^{I}}_{0a}\Pi{_{I}}^{0a}+ \dot{B}{^{I}}_{ab}\Pi{_{I}}^{ab}- {\mathcal{L}} \nonumber \\
&=& - \frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc} B_{I0a} (\partial_b e{^{I}}_{c}-\partial_c e{^{I}}_b ) +\partial_ae{^{I}}_0\Pi{_{I}}^{a}.
\label{eq11}\end{aligned}$$ Integrating by parts and neglecting boundary terms at infinity, the canonical Hamiltonian becomes $$H_c= \int dx^3 \left[ - \frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc} B_{I0a} (\partial_b e{^{I}}_{c}-\partial_c e{^{I}}_b ) - \partial_a\Pi{_{I}}^{a}e{^{I}}_0 \right].
\label{eq12}$$ Following with the method, adding to $H_{c}$ the 40 primary constraints (\[eq10\]) we identify the primary Hamiltonian $$H_P= H_{c} +\int dx^3 \left [ \lambda^I{_0} \phi{_{I}}^{0}+\lambda^I{_a} \phi{_{I}}^{a}+\lambda^I{_{0a}}\phi{_{I}}^{0a}+\lambda^I{_{ab}} \phi{_{I}}^{ab} \right],
\label{eq13}$$ where $\lambda^I{_0}, \lambda^I{_a}, \lambda^I{_{0a}}, \lambda^I{_{ab}}$ are Lagrange multipliers enforcing the constraints. For this theory, the non-vanishing fundamental Poisson brackets are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\{e^I{_{\alpha}}(x), \Pi{_{J}}^{\mu}(y) \} & =& \delta^\mu_\alpha \delta^I_J \delta^3(x-y), \nonumber \\
\{ B{^{I}}_{\mu \nu}(x), \Pi{_{J}}^{\alpha \beta}(y) \} &=& \frac{1}{2}\delta^I_J \left( \delta^\alpha_\mu \delta^\beta_\nu - \delta^\beta_\mu \delta^\alpha_\nu \right) \delta^3(x-y).
\label{eq14}\end{aligned}$$ The $40\times40$ matrix whose entries are the Posson brackets among the constraints (\[eq10\]) given by $$\begin{aligned}
\{ \phi{_{I}}^{0}(x),\phi{_{J}}^{0}(y) \}&=&0, \qquad \{ \phi{_{I}}^{0}(x),\phi{_{J}}^{a}(y) \} = 0 \nonumber \\
\{ \phi{_{I}}^{0}(x),\phi{_{I}}^{0a}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{ \phi{_{I}}^{0}(x),\phi{_{I}}^{ab}(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{ \phi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \phi{_{J}}^{b}(y)\} &=& 0, \qquad \{ \phi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \phi{_{J}}^{0b}(y)\} = 0, \nonumber \\
\qquad \qquad \qquad \{\phi{_{I}}^{0a} (x),\phi{_{J}}^{0b}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{ \phi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \phi{_{J}}^{cd}(y)\} = - \eta^{acd} \eta_{IJ} \delta^3(x-y) \nonumber \\
\{\phi{_{I}}^{0a} (x),\phi{_{J}}^{cd}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{\phi{_{I}}^{ab} (x),\phi{_{J}}^{cd}(y) \} = 0
\label{eq15}\end{aligned}$$ has rank 24 and 16 linearly independent null-vectors. Thus, the null vectors and consistency conditions yields to the next 16 secondary constraints [@19] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\phi}{_{I}}^{0}&=& \{\phi{_{I}}^{0}, {\mathcal{H}}_{P} \} \approx 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \psi_I:= \partial_a\Pi{_{I}}^{a} \approx 0, \nonumber \\
\dot{\phi}{_{I}}^{0a} &=& \{\phi{_{I}}^{0a}, {\mathcal{H}}_{P} \} \approx0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \psi_I{^a}:= \frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc} (\partial_b e_{Ic}-\partial_c e_{Ib} ) \approx 0,
\label{eq16}\end{aligned}$$ and the next values for the Lagrange multipliers $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\phi}{_{I}}^{a}&=&\{\phi{_{I}}^{a}, {\mathcal{H}}_{T} \} \approx 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \lambda^I{_{ab}}= \frac{1}{2}(\partial_a B{^{I}}_{0b} -\partial_b B{^{I}}_{0a}), \nonumber \\
\dot{\phi}{_{I}}^{ab}&=& \{ \phi{_{I}}^{ab}, {\mathcal{H}}_{T} \} \approx 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad \lambda^I{_a}=0,
\label{eq17}\end{aligned}$$ for the theory under study there are no, third constraints. At this point, we need to separate all the primary and secondary constraints in first and second class constraints. For this step, we need calculate the $56\times56$ matrix whose entries will be the Poisson brackets between primary and secondary constraints (\[eq9\]) , (\[eq14\]), this is $$\begin{aligned}
\{ \phi{_{I}}^{0}(x),\phi{_{J}}^{0}(y) \}&=&0, \qquad \{ \phi{_{I}}^{0}(x),\phi{_{J}}^{a}(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{ \phi{_{I}}^{0}(x),\phi{_{I}}^{0a}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{ \phi{_{I}}^{0}(x),\phi{_{I}}^{ab}(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{ \phi{_{I}}^{0}(x),\psi_J(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{ \phi{_{I}}^{0}(x),\psi_J{^a}(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{ \phi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \phi{_{J}}^{b}(y)\} &=& 0, \qquad \{ \phi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \phi{_{J}}^{0b}(y)\} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{ \phi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \psi_J(y)\} &=& 0, \qquad \{ \phi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \phi{_{J}}^{cd}(y)\} = - \eta^{acd} \eta_{IJ} \delta^3(x-y), \nonumber \\
\{ \phi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \psi_J(y)\} &=& 0, \qquad \{ \phi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \psi_J{^b}(y)\} = -\eta^{abc} \eta_{IJ} \partial_c\delta^3(x-y), \nonumber \\
\{\phi{_{I}}^{0a} (x),\phi{_{J}}^{0b}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{\phi{_{I}}^{0a} (x),\phi{_{J}}^{cd}(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{\phi{_{I}}^{0a} (x),\psi_J(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{\phi{_{I}}^{0a} (x),\psi_J{^b}(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{\phi{_{I}}^{ab} (x),\phi{_{J}}^{cd}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{\phi{_{I}}^{ab} (x),\psi_J(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{\phi{_{I}}^{ab} (x),\psi_J{^c}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{\psi_I (x),\psi_J(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{\psi_I (x),\psi_J{^a}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{\psi_I{^a}(x),\psi_J{^b}(y) \} = 0,
\label{eq18}\end{aligned}$$ this matrix has rank 24 and 32 null-vectors. Thus, we expect 24 second class constraints and 32 first class constraints. From the null-vectors we identify the next 32 first class constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_I{^0}&:=& \Pi{_{I}}^{0} \approx 0 \nonumber \\
\gamma{_{I}}^{0a}&:=& \Pi{_{I}}^{0a} \approx 0, \nonumber \\
\gamma_I&:=& \partial_a\Pi{_{I}}^{a} \approx 0, \nonumber \\
\gamma_I{^a}&:=& \frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc} (\partial_b e_{Ic}-\partial_c e_{Ib} ) - \partial_b \Pi{_{I}}^{ab}\approx 0,
\label{eq19}\end{aligned}$$ and the rank yields to the next 24 second class constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\chi{_{I}}^{a}&:=& \Pi{_{I}}^{a} - \eta^{abc}B_{I bc} \approx 0, \nonumber \\
\chi{_{I}}^{ab}&:=& \Pi{_{I}}^{ab} \approx 0.
\label{eq20}\end{aligned}$$ It is important to remark that the constraint $\gamma_I{^a}$ given in (\[eq19\]) is fixed by means of the null vectors (see equation (\[eq16\])) and become to be a first class constraint. In this way, the method itself allows us to find from the rank and the null vectors of the matrix (\[eq18\]) all the right first and second class constraints for the theory [@19]. This is the advantage that we find in Dirac’s method when we apply it to the original configuration space, in this case given by $B^I{_{\alpha \beta}}$ and $e^I{_{\alpha}}$. In general we can apply the analysis presented in this work to every theory. However, the calculation of the rank and the null vectors of the matrixes (\[eq15\]) and (\[eq18\]) usually is not straightforward to perform [@19].\
Furthermore, the 32 first class constraints given in (\[eq19\]) are not independent because there are 4 reducibility conditions given by $\partial_a \gamma_I{^a}= \partial_a \partial_b \chi_I^{ab}=0$, this reducibility condition is the equivalent one that we find in the literature in the 4-dimentional BF theories [@20] or in topological invariants context [@21a]. In this manner, the counting of degrees of freedom is a follows. There are 80 canonical variables $(e{^{I}}_{\mu}, B{^{I}}_{\alpha \beta}, \Pi{_{I}}^{\alpha}, \Pi{_{I}}^{\alpha \beta})$, $ \left[ 32-4 \right]=28 $ independent first class constraints $(\gamma_I{^0}, \gamma{_{I}}^{0a},\gamma_I, \gamma_I{^a})$ and 24 independent second class constraints $(\chi{_{I}}^{a}, \chi{_{I}}^{ab})$, thus, we can conclude that theory is devoid of physical degrees of freedom. In others words, the theory defined by the action (\[eq5\]) is only sensitive to external degrees of freedom for example, if we add to (\[eq5\]) matter degrees of freedom the theory will not be topological anymore, just as was claimed in [@17]. In addition, the action (\[eq5\]) does not depend explicit of the spacetime metric, so, in this other sense the action becomes to be topological as well [@20].\
With all these results at hand, we can use the values for the Lagrange multipliers (\[eq15\]), the first class constraints (\[eq19\]), the second class constraints (\[eq20\]) and identify the extended action for the theory expressed by $$\begin{aligned}
&S_{E}&\left[ e{^I}_{\mu}, \Pi{_{I}}^\mu, B^I{_{\mu \nu}}, \Pi{_{I}}^{\mu \nu}, u{_{0}}^{I}, u^I, u{_{0a}}^{I},u{_{a}}^{I}, v{_a}^I, v^I{_{ab}} \right]
= \int \bigg\{ \dot{e}^I{_\mu} \Pi{_I}^\mu+ \dot{B}^I{_{0a}}\Pi{_{I}}^{0a} + \dot{B}^I{_{ab}}\Pi{_{I}}^{ab}\nonumber \\ &-& H- u{_{0}}^{I}\gamma{_{I}}^{0}-u^I \gamma_I- u^I{_a}\gamma{_{I}}^{a}-u{_{0a}}^{I}\gamma{_{I}}^{0a} - v{_a}^I\chi{_{I}}^{a}-v^I{_{ab}} \chi{_{I}}^{ab} \bigg\}dx^4,
\label{eq21}\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is only combination of first class constraints $$H= - B^I{_{0a}}\left[ \frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc}(\partial_b e_{Ic}-\partial_c e_{Ib} ) -\partial_b\Pi{_{I}}^{ab} \right ]- \partial_a \Pi{_{I}}^{a} e^I{_{0}},
\label{eq22}$$ and $u{_{0}}^{I}, u^I, u{_{0a}}^{I},u{_{a}}^{I}, v{_a}^I, v^I{_{ab}}$ are the Lagrange multipliers enforcing the first and second class constraints.\
From the extended action we can identify the extended Hamiltonian which is given by $$H_E= H - u{_{0}}^{I}\gamma{_{I}}^{0}-u^I \gamma_I- u^I{_a}\gamma{_{I}}^{a}-u{_{0a}}^{I}\gamma{_{I}}^{0a}.
\label{eq23}$$ As we know, the equations of motion obtained by means of the extended Hamiltonian in general are quite different with the Euler-Lagrande equations, but the difference is unphysical [@19].\
In oder to complete our analysis, we can find the equations of motion obtained from the extended action which yields to $$\begin{aligned}
\delta e^I{_{0}}: \dot{\Pi}{_{I}}^{0}&=&- \partial_a\Pi{_{I}}^{a}, \nonumber \\
\delta \Pi{_{I}}^{0}: \dot{e}^I{_{0}} &=& u^I{_{0}}, \nonumber \\
\delta e^I{_{a}}: \dot{\Pi}{_{I}}^{a}&=& - \frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc} \left( \partial_b B_{I0c}- \partial_c B_{I0b} \right) -\frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc} \left( \partial_b u_{Ia}-\partial_c u_{Ib} \right) , \nonumber \\
\delta \Pi{_{I}}^{a}: \dot{e}^I{_{a}}&=& v{_a}^I - \partial_a e^I{_{0}} - \partial_a u^I{_a}, \nonumber \\
\delta B^I{_{0a}}: \dot{\Pi}{_{I}}^{0a}&=& \frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc}(\partial_b e_{Ic}-\partial_c e_{Ib} ) -\partial_b\Pi{_{I}}^{ab}, \nonumber \\
\delta \Pi{_{I}}^{0a}: \dot{B}^I{_{0a}} &=& u^I{_{0a}}, \nonumber \\
\delta B^I{_{ab}} : \dot{\Pi}{_{I}}^{ab}&=& \eta^{abc} v_{Ic}, \nonumber \\
\delta \Pi{_{I}}^{ab}: \dot{B}^I{_{ab}}&=& v^I{_{ab}} + \frac{1}{2}(\partial_b B^I{_{0b}}-\partial_c B^I{_{0a}} ) - \frac{1}{2}(\partial_b u^I{_{b}}-\partial_c u^I{_{a}} ) \nonumber \\
\delta u{_{0}}^I: \gamma{_{I}}^{0}&=&0, \nonumber \\
\delta u{_{a}}^I: \gamma{_{I}}^{a}&=&0, \nonumber \\
\delta u^I: \gamma{_{I}}&=&0, \nonumber \\
\delta u{_{0a}}: \gamma{_{I}}^{0a}&=&0, \nonumber \\
\delta v{_{a}}^I: \chi{_{I}}^{a}&=&0, \nonumber \\
\delta v^I{_{ab}}: \chi{_{I}}^{ab} &=&0.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, we will calculate the constraint algebra which takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\{ \gamma{_{I}}^{0}(x),\gamma{_{J}}^{0}(y) \}&=&0, \qquad \{ \gamma{_{I}}^{0}(x),\chi{_{J}}^{a}(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{ \gamma{_{I}}^{0}(x),\gamma{_{I}}^{0a}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{ \gamma{_{I}}^{0}(x),\chi{_{I}}^{ab}(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{ \gamma{_{I}}^{0}(x),\gamma_J(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{ \gamma{_{I}}^{0}(x),\gamma_J{^a}(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{ \chi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \gamma{_{J}}^{b}(y)\} &=& 0, \qquad \{\chi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \gamma{_{J}}^{0b}(y)\} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{ \chi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \gamma_J(y)\} &=& 0, \qquad \{ \chi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \chi{_{J}}^{cd}(y)\} = - \eta^{acd} \eta_{IJ} \delta^3(x-y), \nonumber \\
\{ \chi{_{I}}^{a}(x), \gamma_J(y)\} &=& 0, \qquad \{ \chi{_{I}}^{a}(x),\gamma_J{^b}(y)\} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{\gamma{_{I}}^{0a} (x),\gamma{_{J}}^{0b}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{\gamma{_{I}}^{0a} (x),\gamma{_{J}}^{cd}(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{\gamma{_{I}}^{0a} (x),\gamma_J(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{\gamma{_{I}}^{0a} (x),\gamma_J{^b}(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{\chi{_{I}}^{ab} (x),\chi{_{J}}^{cd}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{\chi{_{I}}^{ab} (x),\gamma_J(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{\chi{_{I}}^{ab} (x),\gamma_J{^c}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{\gamma_I (x),\gamma_J(y) \} = 0, \nonumber \\
\{\gamma_I (x),\gamma_J{^a}(y) \} &=& 0, \qquad \{\gamma_I{^a}(x),\gamma_J{^b}(y) \} = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where we can see that the constraint algebra is closed.\
We will finish this section identify the Dirac bracket for the theory. From the constraint algebra, we can observe that the matrix whose elements are only the Poisson brackets between the second class constraints is given by $$C_{\alpha\beta} = \left(
\begin{array}{rr}
0 \qquad \qquad& - \eta^{acd} \eta_{IJ} \delta^3(x-y) \\
\eta^{acd} \eta_{IJ} \delta^3(x-y) & 0 \qquad \qquad \\
\label{eqa}
\end{array}
\right).$$ In this manner, we have that the Dirac bracket between two functionals $A$, $B$ is expressed by $$\{A(x),B(y) \}_D= \{A(x),B(y)\}_P + \int du dv \{A(x), \zeta^\alpha(u) \} C^{-1}_{\alpha \beta}(u,v) \{\zeta^\beta(v), B(y) \},
\label{eq27}$$ where $ \{A(x),B(y)\}_P$ is the usual Poisson bracket between the functionals $A,B$, $\zeta^\alpha(u)=(\chi{_{I}}^{a}, \chi{_{I}}^{ab} ) $ with $C^{-1}_{\alpha \beta}(u,v)$ as the inverse of (\[eqa\]) which has a trivial form. As we know, the Dirac bracket (\[eq27\]) will be useful to make progress in the quantization of the theory.\
**II.I Gauge generator**\
Following with the method, in this part we will find the gauge transformations for the theory described by (\[eq5\]). For our purposes, we apply the Castellani’s algorithm [@21] to construct the gauge generator using the first class constraints (\[eq19\]), this is $$\begin{aligned}
G= \int_\Sigma \left[ \partial_0 \varepsilon^I{_{0}} \Pi{_{I}}^{0} + \partial_0 \varepsilon^I{_{0a}}\Pi{_{I}}^{0a}+\varepsilon^I \partial_a \Pi{_{I}}^{a} + \varepsilon^I{_{a}}\left( \frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc} (\partial_b e_{Ic}-\partial_c e_{Ib} ) - \partial_b \Pi{_{I}}^{ab}\right) \right],
\label{eq24}\end{aligned}$$ thus, we find the following gauge transformations on the phase space, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_0 e^I{_{0}} &=& \partial_0 \varepsilon^I{_{0}}, \nonumber \\
\delta_0 e^I{_{a}} &=& - \partial_a \varepsilon^I, \nonumber \\
\delta_0 B^I{_{0a}} &=& \partial_0 \varepsilon^I{_{0a}}, \nonumber \\
\delta_0 B^I{_{ab}} &=& -\frac{1}{2} (\partial_a \varepsilon^I{_b} - \partial_b \varepsilon^I {_a}), \nonumber \\
\delta_0 \Pi{_{I}}^{0} &=& 0, \nonumber \\
\delta_0 \Pi{_{I}}^{a} &=& -\frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc} (\partial_b \varepsilon{_{Ic}} - \partial_c \varepsilon{_{Ib}}) , \nonumber \\
\delta_0 \Pi{_{I}}^{0a} &=& 0, \nonumber \\
\delta_0 \Pi{_{I}}^{ab} &=& 0.
\label{eq25}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we can choose the parameters to be $ \varepsilon^I{_{0}}=- \varepsilon^I=-\Lambda^I$, $\varepsilon^I{_{a}}=-2\varepsilon^I{_{0a}}=\Lambda^I{_{a}}$ and considering the equations (\[eq25\]) we find $$\begin{aligned}
e^I{_{\mu}}& \rightarrow& e^I{_{\mu}}- \partial_\mu\Lambda^I, \nonumber \\
B^I{_{\mu \nu}}& \rightarrow& B^I{_{\mu \nu}}- \frac{1}{2} \left(\partial_\mu \Lambda^I{_{\nu}} -\partial_\nu \Lambda^I{_{\mu}} \right), \nonumber \\
\label{eq26}\end{aligned}$$ where we can see that $e^I{_{\mu}}$ becomes to be a collection of 4 four gauge invariant vector fields. We can prove by means of easy calculations that the action (\[eq5\]), the equations of motion (\[eq3\]) and (\[eq4\]) are invariant under these gauge transformations. The nature of the gauge transformations and the form of the theory described in (\[eq5\]) which corresponds to $BF$ type, allows us to formulate the next question; What about diffeomorphisms transformations?. Apparently diffeomorphisms symmetry is not present in the theory, but that is not true at all. We can find the answer such as is developed in 2+1 gravity and Chern-Simons theory [@21; @23] introducing a new set of gauge parameters $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda^I&=&- \xi^\rho e^I{_\rho}, \nonumber \\
\Lambda^I{_{\mu}} &=& -2\xi ^\rho B^I{_{\rho \mu}}, \end{aligned}$$ obtaining $$\begin{aligned}
e^I{_{\mu}}& \rightarrow& e^I{_{\mu}}+ {\mathcal{L}}_\xi e^I{_{\mu}} + \xi^\rho \left[ \partial_\mu e^I{_{\rho}}-\partial_\rho e^I{_{\mu}} \right], \nonumber \\
B^I{_{\mu \nu}}& \rightarrow& B^I{_{\mu \nu}} + {\mathcal{L}}_\xi B^I{_{\mu \nu}} + \xi^\rho \left[\partial_\mu B^I{_{\rho \nu}}-\partial_\nu B^I{_{\rho \mu}}- \partial_\rho B^I{_{\mu \nu}} \right].
\label{eq28}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, diffeomorphisms corresponds to an internal symmetries of the theory just as complete general relativity theory.\
As conclusion for this section, we can see that it is possible to obtain all the physical information reported in [@17] without resort to $ADM$ variables. Of course, we can obtain the results obtained in [@17] considering the second class constraints given in (\[eq20\]) as strong equations. However, the spirit of this paper is make progress for futures works where we will investigate the advantage at quantum level between the $ADM$ formulation and the formulation presented in this work.\
**III Covariant canonical formalism**\
In order to extend our analysis, in this section we will perform the covariant canonical formalism for the theory described by the action (\[eq5\]). In particular with this method we will establish the necessary elements for study the quantization aspects of the theory in future works, where we will use the symplectic method or the Hamiltonian method developed above. As important results reported in this section, we will find by other way the symmetries found using the Hamiltonian method.\
We start calculating the variation of the action, obtaining $$\delta S[B, e]= \int_M dx^4 \left[ \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu}(\partial_\mu e_{\nu I}- \partial_{\nu}e_{\mu I}) \delta B{^{I}}_{\alpha \beta } - \epsilon^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu} \partial_\mu B{^{I}}_{\alpha \beta } \delta e^I{_\nu}+ \partial_\mu(\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu}B_{I \alpha \beta } \delta e^I{_{\nu}} ) \right],
\label{eq29}$$ where we can identify the equations of motion (\[eq3\]), (\[eq4\]) and we identify from the pure divergence term the symplectic potential for the theory [@22] $$\Psi^\mu = \epsilon^{ \mu \nu \alpha \beta}B_{I \alpha \beta } \delta e^I{_{\nu}},
\label{eq30}$$ which does not contribute locally to the dynamics, but generates the symplectic form on the phase space.\
From the equations of motion (\[eq3\]) and (\[eq4\]) we define the fundamental concept in the studio of the covariant canonical formalism of the theory: the covariant phase space for the theory described by (\[eq5\]) is the space space of solutions of Eqs (\[eq3\]), (\[eq4\]), and we will call it $Z$.\
As we known, we can obtain the integral kernel of the geometric structure for the theory by means of the variation (exterior derivative on $Z$ see [@22]) of the symplectic potential (\[eq30\]), this is $$\omega = \int_\Sigma J^\mu d \Sigma_\mu= \int_\Sigma \delta \Psi^\mu d \Sigma_\mu= \int_\Sigma \epsilon^{ \mu \nu \alpha \beta}\delta B_{I \alpha \beta }\wedge \delta e^I{_{\nu}} d \Sigma_\mu .
\label{eq31}$$ where $\Sigma$ is a Cauchy hypersurface.\
In addition, we will prove that our symplectic form is closed and gauge invariant. Moreover, the integral kernel of the geometric form $J^\mu$ is conserved $(\partial_\mu J^\mu=0)$, which guarantees that $\omega$ is independent of $\Sigma$.\
To prove that $J^\mu$ defined in (\[eq31\]) is conserved we need calculate the linearized equations of motion. For this, we replace in (\[eq3\]), (\[eq4\]) $ e^I{_{\nu}} \rightarrow e^I{_{\nu}}+ \delta e^I{_{\nu}} $ and $ B_{I \alpha \beta } \rightarrow B_{I \alpha \beta }+\delta B_{I \alpha \beta }$, keeping to first order in $\delta$ we find the linearized equations given by $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }\partial_{[\mu} \delta e_{\nu]I} &=&0, \nonumber \\
\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu } \partial_\mu \delta B_{I \alpha \beta}&=&0.
\label{eq32}\end{aligned}$$ In this manner, using the linearized equations we have $$\partial_\mu J^\mu= \partial_\mu \delta \Psi^\mu = \epsilon^{ \mu \nu \alpha \beta} \partial_\mu \delta B_{I \alpha \beta } \wedge \delta e^I{_{\nu}}+\epsilon^{ \mu \nu \alpha \beta}\delta B_{I \alpha \beta } \wedge \partial_{[\mu} \delta e^I{_{\nu]}}=0,
\label{eq33}$$ showing that $\omega $ is independent of $\Sigma$.\
On the other hand, we need to remember that the closeness of $\omega$ in this covariant canonical formalism is equivalent one to the Jacobi identity that Poisson brackets satisfy, in the usual Hamiltonian scheme. To prove the closeness of $\omega$, we can observe that $\delta^2e^I{_{\nu}}=0 $, $\delta^2B_{I \alpha \beta }=0$ because $e^I{_{\nu}}$ and $B_{I \alpha \beta }$ are independent 0-forms on the covariant phase space $Z$ and $\delta$ is nilpotent, so using this fact in $\omega$ we find $$\delta \omega =\int _\Sigma \delta^2 \Psi^\mu d \Sigma_\mu = \int _\Sigma \left[ \epsilon^{ \mu \nu \alpha \beta}\delta^2 B_{I \alpha \beta }\wedge \delta e^I{_{\nu}}-\epsilon^{ \mu \nu \alpha \beta}\delta B_{I \alpha \beta }\wedge \delta^2 e^I{_{\nu}} \right] d \Sigma_\mu =0,$$ this prove that $\omega $ is closed.\
What about the gauge transformations found above?. For this aim, we consider that upon picking $\Sigma$ to be the standard initial value surface $t=0$, (\[eq31\]) takes the standard form $$\omega = \int_\Sigma \delta \Pi{_{I}}^{a}\wedge \delta e^I{_{a}},
\label{eq33a}$$ where $ \Pi{_{I}}^{a}\equiv \eta^{ abc} B_{I bc }$.\
For two 0-forms $f, g$ defined on $Z$, the Hamiltonian vector field defined by the symplectic structure (\[eq33a\]) is given by [@24] $$X_f= \int_{\Sigma} \frac{\delta f}{\delta \Pi{_{I}}^{a}} \frac{\delta }{\delta e^I{_{a}}}- \frac{\delta f}{\delta e^I{_{a}}} \frac{\delta }{\delta \Pi{_{I}}^{a}},
\label{eq33b}$$ and the Poisson bracket $\{f,g \}:= -X_f(g)$ is given by $$\{f,g \}= \int_{\Sigma} \frac{\delta f}{\delta e^I{_{a}}} \frac{\delta g}{\delta \Pi{_{I}}^{a}}- \frac{\delta f}{\delta \Pi{_{I}}^{a}} \frac{\delta g }{\delta e^I{_{a}}}.
\label{eq33c}$$ On the other hand, we rewrite the first class constraints found in (\[eq19\]) with the test fields $D^I, D^I{_{a}}, C^I $ and $C^I{_{a}}$ on $\Sigma$ in the next form $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_I{^0}[D^I]&:=&\int_{\Sigma} D^I \left( \Pi{_{I}}^{0} \right), \nonumber \\
\gamma{_{I}}^{0a}[D^I{_{a}}]&:=&\int_{\Sigma}D^I \left( A^I{_{a}} \Pi{_{I}}^{0a} \right), \nonumber \\
\gamma_I[C^I ]&:=& \int_{\Sigma} C^I \left( \partial_a\Pi{_{I}}^{a}\right), \nonumber \\
\gamma_I{^a}[C^I{_{a}}]&:=& \int_{\Sigma} C^I{_{a}} \left( \frac{1}{2} \eta^{abc} (\partial_b e_{Ic}-\partial_c e_{Ib} ) - \partial_b \Pi{_{I}}^{ab} \right).
\label{eq33d}\end{aligned}$$ By inspection, the functional derivatives different to zero are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta \gamma_I[C^I ]}{\delta \Pi{_{I}}^{a} }&=& - \partial_a C^I, \quad \quad \quad \frac{\delta \gamma_I[C^I ]}{ \delta e^I{_{a}}}=0, \nonumber \\
\frac{\delta \gamma_I{^a}[C^I{_{a}}]}{\delta \Pi{_{I}}^{a} }&=& 0, \quad \quad \quad \frac{\delta \gamma_I{^a}[C^I{_{a}}]}{ \delta e^I{_{a}}}= \frac{1}{2}\eta^{abc}\left(\partial_b C_{Ic}-\partial_c C_{Ib} \right).
\label{eq33f}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the motion on $Z$ generated by $\gamma_I[C^I ]$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
e^I{_{a}} &\mapsto& e^I{_{a}} - \epsilon \partial_a C^I + O(\epsilon^2) \nonumber \\
\Pi{_{I}}^{a} &\mapsto& \Pi{_{I}}^{a},
\label{eq33g}\end{aligned}$$ and the motion on $Z$ generated by $ \gamma_I{^a}[C^I{_{a}}]$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
e^I{_{a}} &\mapsto& e^I{_{a}} \nonumber \\
\Pi{_{I}}^{a} &\mapsto& \Pi{_{I}}^{a}-\epsilon \frac{1}{2}\eta^{abc}\left(\partial_b C_{Ic}-\partial_c C_{Ib} \right) + O(\epsilon^2).
\label{eq33h}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ is an infinitesimal parameter [@24]. We can see that the gauge transformation (\[eq33g\]) and (\[eq33h\]) corresponds to those found using Dirac’s method (see eq. (\[eq26\]) ).\
Now, we will show that $\omega$ has not components tangent to the gauge directions, which are specified by equation (\[eq26\]) or (\[eq33g\]) and (\[eq33h\]). $$\begin{aligned}
\delta e' {^I}{_{\mu}}& =& \delta e^I{_{\mu}}- \partial_\mu\Lambda^I, \nonumber \\
\delta B' {^I}{_{\mu \nu}}& =& \delta B^I{_{\mu \nu}}- \frac{1}{2} \left(\partial_\mu \Lambda^I{_{\nu}} -\partial_\nu \Lambda^I{_{\mu}} \right),
\label{eq33} \end{aligned}$$ where in this context $\Lambda^I$ , $\Lambda^I{_{\mu}}$ corresponds to be 1-forms on $Z$. Using this fact, we find that $\omega$ will undergo the transformation as $$\omega ' = \int_\Sigma \epsilon^{ \mu \nu \alpha \beta}\delta B' _{I \alpha \beta }\wedge \delta e' {^I}{_{\nu}} d \Sigma_\mu= \omega - \int_\Sigma \partial_\nu \left[\frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{ \mu \nu \alpha \beta} \left( \partial_\alpha \Lambda{_{I\beta}} -\partial_\beta \Lambda{_{I \alpha}} \right) \wedge \Lambda^I \right]d \Sigma_\mu,$$ where the equations (\[eq32\]) has been used, thus, for fields with compact support $\omega$ is a gauge invariant geometric form.\
Therefore, as a conclusion of this section, we have constructed a closed and gauge invariant symplectic form on $Z$ which in turns represent a complete Hamiltonian description of the covariant phase space for the theory and will allow us to analyze the quantum treatment in forthcoming works.\
**V. Conclusions and prospects**\
In this paper, Dirac and the symplectic methods for the Einstein’s action in the $G \rightarrow0 $ limit has been performed. Within the Dirac’s method we developed the analysis working with the complete configuration space and without involve the typical $ADM$ variables as is reported in [@17]. As important results obtained using the Hamiltonian method, were the identification of the extended Hamiltonian, the extended action and the separation of the constraints in first and second class. The correct identification of the constraints allowed us to find the relevant symmetries such as the diffeomorphisms and could carry out the counting of the physical degrees of freedom, which the analysis allow one to conclude that the system is a topological field theory. It is important to remark that the present analysis can be useful to understand the $G \rightarrow0 $ limit of general relativity, because we have present a background independent and full diffeomorphism invariant free field theory. This fact becomes to be important because in the analysis we have not broken the important symmetries that characterize to Eintein’s theory of gravity. In addition, we extended our work constructing a closed and gauge invariant symplectic structure which contains all the relevant Hamiltonian description of the covariant phase space. In particular using the geometric form, we could find the same symmetries that we found using the Hamiltonian method. With the results presented in this paper, we have all the necessary elements to make progress in the quantization of the theory by means of the Dirac’s method or covariant canonical formalism which is absent in the literature and will be reported in forthcoming works.\
**Acknowledgements**\
This work was supported by CONACyT México under grant 76193. I want to thank to Brandon Carter and Eric Gourgouhon for the hospitality and friendship that they have offered me.
R. Arnowitt , R. Deser and C. Misner ,1962 Gravitation: An introduction to Current Research Ed Witten L (Wiley). A. Ashtekar, Phys.Rev.Lett. 77. 3288 (1986). A. Ashtekar, Phys.Rev. D. 36. 1587 (1987) A. Ashtekar, Lectures on Non-Perturbative Canonical Gravity (Singapore: World Scientific, 1991). A. Ashtekar, J. D. Romano and R. S. Tale, Phys.Rev. D. 40. 2572 (1989). H. A. Morales-Tecotl, L. F. Urrutia, J. D. Vergara, Class. Quant. Grav. 13. 2933-2940 (1996). J. Samuel. Pramana J. Phys. 28 L429 (1987). T. Jacobson and L. Smolin, Class. Quant. Grav. 5. 583 (1988). R. Capovilla, J. Dell, T. Jacobson and L. Manson, Class. Quant. Grav. 8. 41 (1991) R. Capovilla, J. Dell and T. Jacobson, Class. Quant. Grav. 8. 59 (1991) J. F. Barbero, Phys. Rev. D. 51. 5507 (1995). S. Holts, Phys. Rev. D. 53. 5966 (1996). R. Capovilla, T. Jacobson and J. Dell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63. 2325 (1989) C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2004) T.Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Pr. 2007 ) L. Smolin, Class. Quant. Grav. 9. 883 (1992). N. Barros e Sa« and I. Bengtsson, Phys. Rev. D 59. 107502 (1999). E.T. Newman and C. Rovelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69. 1300 (1992). E.T. Newman and C. Rovelli, in: F. Colomo, L. Lusanna and G. Marmo: Constraint Theory and Quantization Methods, Singapore 1994 D. M. Gitman and I.V.Tyutin, Quantization of fields with constraints. ( Berlin, Germany: Springer. (Springer series in nuclear and particle physics, (1990)).\
A. Hanson, T. Regge and C. Teitelboim. Constrained Hamiltonian Systems (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma, (1978)). M. Mondragon and M. Montesinos, J. Math. Phys. 47, 022301 (2006). Alberto Escalante, The Chern-Simons state for topological invariants, submitted to: Physics Letters B (2008). M. Blagojevic, Gravitation and gauge symmetries (Bristol, UK: IOP (2002) ) R. Cartas-Fuentevilla, Alberto Escalante, Topological terms and the global symplectic geometry of the phase space in string theory, in: C.V. Benton (Ed.), Trends in Mathematical Physics Research, Nova Science Publishing, 2004 Alberto Escalante, The symmetries for Einstein’s action in 2+1 dimensions without resort to ADM variables, in preparation (2008). A. Ashtekar (notes prepared in collaboration with R.S. Tate), Lectures on Non-Perturbative Canonical Gravity (World ScientiÞc, Singapore, 1991).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Homology detection is critical to genomics. Identifying homologous sequence allows us to transfer information gathered in one organism to another quickly and with a high degree of confidence. Non-coding RNA (ncRNA) presents a challenge for homology detection, as the primary sequence is often poorly conserved and de novo structure prediction remains difficult. This chapter introduces methods developed by the Rfam database for identifying “families" of homologous ncRNAs from single “seed" sequences using manually curated alignments to build powerful statistical models known as covariance models (CMs). We provide a brief overview of the state of alignment and secondary structure prediction algorithms. This is followed by a step-by-step iterative protocol for identifying homologs, then constructing an alignment and corresponding CM. We also work through an example, building an alignment and CM for the bacterial small RNA MicA, discovering a previously unreported family of divergent MicA homologs in [*Xenorhabdus*]{} in the process. This chapter will provide readers with the background necessary to begin defining their own ncRNA families suitable for use in comparative, functional, and evolutionary studies of structured RNA elements.'
author:
- Lars Barquist
- 'Sarah W. Burge'
- 'Paul P. Gardner'
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: 'Building non-coding RNA families'
---
Introduction
============
Alignment is a central problem in bioinformatics. A wide range of critical applications in genomics rely on our ability to produce “good" alignments. Single-sequence homology search as implemented in tools such as BLAST[@Altschul1990] is an (often heuristic) application of alignment. The sensitivity and specificity of homology search can be improved by the use of evolutionary information in the form of accurate substitution and insertion-deletion (indel) rates derived from multiple sequence alignments (MSAs), captured in the statistical models used by HMMER[@Eddy2011] and Infernal[@Nawrocki2009] for protein and RNA alignments respectively. These models can be interpreted as defining “families" of homologous sequences, as in the Pfam and Rfam databases[@Finn2010; @Gardner2011]. By using these models to classify sequences, we can infer functional and structural properties of uncharacterized sequences.
Unfortunately, producing the high-quality “seed" alignments of RNA these methods require remains difficult. While proteins can be aligned accurately using only primary sequence information with pairwise sequence identities as low as 20% for an average-length sequence[@Rost1999; @Thompson1999], it appears that the “twilight zone" where blatantly erroneous alignments occur between RNA sequences may begin at above 60% identity[@Gardner2005]. The inclusion of secondary structure information can improve alignment accuracy[@Freyhult2007], but predicting secondary structure is not trivial[@Gardner2004]. An instructive example of the difficulties this can lead to is the case of the 6S gene, a bacterial RNA which modulates $\sigma^{70}$ activity during the shift from exponential to stationary growth. The *Escherichia coli* 6S sequence was determined in 1971[@Brownlee1971] and its function determined in 2000[@Wassarman2000]. However, the extent of this gene’s phylogenic distribution was not realized until 2005 when Barrick and colleagues carefully constructed an alignment from a number of deeply diverged putative 6S sequences, and through successive secondary-structure aware homology searches demonstrated its presence across large swaths of the bacterial phylogeny[@Barrick2005]. Even now, new homologs are discovered on a regular basis[@Sharma2010; @Weinberg2010], and 6S appears to be an ancient and important component of the bacterial regulatory machinery.
It is our hope to make these techniques accessible to sequence analysis novices. This chapter aims to introduce the techniques necessary to construct a high-quality RNA alignment from a single seed sequence, and then use the information contained in this alignment to identify additional more distant homologs, expanding the alignment in an iterative fashion. These methods, while time-consuming, can be far more sensitive than a BLAST search[@Menzel2009]. We will briefly review the state of the art in RNA sequence alignment and structure prediction. We then present a brief protocol which starts with a single sequence, and then uses a collection of web and command-line based tools for alignment, structure prediction, and search to construct an Infernal covariance model (CM), a probabilistic model which captures many important features of structured RNA sequence variation[@Nawrocki2009]. These models may then be used in the iterative expansion of alignments or for homology search and genome annotation. CMs are also are used by the Rfam database in defining RNA sequence families, and are the subject of a dedicated RNA families track at the journal *RNA Biology*[@Gardner2009A]. Finally, we present as an instructive example the construction of an RNA family for the enterobacterial small RNA MicA, discovering a convincing divergent clade of homologs in the process.
RNA Alignment and Secondary Structure Prediction
------------------------------------------------
RNA sequence alignment remains a challenge despite at least 25 years of work on the problem. As discussed above, alignments based on primary sequence become highly untrustworthy below 60% pair-wise sequence identity, likely due to the lower information content of individual nucleic acids as compared to amino acids in protein alignments. This can be intuitively understood by recalling the fact that 3 nucleic acids are required to encode an individual amino acid; so, an amino acid carries 3 times as much information as a nucleic acid (a bit less, actually, due to the redundancy of the genetic code). In addition, the larger alphabet size of protein sequences allows for the easy deployment of more complex substitution models, and a glut of protein sequence data allows for highly effective parameterization of these models.
The incorporation of secondary structure, i.e. base-pairing, information has been proposed as a means to make up for these difficulties in RNA alignment methods. The first proposal for such a method is now known as the Sankoff algorithm[@Sankoff1985]. The Sankoff algorithm uses dynamic programming, an optimization technique long central to to sequence analysis[^1]. Dynamic programming had previously been applied to the problems of sequence alignment[@Needleman1970] and RNA folding[@Nussinov1978]. Sankoff proposed a union of these two methods. Unfortunately, the resulting algorithm has a time requirements of $\mathcal{O}(L^{3N})$ and space requirements of $\mathcal{O}(L^{2N})$ where $L$ is the sequence length and $N$ is the number of sequences aligned. This is impractical, even for small numbers of short sequences. A number of faster algorithms have been developed to approximate Sankoff alignment. Recent examples include CentroidAlign[@Hamada2009], mLocARNA[@Will2007], and FoldalignM[@Torarinsson2007]. These methods can push the RNA alignment twilight zone as low as 40 percent identity[@Gardner2005].
However, for the purpose of family-building, we are often starting with a single sequence of unknown secondary structure, and have to gather additional homologs using a fast alignment tool, such as BLAST. Such methods are not able to reliably detect homologs below 60 percent sequence identity. In this range of pair-wise sequence identities, the slight increases in accuracy of Sankoff-type algorithms over non-structural alignment is only rarely worth the additional computational costs involved[^2]. Alignments generated with standard alignment tools can then be used as a basis for predictions of secondary structure using tools like Pfold[@Knudsen2003], RNAalifold[@Bernhart2008], or CentroidFold[@Hamada2009A].
Regardless, all modern alignment tools, Sankoff-type or standard, suffer from a number of known problems. Most alignment tools use *progressive alignment*. This means that the aligner decomposes the alignment problem in to a series of pair-wise alignment problems along a guide tree. This greatly reduces the computational complexity of the alignment problem, but means that any error in an early pair-wise alignment step is propagated through the entire alignment. A number of solutions have been proposed to this problem, such as explicitly modeling insertion-deletion histories[@Loytynoja2008] or using modified or alternative optimization methods such as consistency-guided progressive alignment[@Notredame2000] or sequence annealing[@Schwartz2006]. A second issue is that it is not clear which function of the alignment aligners should be optimizing, and many appear to over-predict homology[@Schwartz2006A; @Bradley2008; @Bradley2009]. Finally, many parameters commonly used in alignment, such as gap opening and closing probabilities and substitution matrices, appear to vary across organisms, sequences, and even positions within an alignment. All of this leads to considerable uncertainty in alignment[@Wong2008], which is not easily captured by most current alignment methods. The additional parameters introduced by RNA secondary structure prediction only compounds these these problems.
A final problem with alignment is the issue of determining whether two sequences are similar due to *homology* or *analogy*. Homology describes a similarity in features based on common descent; for instance, all bird wings are homologous wings. Analogy, on the other hand, describes a similarity in features based on common function without common descent; bat and bird wings perform the same function, and appear superficially similar. However, their evolutionary histories are quite different. In sequence analysis, we often assume that aligned residues within an alignment share common ancestors, but this assumption can be confounded by analogous sequence. These analogs often take the form of *motifs*, short sequences which perform specific functions within the RNA molecule and can arise easily through convergent evolution. An example of such a motif is the bacterial rho-independent terminator[@Gardner2011A], a short hairpin responsible for halting transcription in many species. While such motifs can be a boon in discovering novel ncRNA genes[@Livny2005] or aligning homologs which contain them, they can also be a source of false-positives when attempting to build an alignment of homologous sequences.
Rfam has developed a pipeline designed to address many of these problems[@Gardner2009]. Starting from a single sequence, we iteratively expand an alignment using Infernal covariance models. During each iteration, we use a variety of automatic alignment and secondary structure prediction tools together with manual curation and editing in an effort to avoid many of the issues raised above. While the Rfam pipeline is designed to run on a high-end computational cluster, we have adapted the process here to make it accessible to anyone with a commodity PC and an internet connection.
Materials
=========
Single Sequence Search
----------------------
We rely on NCBI BLAST[@Altschul1990] to quickly identify close homologs of RNA sequences in this protocol. NCBI and EMBL-EBI both maintain servers[@Johnson2008; @Leinonen2010] with slightly different interfaces, though there are no substantive differences in the implementations. We use the NCBI server here. EBI also maintains servers for a number of BLAST and FASTA derivatives, which may be helpful. Both sites also allow users to BLAST against databases of expressed sequences including GEO at NCBI, and high throughput cDNA and transcriptome shotgun assembly databases at EMBL-EBI. Such searches can be helpful for gathering comparative expression data for your ncRNA.
A nucleotide version of the HMMER3 package[@Eddy2011] for sequence search is currently in development which promises both increased sensitivity and specificity over BLAST at little additional computational cost. We hope that a web server similar to the one currently available for protein sequences[@Finn2011] will be forthcoming. If it is possible that homologous sequences are spliced (e.g. introns in the U3 snoRNA[@Myslinski1990]), then a splice-site aware search method may be useful, such as BLAT[@Kent2002] or GenomeWise[@Birney2004], but there are not publicly available webservers for them that we are aware of.
Resource Reference URL
-------------------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------------
NCBI-BLAST [@Johnson2008] http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi
EMBL-EBI NCBI-BLAST [@Leinonen2010] http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/sss/ncbiblast/
EMBL-EBI Sequence Search [@Leinonen2010] http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/sss/
HMMER3 [@Finn2011] http://hmmer.janelia.org/search
Alignment and Secondary Structure Prediction Tools
--------------------------------------------------
We find it best to run a variety of alignment and secondary structure prediction tools simultaneously. Each has its own peculiarities, and our hope is that by looking for shared homology and secondary structure predictions we can mitigate some of the problems discussed in the introduction. In this protocol, we use the WAR webserver[@Torarinsson2008] which allows the user to run 14 different methods simultaneously. These include Sankoff-type methods: FoldalignM[@Torarinsson2007], LocARNA[@Will2007], MXSCARNA[@Tabei2008], Murlet[@Kiryu2007], and StrAL[@Dalli2006] + PETcofold[@Seemann2008]; Align-then-fold methods, which use a traditional alignment tool (ClustalW[@Thompson1994; @Chenna2003] or MAFFT[@Katoh2009; @Katoh2002]) followed by structure prediction (RNAalifold[@Bernhart2008; @Hofacker2007] or Pfold[@Knudsen2003]); Fold-then-align methods, which predict structures in all the input sequences and attempt to align these structures (RNAcast[@Reeder2005] + RNAforester[@Hochsmann2003]); Sampling methods which attempt to iteratively refine alignment and structure: MASTR[@Lindgreen2007] and RNASampler[@Xu2007]; and other methods which do not fit in to the above traditional categories: CMfinder[@Yao2006] and LaRA[@Bauer2007]. Finally, WAR also computes a consensus alignment using the alignments produced by all user-selected methods as input to the T-Coffee consistency-based aligner[@Notredame2000].
However, WAR is by no means exhaustive, and the applications may not be the most recent versions available. A number of groups maintain their own servers for RNA sequence analysis. Notable servers include the Vienna RNA WebServers[@Gruber2008], the Freiburg RNA Tools[@Smith2010], the CBRC Functional RNA Project[@Asai2008], and the Center for Non-Coding RNA in Technology and Health (RTH) Resources page. In addition, EMBL-EBI maintains a number of webservers for popular multiple sequence alignment alignment tools. Ultimately, as you become more comfortable with RNA sequence analysis you may want to begin installing and running new tools on a local \*NIX machine; however, this is beyond the scope of the current chapter.
Resource Reference URL
----------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------------------------
WAR [@Torarinsson2008] http://genome.ku.dk/resources/war/
Vienna RNA [@Gruber2008] http://rna.tbi.univie.ac.at/
Freiburg RNA Tools [@Smith2010] http://rna.informatik.uni-freiburg.de
CBRC Functional RNA Project [@Asai2008] http://software.ncRNA.org
RTH Resources NA http://rth.dk/pages/resources.php
EMBL-EBI Alignment NA http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/
Genome Browsers
---------------
Genome browsers are essential for checking the context of putative homologs. The ENA[@Leinonen2010] provides a no-frills sequence browser perfect for quickly checking annotations. For deeper annotations, the UCSC genome broswer[@Rhead2009] and Ensembl[@Flicek2010] both contain a wide range of information for the organisms they cover. For bacterial and archaeal genomes, the Lowe lab maintains a modified version of the UCSC genome browser[@Schneider:2005] which provides a number of tracks of particular interest to those working with ncRNA. The CBRC Functional RNA Project maintains a UCSC genome browser mirror[@Asai2008] for a number of eukaryotic organisms with a larger number of ncRNA-related tracks.
Resource Reference URL
--------------------------------------------- ------------------- -----------------------------------------------
European Nucleotide Archive [@Leinonen2010] http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/
UCSC Genome Browser [@Rhead2009] http://genome.ucsc.edu/
Ensembl [@Flicek2010] http://www.ensembl.org
UCSC Microbial Genome Browser [@Schneider:2005] http://microbes.ucsc.edu/
CBRC UCSC Genome Browser for Functional RNA [@Asai2008] http://www.ncrna.org/glocal/cgi-bin/hgGateway
Alignment Editors
-----------------
It is possible to edit alignments in any text editor; however we highly recommend using a secondary structure-aware editor such as Emacs with the RALEE major mode[@Griffiths2005]. RALEE allows you to color bases according to base identity, secondary structure, or base conservation. It also allows the easy manipulation of sequences which are involved in structural interactions but are not close in sequence space through the use of split screens. A number of other specialized RNA editors are available: BoulderALE[@Stombaugh2011] and S2S[@Jossinet2005] both allow the end user to visualize and manipulate tertiary structure in addition to secondary structure, and may be particularly useful if crystallographic information is available for your RNA. Other alternatives for editing RNA secondary structure are SARSE[@Andersen2007] and MultiSeq[@Roberts2006]. Recent versions of JalView[@Waterhouse2009] have begun to support RNA secondary structure as well, though this functionality isn’t completely mature at the time of writing (late 2011.)
Resource Reference URL
------------ ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RALEE [@Griffiths2005] http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/sam.griffiths-jones/software/ralee/
BoulderALE [@Stombaugh2011] http://www.microbio.me/boulderale
S2S [@Jossinet2005] http://bioinformatics.org/S2S/
SARSE [@Andersen2007] http://sarse.ku.dk/
MultiSeq [@Roberts2006] http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/vmd/plugins/multiseq/
JalView [@Waterhouse2009] http://www.jalview.org
Infernal
--------
The centerpiece of our protocol is the Infernal package for constructing covariance models(CMs) from RNA multiple alignments[@Nawrocki2009]. We will use this to construct models of our RNA family. CMs model the conservation of positions in an alignment similar to a hidden Markov model(HMM), while also capturing *covariation* in structured regions[@Eddy1994; @Sakakibara1994; @Durbin1998]. Covariation is the process whereby a mutation of a single base in a hairpin structure will lead to selection in subsequent generations for compensatory mutations of its structural partner in order to preserve canonical base-pairing, ie: Watson-Crick plus G-U pairs, and a functional structure. This combination of structural-evolutionary information has been shown to provide the most sensitive and specific homology search for RNA of any tools currently available[@Freyhult2007; @Gardner2009B]. Unfortunately, this sensitivity and specificity come at a high computational cost, and Infernal searches can be time-consuming with genome-scale searches often taking hours on desktop computers. The development of heuristics to reduce this computational cost is an area of active research for the Infernal team, and has already been mitigated to some extent by the use of HMM filters and query-dependent banding of alignment matrices[@Nawrocki2007]. We refer the reader to Eric Nawrocki’s excellent primer on annotating functional RNAs in genomic sequence for a friendly introduction to the mechanics of the Infernal package[@Nawrocki2012].
Resource Reference URL
---------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------
Infernal [@Nawrocki2009; @Nawrocki2012] http://infernal.janelia.org/
Methods
=======
We assume for the sake of this protocol that you are starting with a single sequence of interest. If you already have a set of putative homologs, you may wish to further diversify your collection of sequences using the methods described in section 3.1, or you may skip directly to section 3.2, or 3.4 if a secondary structure is known. No matter how many sequences you are starting with, it is always a good idea to run the tools available on the Rfam website (rfam.sanger.ac.uk) on them. This will verify that there isn’t already a CM available that covers your sequences. There are a number of other specialist databases that may also be worth searching if you have reason to believe your RNA sequence is a member of a well-defined class of RNAs, i.e. microRNAs, snoRNAs, rRNAs, tRNAs, etc. We have previously reviewed these databases in another book chapter[@Hoeppner2012]. A generic RNA sequence database aiming to capture all known RNA sequences, RNAcentral[@Bateman2011] is currently in development and will provide a resource for easily identifying similar sequences with some evidence of transcription.
Gathering an initial set of homologous sequence
-----------------------------------------------
Now that you’ve confirmed that your sequence is novel, we will use NCBI-BLAST to identify additional homologous sequences. Once you’ve navigated to the nucleotide BLAST server there are a number of important options to set.
### Setting NCBI-BLAST Parameters
First, it is important to choose a search set appropriate to your sequence. At this initial phase, we want to limit our exposure to sequences which are very distant from ours to avoid the number of obviously spurious alignments we will need to examine, increasing the power of our search. So, if your initial sequence is of human origin, you may want to limit your search to Mammalia, Tetrapoda, or Vertebrata depending on sequence conservation. Similarly, if you are working with an [*Escherichia coli*]{} sequence, you may want to limit your initial searches to Enterobacteriaceae or the Gammaproteobacteria. NCBI-BLAST searches are relatively fast, so try several search sets to get a feel for how conserved your sequence is.
The second set of options to set is the “Program Selection" and the “Algorithm Parameters". We recommend [**blastn**]{} as it allows for smaller word sizes. The word size describes the minimum length of an initial perfect match needed to trigger an alignment between our query sequence and a target. Smaller word sizes provide greater sensitivity, and seem to perform better for non-coding RNAs. We recommend a word size of 7, the smallest the NCBI-BLAST server allows.
Finally, you should set “Max Target Sequences" parameter to at least 1000. NCBI-BLAST returns hits in a ranked list from best match to worst by E-value (or the number of matches with the same quality expected to be found in a search over a database of this size), and will only display as many as “Max Target Sequences" is set to. We are primarily interested in matches on the edge of what NCBI-BLAST is capable of detecting reliably, and these will naturally fall towards the end of this list.
### Selecting Sequences
Our goal at this stage is to pick a representative set of homologous sequences to “seed" our alignment with. As discussed in the introduction, single sequence alignment for nucleotides is generally only reliable to approximately 60 percent pair-wise sequence identity. At the same time, picking a large number of sequences with high percent identity can lead to *overfitting* of the secondary structure; that is, if our sequences are too similar we can end up predicting alignments and secondary structures which capture accidental features of a narrow clade, rather than the biologically relevant structure and sequence variation.
There are 3 major criteria we pick additional sequences based on, in rough order of importance: percent sequence identity, taxonomy, and sequence coverage. Handily, the NCBI-BLAST output displays measures of all of these. Our first selection criterion, percent identity, should fall between 65% and 95%; much lower and the sequence will be difficult to align, higher and it will be too similar to have any meaningful variation.
The second selection criterion, taxonomy, will depend somewhat on the organisms your sequence is associated with, but we generally want to limit the inclusion to a single (orthologous) instance per species. The exception to this rule is for diverged paralogous sequences within the species; if paralogs exist, you will need to decide how broadly you wish to define your family. Additionally, it may be useful to further limit the maximum percent identity to, say, 90% within a genus to further limit the number of highly similar sequences in your initial alignment.
Finally, assuming that you are sure of your sequence boundaries, we want to select sequences that cover the entire starting sequence. If you see many matches covering only a short section of your sequence, this may be due to the matching of a short convergent motif. This most commonly happens with the relatively long, highly-constrained bacterial rho-independent terminators, but may occur with other motifs. Alternatively, if you do not have well-defined sequence boundaries, you will need to determine these from the conservation you see in your BLAST hits – look for taxonomically diverse hits covering the same segment of your query sequence. In some cases, such as the long non-coding RNAs, conserved domains may be much shorter than the complete transcribed sequence, but stay aware of the potential motif issue. A taxonomic distribution of sequences that makes biological sense given your knowledge of the molecule’s function and that can be explained by direct inheritance of the sequence will be your best guide.
### Examining Your Initial Homolog Set
Once you have assembled a set of sequences fitting the criteria described above, it is worth taking a closer look at them. Remember that these sequences will form the core of your alignment and CM, and errors at this stage can dramatically bias your results. A good first test is to examine the taxonomy of your sequences, and make sure it makes sense. Can you identify a clear pattern of inheritance that might explain the taxonomic distribution you see at this stage? Another good check is to examine your sequences in the ENA browser, or a domain-specific browser if one exists for your organisms. For many independently transcribed RNAs, genomic context is more conserved than sequence, and ncRNA genes will often fall in homologous intergenic or intronic regions even at large evolutionary distances. If you are particularly ambitious, and the tools are available for your organisms of interest, you may wish to try to identify promoter sequence upstream of your candidate or terminator sequence downstream. If your sequence is a putative cis-regulatory element, such as a riboswitch, thermosensor, or attenuator, you may want to check that it occurs upstream of genes with similar functions or in similar pathways. Finally, it is always worth searching your putative homologs through the Rfam website even if your initial sequence had no matches – Rfam’s models are not perfect, and may miss distant homologs of known families.
Aligning and predicting secondary structure
-------------------------------------------
We will use the WAR servers to construct an initial alignment. Because of the criteria we’ve set for sequence similarity in our gathering step, all of the sequences in our initial homolog set should have at least 60% pairwise sequence identity with at least one other sequence in the set. Under these conditions sequence-only alignment methods using primary sequence information only can preform adequately, as discussed previously. These methods combined with alignment folding tools which identify for conserved structural signals and covariation can produce reasonable predicted secondary structures[@Gardner2004]. However it is still often useful to observe the behavior of as many alignment tools as possible. Using WAR, for a fairly fast alignment we recommend running CMfinder[@Yao2006], StrAL+PETfold[@Dalli2006; @Seemann2008], ClustalW[@Thompson1994; @Chenna2003] and MAFFT[@Katoh2009; @Katoh2002] with RNAalifold[@Bernhart2008; @Hofacker2007] and Pfold[@Knudsen2003]. WAR will also produce a consensus alignment using T-Coffee[@Notredame2000], which will attempt to find an alignment consistent with all of the individual alignments produced by other methods.
{width="\textwidth"}
Once WAR returns your alignment results, there are a number of things you should take a note of that will assist you in picking an alignment and further in manual refinement. First, the consensus alignment page will display a graphical representation of the consistency of the alignments which will allow you to quickly tell which areas of the alignment may require attention during manual refinement, or areas that may harbor structure not captured by the majority consensus. The consensus can be recomputed based on differing subsets alignment methods, if you believe one method (or set of methods) may be unduly influencing the consensus. Once you’ve carefully looked over the consensus alignment, examine each alignment produced by WAR in turn: What structures are shared? Where do the alignments differ from each other? Can you identify any sequence or structural motifs which may help to guide your alignment? At this level of sequence identity, you should hope to see fairly consistent alignments in functional regions of the sequence, interspersed with more difficult to align regions, presumably under less severe selective pressure. Often the consensus alignment is a good choice to move forward with. However, there are cases where certain classes of tools will obviously mis-align regions of the sequence and bias the consensus. Keep in mind what you’ve seen in the alternative alignments as well; this information may be useful in manual refinement. You will want to save the stockholm file for the alignment you’ve chosen to your local computer at this point.
Later in the family-building process when you have identified more distant homologs, the average pair-wise identity of the sequences in your data set may have dropped below 60%. At this point, you may want to begin including some of the Sankoff-type alignment methods available in WAR. Using these methods can dramatically increase the runtime for your sequence alignment jobs, though, particularly for sequences over a couple of hundred of bases long. We will discuss alternatives to re-aligning sequences during the iterative expansion of the alignment in section 3.5.
Manually refining alignments
----------------------------
Our goal in manual refinement is to attempt to correct errors made by automatic alignment tools. We generally use RALEE[@Griffiths2005], an RNA editing mode for Emacs, for editing alignments. However, any editor you are comfortable with in which you can easily visualize sequence and structural conservation will work; a number of alternative editors are listed in the Materials section.
A good place to start editing is around the edges of predicted hairpin structures. Are there base-pairs which appear to be misaligned? Can you add base-pairs to the structure? Are there predicted base-pairs which don’t appear to be well conserved that should be trimmed? Can individual bases be moved in the alignment to create more convincing support for the predicted structure?
Once you are satisfied with your manual refinement of predicted secondary structure elements, next you should turn your attention to areas identified as uncertain in the WAR/T-Coffee consensus alignment. Were there alternative structures predicted in these regions? Do you see support for these structures in the sequences? If these regions are unstructured, can you identify any conserved sequence motifs in the region? If you will be regularly working with a particular class of ncRNA, it can be useful to familiarize yourself with predicted binding motifs of associated RNA-binding proteins as these are likely to be conserved but can have many variable positions.
At this stage, it is also possible to include information from experimental data. Crystal structure information from a single sequence in the SEED alignment can be used to validate and improve a predicted secondary structure. Tertiary structure-aware editors such as BoulderAle[@Stombaugh2011] can help in applying this information to the alignment. Other experimental evidence, such as chemical footprinting can also provide valuable information. Knowing whether even a single base is involved in a pairing interaction can drastically reduce the space of possible structures the sequence can fold in to, simplifying the problem of predicting secondary structure. Both the RNAfold and RNAalifold web servers available through the Vienna RNA website[@Gruber2008] are capable of taking advantage of this information in the form of folding constraints. We hope that these sorts of datasets will become widely available in consistent formats in the near future[@Rocca-Serra2011].
Building a covariance model
---------------------------
For those comfortable with the \*NIX command line, building an Infernal CM is fairly straight-forward. We refer the reader to the User’s Guide available from the Infernal website (http://infernal.janelia.org) for installation instructions and a detailed tutorial. The basic syntax to build and calibrate a family is:
> cmbuild my.cm my.sto
> cmcalibrate my.cm
The first command constructs the CM ([my.cm]{}) from the alignment you’ve carefully curated ([my.sto]{}). The second command calibrates the various filters Infernal uses to accelerate its search using simulated sequences generated from the CM. Note that calibration can take a long time – hours for longer models. You can get a quick estimate of the time calibration will take using the command:
> cmcalibrate --forecast 1 my.cm
Congratulations! You should now have a working CM for your RNA family. This is a fully capable model, and can be used as is for homology search and genome annotation. However, as it stands, your CM will only capture the sequence diversity which was able to be detected by our initial BLAST search. In order to fully take advantage of the power of CMs, it is necessary to expand the diversity of the sequence it is trained on through iterative expansion of our initial set of sequence homologs.
Strategies for expanding model coverage
---------------------------------------
### Plan A: Iterative search of sequence databases
The method Rfam uses to identify more divergent homologs to seed sequences is to pre-filter CM-based searches with sequence-based homology search tools. This allows us to cover a large sequence space with a (comparatively) modest investment of computational time. Any of the single sequence search tools mentioned in section 2.1 would make an effective pre-filter.
The easiest way to preform filtering yourself is to use the NCBI BLAST webserver to search each sequence in your seed alignment following the methods outlined for collecting your initial set of homologs in section 3.1. You may wish to relax the criteria slightly, then use the CM to preform a more sensitive search on this set of filtered sequences. This will enable you to detect more distantly related sequences, though you should always examine sequence context and the phylogenetic relationship between sequences as a sanity check before including them in your seed. These methods can be automated with basic scripting and bioinformatics modules such as BioPerl[@Stajich:2002] or Biopython[@Cock:2009], though this is beyond the scope of this chapter.
Once you have identified a new set of homologs, you can align them to your previous CM using Inferal’s cmalign:
> cmalign my.cm newsequences.fasta > newsequences.sto
This alignment can then be merged with your original alignment:
> cmalign --merge my.cm my.sto newsequences.sto > combined_alignment.sto
This alignment can then be used to build a new CM, which will capture the additional sequence variation you have discovered in your BLAST searches.
The disadvantage of this method is that each search only uses the information available in a single sequence, meaning that valuable information about variation is lost and as a result the power of the search suffers. Fast profile-based methods such as HMMER3[@Eddy2011] will hopefully remedy this problem in the near future, but these methods are not mature for DNA and RNA sequence at the present. Older versions of HMMER can be used to search DNA sequence with increased power, but they require more computational resources than BLAST (though far less than Infernal) and need to be used at the command-line.
### Plan B: Directed search of chosen sequences
Another approach is to run the unfiltered CM over selected genomes or genomic regions. While the greater sensitivity and specificity of this method can help identify more distant homologs than is possible with BLAST, it has the disadvantage that it requires a much larger investment of computational resources to provide an equivalent phylogenetic coverage. This method can be particularly powerful in bacterial and archaeal genomes, where small genome size allows us to search a phylogenetically-representative sample of genomes in less than a day on a desktop computer. In the case of larger eukaryotic genomes, it may be necessary to search a few genomes to determine if homologs of your RNA are likely to exist in certain lineages, then extract homologous intergenic regions to continue searching. Our rationale here is much the same as in limiting the database for our initial BLAST search: by only looking in genomes where we have some prior belief that they may contain homologous sequence we reduce the noise in our low-scoring hits, meaning that we have to manually examine less hits to establish a score threshold for likely homologs.
Once you have examined candidates following the principles outlined earlier, it is easy to incorporate your new sequences using the easel package included with Infernal. First, search the genome generating a tabfile:
> cmsearch --tabfile searchfile.tab my.cm genome.fasta
Then use easel to index the genome and extract the hits:
> esl-sfetch --index genome.fasta
> esl-sfetch --tabfile genome.fasta searchfile.tab > hits.fasta
These sequences can then be aligned and merged as with BLAST hits. Alternatively, if you discover a divergent lineage, it may be easiest to construct a separate alignment for these sequences, then use shared structural and sequence motifs to manually combine the two alignments. Sankoff-type alignment method may also be useful for aligning divergent clades.
### Plan C: When A and B fail...
In some cases, it will be very difficult to identify homologs of a candidate RNA across its full phylogenetic range. This can be because of high sequence variability, as in the Vault RNAs[@Stadler:2009]. Alternatively, some longer RNAs, such as the RNA component of the telomerase ribonuceloprotein, consist of well-conserved segments interspersed with long variable regions which can’t be easily discovered by standard search with naive covariance models.
A number of computational techniques exist for approaching these difficult cases, reviewed by Mosig and colleagues[@Mosig:2009]. These methods include fragrep2[@Mosig:2007], which allows the user to search fragmented conserved regions, fragrep3, which allows the user to incorporate custom structural motifs with fragmented search, and GotohScan[@Hertel:2009], which implements a [*semi-global*]{} alignment algorithm that will align a query sequence to a (potentially) extended genomic region.
An example: MicA
================
We will now illustrate some of the concepts we’ve discussed using the example of MicA, an Hfq-dependent bacterial trans-acting antisense small RNA (sRNA). Many bacterial sRNAs are similar in function to eukaryotic microRNAs, pairing to target mRNA transcripts through a short antisense-binding region, generally targeting the transcript for degradation[@Storz:2004]. MicA is known to target a wide-range of outer membrane protein mRNAs using a $5^\prime$ binding-region in both [*E. coli*]{}[@Gogol:2011] and [*S. enterica*]{}[@Vogel:2008] in response to membrane stress. The current covariance model for MicA (accession RF00078) in Rfam (release 10.1) is largely restricted to [*E. coli*]{}, [*S. enterica*]{}, and [*Y. pestis*]{}. Here, as an example, we will attempt to improve on this model using the methods we’ve described in this chapter. In the process, we discover previously unreported homologs in the nematode symbionts of the Gammaproteobacterial genus [*Xenorhabdus*]{}.
For our starting point, we are using the MicA sequence from Gisela Storz’s spreadsheet of known [*E. coli*]{} sRNAs[@Storz_SS]:
MicA: GAAAGACGCGCATTTGTTATCATCATCCCTGAATTCAGAGATGAAATTTTGGCCACTCACGAGTGGCCTTTTT
It is a useful exercise to compare the single sequence predicted secondary structures for this sequence and the [*E. coli*]{} sequence from the current Rfam SEED alignment(see Figure 2). This illustrates that even for nearly identical sequences, single sequence structure prediction methods can give divergent results. Other important features to notice are that the $3^\prime$ hairpin shared by the predicted structures appears to be a rho-independent terminator, and this could be confirmed with a motif hunting tool[@Gardner2011A] and used during manual curation.
![Alternative structures predicted by the RNAfold webserver for single MicA sequences. A) [*E. coli*]{} APEC sequence from the current Rfam seed alignment. B) [*E. coli*]{} sequence from Storz’s sRNA spreadsheet. C) A likely homolog from [*Erwinia pyrifoliae*]{}. Notice the differences in the secondary structure of the first two examples, despite only differing by two extra nucleotides at the gene boundaries. The [*Erwinia*]{} prediction only shares a single stem with the [*E. coli*]{} predictions, despite relatively high sequence similarity.](structs.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
We now begin by following the guidance in section 3.1 to collect an initial set of putative homologs. To obtain an initial set of sequences, we BLAST the [*E. coli*]{} MicA sequence over the nucleotide collection database limited to the enterobacteria (taxonomy id: 543) using the blastn algorithm. The BLAST search returns a number of highly similar [*E. coli*]{} sequences, as well as related sequences from the closely related [*S. enterica*]{}. As we move down to less similar sequences (as judged by their E-values) we identify progressively more evolutionarily distant organisms.
![Truncated results from a NCBI-BLAST search of the [*E. coli*]{} MicA sequence, showing the low E-value results. We are primarily interested in column 2 for genus and species information, column 5 for sequence coverage information, and column 7 for percent identity informations.](BLAST.png){width="\textwidth"}
From these sequences, we want to select a group of sequences with a reasonably diverse taxonomic range and as much sequence diversity as possible, while being reasonably confident that they are true homologs. In this case we will choose based on maximzing genus diversity, a percent id between 75% and 90%, and 100% sequence coverage as we’re fairly confident in the MicA gene boundaries. For our initial alignment, we have chosen sequences from [*Salmonella typhimurium*]{} (EMBL-Bank accession: FQ312003), [*Klebsiella pneumoniae*]{} (CP002910), [*Enterobacter cloaca*]{} (CP002272), [*Yersinia pestis*]{} (AM286415), [*Pantoea*]{} sp. At-9b (CP002433), and [*Erwinia pyrifoliae*]{} (FP236842). From a quick examination with the ENA browser, it appears that all of these sequences fall in a intergenic region between a luxS protein homolog and a gshA protein homolog, further increasing our confidence that these are true homologs. From our results, we can also see a few promising hits that don’t quite meet our criteria, such as [*Dickeya*]{}, [*Xenorhabdus*]{}, [*Photorhabdus*]{} and [*Wigglesworthia*]{}. We will keep these in mind later to expand our coverage.
Now that we have a starting set of sequences, we can assemble them in to a fasta file:
>U00096.2
GAAAGACGCGCATTTGTTATCATCATCCCTGAATTCAGAGATGAAATTTTGGCCACTCACGAGTGGCCTTTTT
>FQ312003
GAAAGACGCGCATTTGTTATCATCATCCCTGTTTTCAGCGATGAAATTTTGGCCACTCCGTGAGTGGCCTTTTT
>CP002272
GAAAGACGCGCATTTGTTATCATCATCCCTGACTTCAGAGATGAAATGTTTGGCCACAGTGATGTGGCCTTTTT
>CP002910
GAAAGACGCGCATTTATTATCATCATCATCCCTGAATCAGAGATGAAAGTTTGGCCACAGTGATGTGGCCTTTTT
>AM286415
GAAAGACGCGCATTTGTTATCATCATCCCTGTTATCAGAGATGTTAATTTGGCCACAGCAATGTGGCCTTTT
>CP002433
GAAAGACGCGCATTTGTTATCATCATCCCTGACAACAGAGATGTTAATTCGGCCACAGTGATGTGGCCTTTT
>FP236842
GAAAGACGCGTATTTGTTATCATCATCTCATCCCTGACAACAGAGATGTTAATTTAGGCCACAGTGACGTGGCCTTTTT
We can use this to run WAR, and look at the secondary structures predicted by each method. One secondary structure appears to dominates the predictions. However, itÕs important to check the other predicted secondary structures - do any of them pick up convincing substructures that may have been missed by other methods?
{width="\textwidth"}
In this case, the consensus alignment (see Figure 1) seems to agree well with the majority of alignment and structure prediction methods, and is consistent with previous experimental probing[@Udekwu:2005]. We can improve the alignment manually. The first basepair in the first stem in CP002433 can be rescued by shifting a few nucleotides, and by pulling apart the alignment between the first and second stem we reveal what appears to be a well-conserved AAUUU sequence motif that was previously hidden (Figure 5). The RNA chaperone Hfq is known to bind to A/U rich sequences, so this motif may have some functional significance. The strong conservation of the $5^\prime$ antisense-binding domain provides more confidence that these are in fact homologous RNAs.
{width="\textwidth"}
Now we will follow Plan B to add sequences to our alignment using the genomes for the low-scoring BLAST hits we had previously made a note of while collecting our initial set of sequences, though you could also choose these sequences based on your knowledge of your organisms phylogeny or the suspected function of your RNA. The genomes we’ve chosen here are [*Dickeya zeae*]{} (CP001655), [*Sodalis Glossinidius*]{} (AP008232), [*Xenorhabdus nematophila*]{} (FN667742) and [*Wiggglesworthia glosinidia*]{} (BA000021). Searching these genomes allows us to identify strong hits in [*D. zeae*]{} and [*S. glossinidius*]{} with E-values of $10^{-12}$ and $10^{-10}$ which we can merge in to our alignment using the methods in section 3.5.1. You should then manually refine the resulting merged alignment with an eye towards maintaining conserved sequence motifs and structure. Already at this distance, there have been some apparent small decay in secondary structure, as well as an expansion of the sequence contained in the loop region of the second stem in [*D. zeae*]{} (Figure 6).
![MicA alignment including merged sequences from [*D. zeae*]{} and [*S. glossinidius*]{}.](edited2.png){width="\textwidth"}
We observe a number of hits in [*X. nematophila*]{} with E-values in the range of $10^{-2}$. By checking each of these individually in the ENA browser, we can identify one that falls in the same genomic context as our previous MicA homologs (Figure 7). By using this sequence as the starting point for a BLAST search, we are able to identify a number of other divergent [*Xenorhabdus*]{} homologs. As these are quite diverged from the [*E. coli*]{} sequence, we first construct an alignment for them using WAR (Figure 8), then attempt to merge our alignments manually (Figure 9) using shared structural features as our guide. Interestingly, the target-binding region of MicA appears to have suffered a poly-A insertion down this lineage, suggesting that there may be changes in the regulon it targets. Using this model to search all of the bacterial genomes in EMBL-Bank (approximately 6GB of sequence, taking 30 hours on a 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor) shows that our CM now has high-scoring hits exclusively in Enterobacteriales, while covering a broader range than our BLAST searches. This search also reveals a number of possible sources of additional diversity: [*Photorhabdus asymbiotica*]{} and [*Edwardsiella ictaluri*]{} both have strong hits below the average score for other Enterobacterial genomes – incorporating them may further increase the sensitivity of our model, and is left as an exercise to the reader.
![Context of a marginal [*X. nematophila*]{} hit viewed in the ENA genome browser.](xeno_context_ENA.png){width="\textwidth"}
![An alignment of [*Xenorhabdus*]{} homologs.](xeno_align.png){width="\textwidth"}
![Divergent [*Xenorhabdus*]{} homologs manually merged with the MicA alignment. Notice the variation in both secondary structure and sequence conservation added by these sequences.](merged.png){width="\textwidth"}
[^1]: A full explanation of dynamic programming is beyond the scope of this book chapter, but for a brief introduction see two excellent primers by Sean Eddy covering applications to alignment[@Eddy2004] and secondary structure prediction[@Eddy2004A]; for those seeking a deeper understanding Durbin [*et al.*]{}[@Durbin1998] provides coverage of dynamic programming as well as covariance models.
[^2]: For recent benchmarks of alignment tools on ncRNA sequences see Hamada [*et al.*]{}[@Hamada2009] and the supplementary information of Bradley [*et al.*]{}[@Bradley2008]; Hamada includes comparisons of aligner runtimes, while Bradley examines relative performance over a range of pair-wise sequence percent identities.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We define Donaldson–Thomas type invariants for non-commutative projective Calabi–Yau-3 schemes whose associated graded algebras are finite over their centers. As an application, we study and compute some DT invariants for the quantum Fermat quintic threefolds.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia'
author:
- 'Yu-Hsiang Liu'
title: 'Donaldson–Thomas theory for quantum Fermat quintic threefolds'
---
Introduction
============
In [@Tho00], Thomas introduced the integer-valued invariants, now called Donaldson–Thomas invariants, for smooth Calabi–Yau threefolds by integrations over the degree zero virtual fundamental classes for moduli spaces of stable sheaves. Later it was discovered by Behrend ([@Beh09]) that these invariants can be computed by the weighted Euler characteristics of certain constructible functions on the moduli spaces. Since then, there have been many generalizations, including Joyce–Song’s generalized Donaldson–Thomas theory ([@JS12]) and Kontsevich–Soibelman’s motivic (cohomological) Donaldson–Thomas theory ([@KS11]), which conjecturally works for any Calabi–Yau-3 (triangulated) category.
Our motivation starts from a special Calabi–Yau-$3$ category, called the quantum Fermat quintic threefold, constructed in [@Kan15]. A quantum Fermat quintic threefold ${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A_Q)$ is a non-commutative projective scheme ([@AZ94]) defined by a graded algebra $$A=\mathbb{C}\langle x_0,\ldots,x_4\rangle\Big/\left(\sum_{n=0}^4 x_n^5,x_ix_j-q_{ij}x_jx_i \right),$$ for certain quantum parameters $q_{ij}$’s. This category is not equivalent to the category of coherent sheaves on any Calabi–Yau threefold. On the other hands, most known examples in the study of non-commutative Donaldson–Thomas theory ([@Sze08], [@CMPS17]) are given by quivers with potentials, which are non-commutative analogues of local (affine) Calabi–Yau threefolds. The quantum Fermat quintic threefold is projective, in the sense that its moduli spaces are expected to be projective. Therefore we may define Donaldson–Thomas type invariants via integration over the virtual fundamental class on the moduli spaces, which is essential for deformation invariance.
The purpose of this paper is to define and study Donaldson–Thomas theory on ${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)$. The first step is to construct moduli spaces. We observe that $A$ contains a commutative subalgebra $B=\mathbb{C}[y_0,\ldots,y_4]/(\sum_{n=0}^4 y_n)\subset Z(A)$ with $y_i=x_i^5$ such that $A$ is a finite (graded) $B$-module. Take $X=\operatorname{Proj}(B)\cong\mathbb{P}^3$, then $A$ naturally induces a sheaf ${\mathcal{A}}$ of non-commutative ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-algebras on $X$. It can be shown that there is an equivalence of categories between ${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)$ and the category ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})$ of coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules (Proposition \[prop:qgr-to-coh\]).
For a general smooth projective variety $X$ with a coherent sheaf ${\mathcal{A}}$ of non-commutative ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-algebras, the stability condition for ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules and their moduli spaces have been studied by Simpson [@Sim94]. Fix a polarization ${\mathcal{O}}_X(1)$ on $X$, then the stability condition for ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules is defined via the Hilbert polynomials on $X$ similarly to Gieseker stability for coherent sheaves.
Let ${\mathfrak{M}}^{(s)s,h}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ be the moduli stack of (semi)stable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules with Hilbert polynomial $h$. Then
(a) The moduli stack ${\mathfrak{M}}^{(s)s,p}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is an Artin stack of finite type, and admits a good moduli space $M^{(s)s,p}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$.
(b) The coarse moduli scheme $M^{ss,p}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is projective, whose points are in one-to-one correspondence with S-equivalent classes of semistable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules.
(c) The morphism ${\mathfrak{M}}^{s,p}(X,{\mathcal{A}})\to M^{s,p}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is a $\mathbb{C}^*$-gerbe, and $M^{s,p}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is the open subscheme of $M^{ss,p}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ whose points corresponds to isomorphism classes of stable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules.
The next step is to construct a virtual fundamental class for the moduli space $M:=M^{s,p}_X$ of stable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules by showing $M$ admits a perfect obstruction theory ([@BF97]). We start by constructing an obstruction theory on the moduli space $M$.
Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be the universal family of twisted ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules on $X\times M$. Then there is an obstruction theory $${\mathbb{E}}:=\Big(R\pi_{M*}R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})\Big)^{\vee}[-1]\to{\mathbb{L}}_M$$ for $M$.
It is well-known that deformation-obstruction theory for objects in any abelian category are governed by their $\operatorname{Ext}^1$ and $\operatorname{Ext}^2$ groups. However, as pointed out in [@HT10], a more explicit description for the obstruction classes is required to construct an obstruction theory for the moduli space.
Let $S$ be a scheme, and ${\mathcal{F}}$ be a ${\mathcal{O}}_S$-flat coherent ${\mathcal{A}}_S$-module on $X\times S$. There exists a natural class $$\operatorname{at}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}})\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi^*_S{\mathbb{L}}_S),$$ called the Atiyah class, such that for any square-zero extension $S\subset\overline{S}$ with ideal sheaf $I$, an ${\mathcal{A}}$-module extension of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $\overline{S}$ exists if and only if the obstruction class $$\operatorname{ob}=\Big({\mathcal{F}}\xrightarrow{\operatorname{at}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}})}{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S[1]\xrightarrow{{\text{id}}_{{\mathcal{F}}}\otimes\pi_S^*\kappa(S/\overline{S})[1]}{\mathcal{F}}\otimes \pi_S^* I[2]\Big)\in\operatorname{Ext}^2_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^* I)$$ vanishes, where $\kappa(S/\overline{S})\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_S(S,I)$ is the Kodiara–Spencer class for the extension $S\subset\overline{S}$. Moreover, if an extension of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $\overline{S}$ exists, then all (equivalence classes of) extensions form an affine space over $\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)$.
Assume that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is Calabi–Yau-$3$ in the sense that ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})$ is a Calabi–Yau-3 category. For example, the quantum Fermat quintic ${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)$ will give such $X$ and ${\mathcal{A}}$. In this case, we construct a symmetric bilinear form $$\theta:(R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{E}})^{\vee}[-1]\to R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{E}}\,[2]=\Big((R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{E}})^{\vee}[-1]\Big)^{\vee}[1].$$ We use this to prove the following:
The truncation of the obstruction theory ${\mathbb{E}}\to{\mathbb{L}}_M$ for $M$ induces a symmetric obstruction theory $$\Big(\tau^{[1,2]}R\pi_{M*}R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})\Big)^{\vee}[-1]\to{\mathbb{L}}_M,$$ which in particular is a perfect obstruction theory.
Therefore the moduli space $M$ carries a degree zero virtual fundamental class $[M]_{{\text{vir}}}\in A_0(X)$. If $M$ is projective (i.e. there is no strictly semistable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules), then this allows us to define the Donaldson–Thomas type invariant via integration over $[M]_{{\text{vir}}}$ $${\mathsf{DT}}(M):=\int_{[M]^{{\text{vir}}}} 1,$$ which is equal to the weighted Euler characteristic $\chi(M,\nu_M)$, as in [@Beh09].
Next, we recall that classical Donaldson–Thomas theory is a virtual count of curves on a (Calabi–Yau) 3-fold. This is done by realizing the Hilbert schemes of curves are isomorphic to (components) of moduli spaces of stable sheaves *with fixed determinant*. For a general sheaf ${\mathcal{A}}$ of non-commutative algebras, we do not have the notion of determinant or trace, but we can show a similar result holds under suitable assumptions.
Assume that the stalk ${\mathcal{A}}_{\eta}$ at generic point $\eta\in X$ is simple, and $H^1(X,{\mathcal{A}})=0$. Then for any polynomial $h$ with degree $\leq 1$, there exists an open immersion $$\operatorname{Hilb}^h(X,{\mathcal{A}})\to M^{s,h_0-h}(X,{\mathcal{A}}),$$ where $h_0$ is the Hilbert polynomial of ${\mathcal{A}}$.
In general, $M=M^{s,h_0-h}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ may not be projective, but the Hilbert scheme $\operatorname{Hilb}^p(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is always projective. Then the symmetric obstruction theory of $M$ pulls back to a symmetric obstruction theory on $\operatorname{Hilb}^p(X,{\mathcal{A}})$, which allows us to define Donaldson–Thomas invariants via integrations $${\mathsf{DT}}^h(X,{\mathcal{A}}):=\int_{[\operatorname{Hilb}^{h}(X,{\mathcal{A}})]_{{\text{vir}}}}1=\chi(\operatorname{Hilb}^{h}(X,{\mathcal{A}}),\nu).$$ For the cases $h=n$ is constant, we denote $${\mathsf{DT}}_0(X,{\mathcal{A}})(t)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{\mathsf{DT}}^n(X,{\mathcal{A}})\,t^n$$ the degree zero Donaldson–Thomas partition function.
For the last part of this paper, we study these moduli spaces and compute some invariants for $(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ induced by a quantum Fermat quintic $3$-fold ${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)$. Since any zero-dimensional ${\mathcal{A}}$-module is always semistable, and it is stable if and only if it is simple, there is a natural morphism $$\operatorname{Hilb}^n(X,{\mathcal{A}})\to M^{ss,n}(X,{\mathcal{A}}).$$ This is an analogue of Hilbert–Chow map. On the other hand, we also consider the moduli stacks $${\mathfrak{M}}^{ss,n}(X,{\mathcal{A}})\to M^{ss,n}(X,{\mathcal{A}}).$$ It is a general principle that the moduli stacks are expected to be formally locally *on coarse moduli schemes* modelled by quivers with potentials ([@KS10]). We observe that the coarse moduli scheme $M^{ss,n}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is discrete (zero-dimensional) for $n\leq 4$, and prove that
The category ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})_{0,\leq 4}$ of zero-dimensional coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules with length $\leq 4$ is equivalent to the category ${{\mathbf{Rep}}}(Q,W)_{\leq 4}$ of representations of a quiver $Q$ with superpotential $W$ with dimension $\leq 4$, where $Q$ is the disjoint union of $10$ quivers, all isomorphic to $$\begin{xy} 0;<2pt,0pt>:<0pt,-2pt>::
(40,16) *+[Fo]{0} ="0",
(8,40) *+[Fo]{2} ="2",
(32,40) *+[Fo]{1} ="1",
(0,16) *+[Fo]{3} ="3",
(20,0) *+[Fo]{4} ="4",
(20,20) *+<2pt>{},
"4":{\ar@<-.5ex>"0"},
"4":{\ar@<.5ex>"0"},
"4":{\ar"2"},
"0":{\ar@<-.5ex>"1"},
"0":{\ar@<.5ex>"1"},
"0":{\ar"3"},
"1":{\ar@<-.5ex>"2"},
"1":{\ar@<.5ex>"2"},
"1":{\ar"4"},
"2":{\ar@<-.5ex>"3"},
"2":{\ar@<.5ex>"3"},
"2":{\ar"0"},
"3":{\ar@<-.5ex>"4"},
"3":{\ar@<.5ex>"4"},
"3":{\ar"1"},
\end{xy}$$ we denote the arrows by $x_i,z_i:i\to i+1$ and $y_i:i\to i-2$. Then the superpotentail is given by $$W=YXZ-qYZX,$$ where $X=x_0+\ldots+x_4$, $Y=qy_0+q^3y_1+y_2+q^2y_3+q^4y_4$, and $Z=z_0+\ldots+z_4$.
Furthermore, we show that Hilbert schemes of points are isomorphic to the moduli spaces of framed representations of $(Q,W)$ $$\operatorname{Hilb}^n(X,{\mathcal{A}})\cong\coprod_{|{\mathbf{v}}|=n} M^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{1}}).$$ for $n\leq 4$ (Theorem \[thm:hilb-to-Q\]). The (motivic) Donaldson–Thomas theory for quivers with potentials has been well-studied. We apply dimension reduction ([@Mor12]) to compute (motivic) invariants for $\operatorname{Hilb}^n(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ for $n\leq 4$ and obtain the first four DT invariants $${\mathsf{DT}}_0(X,{\mathcal{A}})(t)=1+50\,t+1175\,t^2+17450\,t^3+184275\,t^4+\ldots.$$ For $n\geq 5$, the moduli spaces become more complicated. Since $M^{ss,n}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is no longer zero-dimensional, the quiver $(Q,W)$ with potential only models a formal neighborhood of the moduli stacks at certain points. Thus it will require a more sophisticated study of the moduli spaces to compute the invariants.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I would like to thank my advisor Kai Behrend for introducing me to this topic, and for his consistent guidance and support. I would also like to thank Toni Annala, Jim Bryan, Nina Morishige and Stephen Pietromonaco for many helpful conversations.
Notation {#notation .unnumbered}
--------
All schemes or algebras are separated and noetherian over $\mathbb{C}$. All (sheaves of) algebras are associative and unital. By non-commutative, we mean not necessarily commutative, and we assume that non-commutative rings are both left and right noetherian. For a non-commutative ring $A$, a $A$-module is always a left $A$-module. We will use $A^{{\mathrm{op}}}$-module to denote right $A$-module. All rings without specified non-commutative are commutative.
Sheaves of non-commutative algebras {#sec:nc-sheaf-alg}
===================================
Throughout we fix a smooth variety $X$ and a coherent sheaf ${\mathcal{A}}$ of non-commutative ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-algebras. We may view $(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ as a ringed space, and $\pi:(X,{\mathcal{A}})\to (X,{\mathcal{O}}_X)$ is a morphism of ringed spaces defined by the unit map ${\mathcal{O}}_X\to{\mathcal{A}}$. We denote ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})$ the category of coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules, that is, coherent sheaves ${\mathcal{F}}$ on $X$ with a left ${\mathcal{A}}$-actions ${\mathcal{A}}\otimes{\mathcal{F}}\to{\mathcal{F}}$.
We begin with few facts about ringed spaces. There are adjoint functors $\pi^*\dashv \pi_*\dashv \pi^!$, where $\pi^*={\mathcal{A}}\otimes -:{{\mathbf{Coh}}}(X)\to{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})$, $\pi_*:{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})\to{{\mathbf{Coh}}}(X)$ is the forgetful functor, and $\pi^!={\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{A}},-):{{\mathbf{Coh}}}(X)\to{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})$. More generally, we have natural isomorphisms $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}}\otimes{\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{H}})\cong\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{H}})),$$ for coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules ${\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-module ${\mathcal{G}}$, and $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{G}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}}{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{H}})\cong\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{H}}))$$ for coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-module ${\mathcal{F}}$, ${\mathcal{A}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}$-module ${\mathcal{G}}$, and ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-module ${\mathcal{H}}$.
Global dimension
----------------
One defines the global dimension of ${\mathcal{A}}$ similarly to the case of algebras.
An ${\mathcal{A}}$-module ${\mathcal{F}}$ is *locally projective* if for any $x\in X$, there exists an affine open set $U\subset X$ containg $x$ such that ${\mathcal{F}}|_U$ is a projective ${\mathcal{A}}|_U$-module.
For any locally free sheaf ${\mathcal{P}}$ on $X$, ${\mathcal{A}}\otimes{\mathcal{P}}$ is naturally a locally projective ${\mathcal{A}}$-module. Thus any coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-module ${\mathcal{F}}$ admits a resolution by locally projective ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules. We define the projective dimension $\operatorname{pd}({\mathcal{F}})$ of ${\mathcal{F}}$ to be the shortest length of of a projective resolution. Then it is a standard fact in homological algebra to show that
The following two numbers (possibly $\infty$) are the same:
1. supremum of $\operatorname{pd}({\mathcal{F}})$ for all coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules ${\mathcal{F}}$;
2. the (co)homological dimension of the category ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})$, that is, supremum of $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{A}}}^n({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})\neq 0$ for some coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$.
We call this number the global dimension of ${\mathcal{A}}$, and denote it by $\dim({\mathcal{A}})$.
We say ${\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth if $\dim({\mathcal{A}})<\infty$. Note that it does not automatically imply $\dim({\mathcal{A}})=\dim(X)$.
For simplicity, from now on we will assume the sheaf ${\mathcal{A}}$ is locally free on $X$. One immediate consequence is that any locally projective (injective) ${\mathcal{A}}$-module is locally free (injective) over ${\mathcal{O}}_X$. In particular we have $\dim({\mathcal{A}})\geq\dim(X)$.
Using the local-to-global spectral sequence with some basic properties of non-commutative rings (see for example, [@MR01 Theorem 4.4]), we see that the dimension of ${\mathcal{A}}$ can be computed locally.
The dimension of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is equal to the supremum of the global dimensions of algebras ${\mathcal{A}}_{x}$ for all (closed) points $x\in X$.
Serre duality
-------------
Since $X$ is a smooth variety, the derived category ${\mathbfcal{D}}({{\mathbf{Coh}}}(X))$ admits a Serre functor $(-)\otimes\omega_X[n]$, where $\omega_X$ is the dualizing sheaf and $n=\dim(X)$.
If ${\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth, then the derived category ${\mathbfcal{D}}({{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}}))$ admits a Serre functor $\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}{\mathbin{\displaystyle\stackrel{L}{\otimes}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}(-)[n]$, where $\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}=\pi^!\omega_X={\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{A}},\omega_X)$ is the dualizing ${\mathcal{A}}$-bimodule.
For any perfect complexes ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$ of ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules, we have natural isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}) & = \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{O}}_X,R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}))\\
& \cong\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}}),\omega_X[n])^*\\
& \cong\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}(R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{A}})\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}}{\mathcal{G}},\omega_X[n])^*\\
& \cong\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{G}},R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{A}})^{\vee}\otimes\omega_X[n])^* \\
& \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{A}}^{\vee}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}}{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\omega_X[n])^* \\
& = \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{G}},\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}}{\mathcal{F}}[n])^*.\end{aligned}$$
We say ${\mathcal{A}}$ is Calabi–Yau of dimension $n$ if the derived category ${\mathbfcal{D}}({{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}}))$ is a Calabi–Yau-$n$ category, i.e., the Serre functor is equivalent to $(-)[n]$.
In particular if ${\mathcal{A}}$ is Calabi–Yau, then ${\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth and $\dim({\mathcal{A}})=\dim(X)$.
Suppose ${\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth, then the followings are equivalent:
1. ${\mathcal{A}}$ is Calabi–Yau;
2. There is an isomorphism ${\mathcal{A}}\to\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}$ of ${\mathcal{A}}$-bimodules;
3. There is a non-degenerate bilinear form $$\sigma:{\mathcal{A}}\otimes{\mathcal{A}}\to\omega_X$$ of ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-modules such that $\sigma$ is symmetric and the diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\mathcal{A}}\otimes{\mathcal{A}}\otimes{\mathcal{A}}\ar[r]^{m\otimes{\text{id}}}\ar[d]_{{\text{id}}\otimes m} & {\mathcal{A}}\otimes{\mathcal{A}}\ar[d]^{\sigma}\\
{\mathcal{A}}\otimes{\mathcal{A}}\ar[r]_{\sigma} & \omega_X
}$$ commutes. In other words, $({\mathcal{A}},\sigma)$ is a family of symmetric Frobenius algebras over $X$.
It is clear that (1) and (2) are equivalent. For (2) and (3), a bilinear form $\sigma:{\mathcal{A}}\otimes{\mathcal{A}}\to\omega_X$ is non-degenerate if and only if it induces an isomorphism $${\mathcal{A}}\to{\mathcal{A}}^{\vee}\otimes\omega_X\cong{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{A}},\omega_X)=\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}$$ of ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-modules. To check it is a morphism of ${\mathcal{A}}$-bimodules, we may reduce to affine open sets $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$, where $R$ is regular. Then it is straightforward to verify that two statements are equivalent.
Let $X$ be a Calabi–Yau variety. Then any Azumaya algebra ${\mathcal{A}}$ on $X$ is Calabi–Yau.
Simpson’s moduli spaces
-----------------------
From now on we assume that $X$ is projective and fix a polarization ${\mathcal{O}}_X(1)$. Stability conditions for coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules and their moduli spaces have been studied by Simpson ([@Sim94]) for general sheaf ${\mathcal{A}}$ of non-commutative algebras on $X$. We recall their definitions and main results.
For a coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-module, we define its Hilbert polynomial, rank, slope, and support to be the same as its underlying coherent sheaf on $X$ (with respect to ${\mathcal{O}}_X(1)$). In particular, we say a coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-module is pure (of dimension $d$) if its underlying coherent sheaf is so.
A coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-module ${\mathcal{F}}$ is (semi)stable if it is pure, and for any non-trivial ${\mathcal{A}}$-submodule ${\mathcal{G}}\subset{\mathcal{F}}$, $$\frac{p_X({\mathcal{G}})(m)}{r({\mathcal{G}})}{ \mathrel{\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\scriptscriptstyle($}} \leq
\mathrel{\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\scriptscriptstyle)$}}}\frac{p_X({\mathcal{F}})(m)}{r({\mathcal{F}})},$$ for sufficiently large $m$, where $p_X$ is the Hilbert polynomial, and $r$ is the rank.
It was shown in [@Sim94] that all standard facts for semistable sheaves (cf. [@HL10]) are also true for semistable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules, such as
1. Any pure coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-module ${\mathcal{F}}$ has a unique filtration, called the *Harder–Narasimhan filtration*, $$0={\mathcal{F}}_0\subset{\mathcal{F}}_1\subset\ldots\subset{\mathcal{F}}_k={\mathcal{F}}$$ of coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules such that the quotients ${\mathcal{F}}_i/{\mathcal{F}}_{i-1}$’s are semistable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules with strictly decreasing reduced Hilbert polynomials.
2. Any semistable ${\mathcal{A}}$-module ${\mathcal{F}}$ has a filtration, called a *Jordan–Hölder filtration*, $$0={\mathcal{F}}_0\subset{\mathcal{F}}_1\subset\ldots\subset{\mathcal{F}}_k={\mathcal{F}}$$ of coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules such that the quotients $\operatorname{JH}_i:={\mathcal{F}}_i/{\mathcal{F}}_{i-1}$’s are stable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules with the same reduced Hilbert polynomial (as ${\mathcal{F}}$). Furthermore, the polystable ${\mathcal{A}}$-module $\operatorname{JH}({\mathcal{F}}):=\oplus_i\operatorname{JH}_i$ does not depend on the filtration (up to isomorphic). We say two semistable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$ are *S-equivalent* if $\operatorname{JH}({\mathcal{F}})\cong\operatorname{JH}({\mathcal{G}})$ as ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules.
3. If ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a stable ${\mathcal{A}}$-module, then $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})=\mathbb{C}$.
We fix a (numerical) polynomial $h$.
The Hilbert scheme $\operatorname{Hilb}^h(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ parameterizing quotients ${\mathcal{A}}\to{\mathcal{F}}$ as coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules with $p_X({\mathcal{F}})=h$ is representable by a projective scheme. In fact, it is the closed subscheme of the Quot scheme $\operatorname{Quot}_X^p({\mathcal{A}})$ (who parameterizes ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-module quotients of ${\mathcal{A}}$) given by the locus that the universal quotient is a morphism of ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules.
The moduli spaces of (semi)stable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules were constructed in the same way as the ones for (semi)stable sheaves, which is via GIT quotient on certain Hilbert (Quot) schemes. We omit the details and state the main results.
Let ${\mathfrak{M}}^{(s)s,h}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ be the moduli stack of (semi)stable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules with Hilbert polynomial $h$. Then
(a) The moduli stack ${\mathfrak{M}}^{(s)s,h}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is an Artin stack of finite type, and admits a good moduli space $M^{(s)s,h}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$.
(b) The coarse moduli scheme $M^{ss,h}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is projective, whose points are in one-to-one correspondence with S-equivalent classes of semistable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules.
(c) The morphism ${\mathfrak{M}}^{s,h}(X,{\mathcal{A}})\to M^{s,h}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is a $\mathbb{C}^*$-gerbe, and $M^{s,h}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is the open subscheme of $M^{ss,h}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ whose points corresponds to isomorphism classes of stable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules.
Deformation-obstruction theory for ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules {#sec:proof_of_atiyah}
==========================================================
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety and ${\mathcal{A}}$ a locally free sheaf of non-commutative ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-algebras. For a scheme $S$, and a coherent ${\mathcal{A}}_{S}$-module ${\mathcal{F}}$ on $X\times S$, flat over $S$. Suppose $S\subset\overline{S}$ is a square-zero extension with ideal sheaf $I$.
An ${\mathcal{A}}$-module extension of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $\overline{S}$ is a coherent ${\mathcal{A}}_{\overline{S}}$-module $\overline{{\mathcal{F}}}$ on $X\times\overline{S}$, flat over $\overline{S}$, such that $\overline{{\mathcal{F}}}|_{X\times S}\cong{\mathcal{F}}$ as ${\mathcal{A}}_S$-modules.
It is a general fact ([@Low05]) that existence of such extensions must be governed by an obstruction class in $\operatorname{Ext}^2_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)$. However, to obtain an obstruction theory on the moduli spaces, it requires a more explicit description of the obstruction class. We generalize the result in [@HT10], showing that the obstruction class is the product of Atiyah and Kodiara–Spencer classes.
\[thm:at-cl\] There exists a natural class $$\operatorname{at}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}})\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi^*_S{\mathbb{L}}_S),$$ called the Atiyah class, such that for any square-zero extension $S\subset\overline{S}$ with ideal sheaf $I$, an ${\mathcal{A}}$-module extension of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $\overline{S}$ exists if and only if the obstruction class $$\operatorname{ob}=\Big({\mathcal{F}}\xrightarrow{\operatorname{at}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}})}{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S[1]\xrightarrow{{\text{id}}_{{\mathcal{F}}}\otimes\pi_S^*\kappa(S/\overline{S})[1]}{\mathcal{F}}\otimes \pi_S^* I[2]\Big)\in\operatorname{Ext}^2_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^* I)$$ vanishes, where $\kappa(S/\overline{S})\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_S(S,I)$ is the Kodiara–Spencer class for the extension $S\subset\overline{S}$. Moreover, if an extension of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $\overline{S}$ exists, then all (equivalence classes of) extensions form an affine space over $\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)$.
We follow closely the method by [@HT10]. The key idea is that the obstruction classes are given universally by a morphism of Fourier–Mukai transforms.
For any morphism $f:S\to T$ of schemes, we will abuse the notation and write $f$ also for the induced morphism ${\text{id}}_X\times f:X\times S\to X\times T$. So there are natural functors $$f^*:{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}}_T)\to{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}}_S),\quad f_*:{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}}_S)\to{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}}_T),$$ where the latter one is induced by the natural morphism ${\mathcal{A}}_T={\mathcal{A}}\boxtimes{\mathcal{O}}_T\to f_*{\mathcal{A}}_S={\mathcal{A}}\boxtimes f_*{\mathcal{O}}_S$. We denote by ${\mathbfcal{D}}^{(b)}({\mathcal{A}}_S)$ the (bounded) derived category of ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}}_S)$. In this section, tensor products $\otimes$ will always be derived tensor products over ${\mathcal{O}}$ unless stated otherwise.
We briefly recall the definition of Fourier–Mukai transforms. For any schemes $S$ and $T$, and a complex ${\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{O}}_{S\times T})$ of coherent ${\mathcal{O}}_{S\times T}$-modules, we may define the Fourier–Mukai functor $$\Phi_{{\mathcal{P}}}:{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_S)\xrightarrow{\pi_S^*}{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_{S\times T})\xrightarrow{-\otimes{\mathcal{P}}}{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_{S\times T})\xrightarrow{R\pi_{T*}}{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_T),$$ where ${\mathcal{P}}$ is called the Fourier–Mukai kernel. Given any morphism $\phi:{\mathcal{P}}_1\to{\mathcal{P}}_2$ in ${\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{O}}_{S\times T})$, it induces a natural transformation $\Phi_{{\mathcal{P}}_1}\to\Phi_{{\mathcal{P}}_2}$ between functors. For any object ${\mathcal{F}}\in{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_S)$, we write $$\phi({\mathcal{F}}):\Phi_{{\mathcal{P}}_1}({\mathcal{F}})\to\Phi_{{\mathcal{P}}_2}({\mathcal{F}})$$ for the induced morphism in ${\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_T)$.
${\mathcal{A}}$-module deformations
-----------------------------------
We fix a scheme $S$ and a square-zero extension $i:S\subset\overline{S}$ with ideal sheaf $I$. Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be a coherent ${\mathcal{A}}_S$-module on $X\times S$, flat over $S$. Suppose $\overline{{\mathcal{F}}}$ is an ${\mathcal{A}}$-module extension of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $\overline{S}$. The isomorphism $Li^*\overline{{\mathcal{F}}}=i^*\overline{{\mathcal{F}}}\to{\mathcal{F}}$ induces an exact triangle $$Ri_*({\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)\to\overline{{\mathcal{F}}}\to Ri_*{\mathcal{F}}\xrightarrow{e} Ri_*({\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)[1],$$ which gives a class $e\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_{\overline{S}}}(Ri_*{\mathcal{F}},Ri_*({\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I))$. For any ${\mathcal{F}}$, we have an exact triangle $$\label{eqn:exact_Q_adj}
Q_{{\mathcal{F}}}\to Li^* Ri_*{\mathcal{F}}\to {\mathcal{F}}$$ in ${\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_S)$ given by adjunction.
An class $e\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_{\overline{S}}}(Ri_*{\mathcal{F}},Ri_*({\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I))$ is given by an ${\mathcal{A}}$-module deformations of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $\overline{S}$ if and only if the composition $$\Phi_e: Q_{{\mathcal{F}}}\to Li^* Ri_*{\mathcal{F}}\xrightarrow{Li^*e}Li^* Ri_*({\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)$$ is an isomorphism in ${\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_S)$.
Observe the diagram $$\xymatrix{
& & Q_{{\mathcal{F}}}\ar[d]\ar[rd]^{\Phi_e} & \\
Li^*Ri_*({\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)\ar[r] & Li^*{\mathcal{F}}\ar[r]\ar[rd]_{r} & Li^*Ri_*{\mathcal{F}}\ar[r]\ar[d] & Li^*Ri_*({\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)[1]\\
& & {\mathcal{F}} &
}$$ in ${\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_S)$. The morphism $r:Li^*{\mathcal{F}}\to{\mathcal{F}}$ is an isomorphism if and only if $\Phi_e$ is. *I think there is some standard argument to show that such complex ${\mathcal{F}}$ must be concentrated in degree zero...*
Now, we apply $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}(-,{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)$ to the exact triangle (\[eqn:exact\_Q\_adj\]), it yields $$\xymatrix@=1em{
& \operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_{\overline{S}}}(Ri_*{\mathcal{F}},Ri_*({\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I))\ar@{=}[d] & & \\
\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)\ar[r] & \operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}(Li^*Ri_*{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)\ar[r] & \operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}(Q_{{\mathcal{F}}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)\ar[r]^{\delta} & \operatorname{Ext}^2_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)
}$$ The second arrow sends a class $e$ to the morphism $$\Psi_e: Q_{{\mathcal{F}}}\xrightarrow{\Phi_e}Li^*Ri_*({\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)[1]\to {\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I[1],$$ where the second map is the adjunction map. The proof consists of following steps.
(a) There exists a class $\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}}\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}(Q_{{\mathcal{F}}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I_S)$ such that $\Psi_e=\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}}$ for any class $e$ given by a deformation.
(b) The obstruction class $\delta(\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}})\in\operatorname{Ext}^2_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)$ is the product of Atiyah class and Kodaira–Spencer class.
(c) If the obstruction class $\delta(\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}})$ vanishes, then there exists a class $e$ given by a deformation such that $\Psi_e=\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}}$.
(d) Suppose $e$ and $e'$ are two classes such that $\Psi_e=\Psi_{e'}$. If a class $e$ is given by a deformation, then so is $e'$.
Construction of $\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}}$
-------------------------------------
We first consider the trivial case ${\mathcal{A}}={\mathcal{O}}_X$, ${\mathcal{F}}={\mathcal{O}}_{X\times S}$, and the class $e$ given by the deformation ${\mathcal{O}}_{X\times\overline{S}}$. Then the morphism $\Psi_e$ is determined by the square-zero extension $S\subset\overline{S}$, which we denote by $$\label{eqn:pi-map}
\pi:Q_{{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times S}}\to Li^*Ri_*\pi_S^*I[1]\to\pi_S^*I[1].$$ Note that it is the pull-back of the morphism $Q_{{\mathcal{O}}_S}\to I[1]$ in ${\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{O}}_S)$ defined in the same way.
Assume that an ${\mathcal{A}}$-module deformation $\overline{{\mathcal{F}}}$ of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $\overline{S}$ exists. Then for any coherent sheaf ${\mathcal{P}}$ on $X\times S$, there are canonical isomorphisms $${\mathcal{F}}\otimes Li^*Ri_*{\mathcal{P}}\cong Li^*(\overline{{\mathcal{F}}}\otimes Ri_*{\mathcal{P}})\cong Li^*Ri_*({\mathcal{F}}\otimes{\mathcal{P}}).$$ This implies that $\Psi_e$ is equal to $\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}}:={\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi$, up to an canonical isomorphism $Q_{{\mathcal{F}}}\cong{\mathcal{F}}\otimes Q_{{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times S}}$.
The obstruction class $\delta(\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}})$
---------------------------------------------------
Observe that $Q_{{\mathcal{F}}}$ and ${\mathcal{F}}\otimes Q_{{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times S}}$ may not be isomorphic for general coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-module ${\mathcal{F}}$, so we need an alternative definition of $\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}}$. In order to define $\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}}$ and study the obstruction class $\delta(\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}})$, we recall several facts proved in [@HT10].
(i) There exists an exact triangle $${\mathcal{Q}}\to {\mathcal{H}}\to \Delta_*{\mathcal{O}}_S\xrightarrow{\delta_0}{\mathcal{Q}}[1]\quad\text{ in }{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{O}}_{S\times S}),$$ where $\Delta:S\to S\times S$ is the diagonal map, such that the exact triangle (\[eqn:exact\_Q\_adj\]) is given by Fourier–Mukai transforms $$\Phi_{\pi_{S\times S}^*{\mathcal{Q}}}({\mathcal{F}})\to\Phi_{\pi_{S\times S}^*{\mathcal{H}}}({\mathcal{F}})\to {\mathcal{F}}\xrightarrow{(\pi_{S\times S}^*\delta_0)({\mathcal{F}})}\Phi_{\pi_{S\times S}^*{\mathcal{Q}}}({\mathcal{F}})[1].$$ In particular, the map $\delta:\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{A}}}^1(Q_{{\mathcal{F}}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)\to\operatorname{Ext}^2_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)$ is the composition with $(\pi_{S\times S}^*\delta_0)({\mathcal{F}})$.
(ii) There exists a natural morphism $$\pi_0:{\mathcal{Q}}\to \Delta_*I[1]\quad\text{ in }{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{O}}_{S\times S})$$ such that $(\pi_{S\times S}^*\pi_0)({\mathcal{F}})=\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}}$ for any ${\mathcal{F}}$ admitting a deformation. Therefore we define $\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}}=(\pi_{S\times S}^*\pi_0)({\mathcal{F}})$ for general coherent ${\mathcal{A}}_S$-module ${\mathcal{F}}$.
(iii) The *universal obstruction class* $$\omega_0:=\pi_0[1]\circ\delta_0:\Delta_*{\mathcal{O}}_S\to\Delta_*I[2]\quad\text{ in }{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{O}}_{S\times S})$$ decomposes into $$\omega_0:\Delta_*{\mathcal{O}}_S\xrightarrow{\alpha_S}\Delta_*{\mathbb{L}}_S[1]\xrightarrow{\Delta_*\kappa(S/\overline{S})[1]}\Delta_*I[2],$$ where $\alpha_S\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_{S\times S}(\Delta_*{\mathcal{O}}_S,\Delta_*{\mathbb{L}}_S)$ is the *(truncated) universal Atiyah class*, which is intrinsic and functorial to $S$, and $\kappa(S/\overline{S})\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_{S}({\mathbb{L}}_S,I)$ is the (truncated) Kodaira–Spencer class of the square-zero extension $S\subset\overline{S}$. (See [@HT10], Definition 2.3 and 2.7 for details.)
We define the Atiyah class for a coherent ${\mathcal{A}}_S$-module ${\mathcal{F}}$ to be $$(\pi_{S\times S}^*\alpha_S)({\mathcal{F}})\in \operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S).$$
The proofs can be found in [@HT10 Section 2.5 and Section 3.1]. We remark that while [@HT10] only consider coherent sheaves, the proofs are all done at the level of Fourier–Mukai kernels. Therefore it also works for any coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules.
Existence of deformations
-------------------------
In this section we will show that if the obstruction class $\delta(\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}})=(\pi_{S\times S}^*\omega_0)({\mathcal{F}})$ vanishes, then there exists an ${\mathcal{A}}$-module extension of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $\overline{S}$.
First we remark that we may assume both $X$ and $S$ are affine as in [@HT10], Section 3.3. Although the existence of deformations is *not* a local property, for any given class $e\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}(Li^*Ri_*{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*I)$, the conditions that $\Phi_e$ being an isomorphism and $\Psi_e=\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}}$ can be check locally. In other words, if $\delta(\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}})=0$ but there is no deformation of ${\mathcal{F}}$, then there is a class $e$ such that $\Psi_e=\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}}$ but $e$ is not given by a deformation. Then we can find an affine open set $U$ such that $\Phi_e|_U$ is not an isomorphism but $\Psi_e|_U=\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}}|_U$, which is a contraction.
Therefore we may assume that $X=\operatorname{Spec}(B)$, ${\mathcal{A}}=A$ is an $R$-algebra, $S=\operatorname{Spec}(R)$, and $\overline{S}=\operatorname{Spec}(\overline{R})$. Let $M$ be a (left) $A_R:=A\otimes_{\mathbb{C}} R$-module, flat over $R$. For convenience, a tensor product $\otimes$ without subscript is over $R$. We first recall the standard obstruction theory for modules (cf. [@Lau79]).
Choose a (possibly-infinite) free resolution of $M$ $$\ldots\to A_R^{\oplus n_{-3}}\xrightarrow{d_{-3}} A_R^{\oplus n_{-2}}\xrightarrow{d_{-2}} A_R^{\oplus n_{-1}}\to M\to 0.$$ Consider the trivial deformation $A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}$ of $A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}$. Then we choose an arbitrary lifting $d'_{\bullet}:A^{\oplus n_{\bullet}} _{\overline{R}}\to A^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}_{\overline{R}}$ of $d_{\bullet}$. Since $(d'_{\bullet+1}\circ d'_{\bullet})|_R=d_{\bullet+1}\circ d_{\bullet}=0$, the map $d'_{\bullet+1}\circ d'_{\bullet}$ factors into $$d'_{\bullet+1}\circ d'_{\bullet}:A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\to A_{R}^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\xrightarrow{\operatorname{ob}_{\bullet}} A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet +2}}\otimes I\to A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet +2}},$$ where the first and third arrows are given by the extension $0\to I\to \overline{R}\to R\to 0$. It is well-known that the class $$\label{eqn:standard-ob}
\{\operatorname{ob}_{\bullet}\}\in\operatorname{Hom}_{A_R}(A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}},A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet+2}}\otimes I)$$ is a $2$-cocycle defining a class in $\operatorname{Ext}^2_{A_R}(M,M)$ which is independent of the choice of the resolution $(A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}},d_{\bullet})$ and lifting $d'_{\bullet}$. We will show that this obstruction class is the same as $\delta(\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}})$.
Recall that the universal obstruction class $\omega_0\in\operatorname{Ext}^2_{S\times S}(\Delta_*{\mathcal{O}}_S,\Delta_*I)$ is represented by the $2$-extension $$0 \to \Delta_*I\to {\mathcal{J}}|_{S\times S}\to {\mathcal{O}}_{S\times S}\to\Delta_*{\mathcal{O}}_S\to 0,$$ where ${\mathcal{J}}$ is the ideal sheaf defining $\overline{S}\subset \overline{S}\times\overline{S}$. We omit the details but a crucial consequence is that if $M=A_R^{\oplus n}$ is free, then the obstruction class $(\pi_{S\times S}^*\omega_0)(M)\in\operatorname{Ext}^2_{A_R}(M,M\otimes I)$ is represented by the $2$-extension (of $A_R$-modules) $$0\to A_R^{\oplus n}\otimes I\to K^{\oplus n}|_R\to \Gamma^{\oplus n}|_R\to A_R^{\oplus n}\to 0,$$ where the restriction $-|_R$ is the tensor product $-\otimes_{\overline{R}} R$, $\Gamma=A_{\overline{R}}\otimes_{\mathbb{C}} R$ is the free $A_{\overline{R}}$-module, the arrow $$\Gamma=A_{\overline{R}}\otimes_{\mathbb{C}} R= A\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}\overline{R}\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}R\to A_R=A\otimes_{\mathbb{C}} R$$ is induced by the $\overline{R}$-linear evaluation map $\overline{R}\otimes_{\mathbb{C}} R\to R$ via $\overline{R}\to R$, and $K=\ker(\Gamma\to A_R)$ is the kernel. Since $\overline{R}\otimes_{\mathbb{C}}R$ is a free $\overline{R}$-module, we may choose a (non-canonical) splitting $$\overline{R}\otimes_{\mathbb{C}} R\cong L\oplus\overline{R}$$ such that the evaluation map $\overline{R}\otimes_{\mathbb{C}} R$ is given by the short exact sequence $$0\to L\oplus I\to L\oplus\overline{R}\to R\to 0.$$ Then $\Gamma\cong N\oplus A_{\overline{R}}$, $K\cong N\oplus (A_R\otimes I)$, where $N=A\otimes_{\mathbb{C}} L$ is a free $A_{\overline{R}}$-module.
Let $A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\to M$ be a free resolution. Then it associates a $2$-extension $$\label{eqn:2-ext-complex}
0 \to A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\otimes I\to K^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}|_R\to \Gamma^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}|_R\to A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\to 0$$ of $A_R$-modules, and a short exact sequence $$0\to K^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\to \Gamma^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\to A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\to 0$$ of complexes of $A_{\overline{R}}$-modules, where the differentials are arbitrarily chosen lifting of the differentials in (\[eqn:2-ext-complex\]). We write down the differentials explicitly with respect to the splitting $\Gamma\cong N\oplus A_{\overline{R}}$ and $K\cong N\oplus (A_R\otimes I)$: $$\xymatrix{
0\ar[r] & N^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\oplus (A_R\otimes I)^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\begin{psmallmatrix}\ast & \ast \\ \eta_{\bullet} & \ast \end{psmallmatrix}} & N^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\oplus A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\begin{psmallmatrix}\ast & \gamma_{\bullet} \\ \eta_{\bullet} & d'_{\bullet} \end{psmallmatrix}} & A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\ar[r]\ar[d]^{d_{\bullet}} & 0\\
0\ar[r] & N^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\oplus (A_R\otimes I)^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\ar[r] & N^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\oplus A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\ar[r] & A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\ar[r] & 0
}$$ and $$\xymatrix@C=1em{
0\ar[r] & (A_R\otimes I)^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\ar[r]\ar[d] & N^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}|_R\oplus (A_R\otimes I)^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\begin{psmallmatrix}\ast & \ast \\ \sigma_{\bullet} & \ast \end{psmallmatrix}} & N^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}|_R\oplus A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\ar[r]\ar[d]_{\begin{psmallmatrix}\ast & \beta_{\bullet} \\ \ast & d_{\bullet} \end{psmallmatrix}} & A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\ar[r]\ar[d]^{d_{\bullet}} & 0\\
0\ar[r] & (A_R\otimes I)^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\ar[r] & N^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}|_R\oplus (A_R\otimes I)^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\ar[r] & N^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}|_R\oplus A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\ar[r] & A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\ar[r] & 0
}$$ Observe that $$\left\{A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\xrightarrow{\beta_{\bullet}} N^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}|_R\xrightarrow{\sigma_{\bullet+1}} (A_R\otimes I)^{\oplus n_{\bullet+2}}\right\}\in\operatorname{Hom}_{A_R}(A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}},A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet+2}}\otimes I)$$ defines a $2$-cocycle which corresponds to the class of the $2$-extension (\[eqn:2-ext-complex\]) in $\operatorname{Ext}^2_{A_R}(M,M\otimes I)$, i.e., the obstruction class $\delta(\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}})$.
On the other hand, $d'_{\bullet}:A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\to A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}$ is a lifting of $d_{\bullet}$. The differentials on $\Gamma^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}$ implies that $$-d'_{\bullet+1}\circ d'_{\bullet}=\eta_{\bullet+1}\circ\gamma_{\bullet}: A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\to N^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\to A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet+2}}.$$ Since $\eta_{\bullet+1}$ factors through $N^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\to (A_R\otimes I)^{\oplus n_{\bullet+2}}\to A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet+2}}$, the composition can be decomposed into $$\eta_{\bullet+1}\circ\gamma_{\bullet}:A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\to A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\xrightarrow{\gamma_{\bullet}|_R} N^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}|_R\xrightarrow{\eta_{\bullet+1}|_R}(A_R\otimes I)^{\oplus n_{\bullet+2}}\to A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet+2}}.$$ By definition, $\gamma_{\bullet}|_R=\beta_{\bullet}$ and $\eta_{\bullet+1}|_R=\sigma_{\bullet+1}$. This shows that the classical obstruction class (\[eqn:standard-ob\]) defined by the lifting $d'_{\bullet}$ is the class $-\delta(\pi_{{\mathcal{F}}})$.
Finally, suppose $e$ is the class corresponding to a deformation $(A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet}},d'_{\bullet})$, and $e'$ is another class such that $\Psi_e=\Psi_{e'}$. Then $e-e'$ is in the image of a $1$-cocycle $$\{f_{\bullet}\}\in\operatorname{Hom}_{A_R}(A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}},A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\otimes I).$$ Then it is a standard fact that $(A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet}},d'_{\bullet}+\tilde{f}_{\bullet})$ also defines a deformation, where $$\tilde{f}_{\bullet}:A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\to A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet}}\xrightarrow{f_{\bullet}}A_R^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}}\to A_{\overline{R}}^{\oplus n_{\bullet+1}},$$ which then corresponds to the class $e'$.
Donaldson–Thomas invariants for ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})$ {#sec:define_DT}
=================================================================
In this section, we use the Atiyah class to construct an obstruction theory on the moduli space. Let $S$ be any scheme, and ${\mathcal{F}}$ be a coherent ${\mathcal{A}}_S$-module, flat over $S$. Let $\alpha$ be a class in $\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S)$. Then $\alpha$ defines a morphism $$\alpha:{\mathcal{F}}\to{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S[1]\quad\text{ in }{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_S).$$ Since ${\mathcal{F}}$ is flat over $S$, ${\mathcal{F}}$ is perfect. The natural map ${\mathcal{F}}\to{\mathcal{F}}^{\vee\vee}$ is an isomorphism in ${\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_S)$. Thus there is an isomorphism $${\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S\cong R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{F}}^{\vee},\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S)\quad\text{ in }{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_S)$$ By adjunction, $\alpha$ defines a morphism $${\mathcal{F}}^{\vee}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}{\mathcal{F}}\to\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S[1]\quad\text{ in }{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{O}}_{X\times S}).$$ We then apply Verdier duality, it yields a morphism $$R\pi_{S*}\Big(({\mathcal{F}}^{\vee}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}{\mathcal{F}})\otimes\pi_X^*\omega_X \Big)[n-1]\to{\mathbb{L}}_S\quad\text{ in }{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{O}}_S).$$
For any perfect complexes ${\mathcal{F}}$ and ${\mathcal{G}}$ of coherent ${\mathcal{A}}_M$-modules, there is an canonical isomorphism $$\Big(R\pi_{M*}R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{G}})\Big)^{\vee}\cong R\pi_{M*}\left({\mathcal{G}}^{\vee}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_X^*\omega_X\right)[n].$$
Use the same argument as above, with $\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S$ replaced by $\pi_S^*{\mathcal{O}}_S={\mathcal{O}}_{X\times S}$.
We conclude that any class $\alpha\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S)$ defines a morphism $$\label{eqn:pre-ob-theory}
\Big(R\pi_{S*}R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})\Big)^{\vee}[-1]\to{\mathbb{L}}_S.$$ It is almost by definition to see that if $S=M$ is a *fine* moduli space and ${\mathcal{F}}$ is the universal family of coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules, then the morphism (\[eqn:pre-ob-theory\]) induced by a class $\alpha$ is an obstruction theory for $M$ if and only if $\alpha$ is the Atiyah class.
In general, the moduli space $M:=M^{s,p}_X({\mathcal{A}})$ is not a fine moduli space because the $\mathbb{C}^*$-gerbe ${\mathfrak{M}}\to M$ is not trivial so the universal family on ${\mathfrak{M}}$ does not descend to $M$. We use the fact that any $\mathbb{C}^*$-gerbe is étale locally trivial, that is, there is an étale cover $U\to X$ with a section $$\xymatrix{
& {\mathfrak{M}}\ar[d] \\
U\ar[r]\ar[ru] & M.
}$$ We denote by $\mathcal{F}$ the pullback of the universal family of stable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules to $X\times U$.
Consider the natural transformation $$\Phi:\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathbf{Sch}}}}(-,U)\to{\mathcal{M}},$$ where ${\mathcal{M}}$ is the moduli functor for stable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules on $X$, and $\Phi$ sends any morphism $f:S\to U$ to the ${\mathcal{A}}_T$-module $({\text{id}}_X\times f)^*{\mathcal{F}}$ on $X\times S$.
\[lem:locally-fine\] The natural transformation $\Phi$ satisfies
1. $\Phi(\operatorname{Spec}\mathbb{C})$ is surjective;
2. For any $f:S\to U$ and any square-zero extension $S\subset\overline{S}$, the map $\Phi(\overline{S})$ induces a bijection between subsets $$\Big\{\overline{f}:\overline{S}\to U: \overline{f}|_S=f \Big\}\subset \operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathbf{Sch}}}}(\overline{S},U)$$ and $$\Big\{\text{${\mathcal{A}}$-module extensions of ${\mathcal{F}}$ over $\overline{S}$}\Big\}\subset{\mathcal{M}}(\overline{S}).$$
In other words, $U$ has the same deformation-obstruction theory as a fine moduli space.
This is essentially the definition of the morphism $U\to{\mathfrak{M}}$ being étale.
Let $U$ and ${\mathcal{F}}$ be described as above. Then the Atiyah class $\operatorname{at}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}})$ defines an obstruction theory $$\label{eqn:ob_theory_U}
{\mathbb{E}}:=\Big(R\pi_{U*}R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_U}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})\Big)^{\vee}[-1]\to{\mathbb{L}}_U$$ for $U$.
Let $f:S\to U$ be a morphism, and $S\subset\overline{S}$ be a square-zero extension with ideal sheaf $I$. We consider the class $$o=\Big(Lf^*{\mathbb{E}}\to Lf^*{\mathbb{L}}_U\to{\mathbb{L}}_S\xrightarrow{\kappa(S/\overline{S})}I[1]\Big)\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_S}(Lf^*{\mathbb{E}},I).$$ Observe that there are natural isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{O}}_S}(Lf^*{\mathbb{E}},{\mathbb{L}}_S) & \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{O}}_U}({\mathbb{E}},Rf_*{\mathbb{L}}_S) \\
& \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times U}}({\mathcal{F}}^{\vee}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_U}{\mathcal{F}},\pi_U^*Rf_*{\mathbb{L}}_S[1])\\
& \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times U}}({\mathcal{F}}^{\vee}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_U}{\mathcal{F}},Rg_*\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S[1])\\
& \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times S}}(g^*({\mathcal{F}}^{\vee}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_U}{\mathcal{F}}),\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S[1]) \\
& \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times S}}(g^*{\mathcal{F}}^{\vee}\otimes_{g^*{\mathcal{A}}_U}g^*{\mathcal{F}},\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S)\\
& \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times S}}((g^*{\mathcal{F}})^{\vee}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}(g^*{\mathcal{F}}),\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S) \\
& \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}(g^*{\mathcal{F}},g^*{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S)\end{aligned}$$ where $g={\text{id}}_X\times f:X\times S\to X\times U$. By the functoriality of Atiyah classes, it sends the composition $(Lf^*{\mathbb{E}}\to Lf^*{\mathbb{L}}_U\to{\mathbb{L}}_S)$ to the Atiyah class $\operatorname{at}_{{\mathcal{A}}}(g^*{\mathcal{F}})$ on $X\times S$. Therefore the class $o\in\operatorname{Ext}^1_{{\mathcal{O}}_S}(Lf^*{\mathbb{E}},I)$ corresponds to the obstruction class $\operatorname{ob}\in\operatorname{Ext}^2_{{\mathcal{A}}_S}(g^*{\mathcal{F}},g^*{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_S^*{\mathbb{L}}_S)$ for the coherent ${\mathcal{A}}_S$-module $g^*{\mathcal{F}}$ on $X\times S$.
The rest of the proof follows from Lemma \[lem:locally-fine\]: there exists an extension of $f:S\to U$ to $\overline{S}$ if and only if there exists an ${\mathcal{A}}$-module deformation of $g^*{\mathcal{F}}$ over $\overline{S}$.
The coherent ${\mathcal{A}}_U$-module ${\mathcal{F}}$ on $X\times U$ is pulled back from the $\mathbb{C}^*$-gerbe ${\mathfrak{M}}\to M$, so it can be regarded as a *twisted* ${\mathcal{A}}_M$-module on $X\times M$.
The complex $R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_{U}}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})$ on $X\times U$ descends to a complex in ${\mathbfcal{D}}_{\text{\'{e}t}}({\mathcal{O}}_{X\times M})$, which we denote by $R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})$.
Note that for any coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-module ${\mathcal{G}}$, ${\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{G}})$ is the equalizer of $$\xymatrix{
{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{G}})\ar@<-.5ex>[r] \ar@<.5ex>[r] & {\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{A}}\otimes{\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{G}}).
}$$ Then the proof follows from the fact that for any twisted sheaf ${\mathcal{F}}$, ${\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})$ is a (untwisted) coherent sheaf (see for instance [@Cal00]).
By functoriality of the Atiyah class, the obstruction theory ${\mathbb{E}}\to{\mathbb{L}}_U$ also descends to a morphism in ${\mathbfcal{D}}_{\text{\'{e}t}}({\mathcal{O}}_M)$ $$\label{eqn:ob_theory}
\Big(R\pi_{M*}R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})\Big)^{\vee}[-1]\to{\mathbb{L}}_M\quad\text{ in }{\mathbfcal{D}}_{\text{\'{e}t}}({\mathcal{O}}_M).$$ Since being an obstruction theory is an étale local property, we conclude that
\[cor:ob\_for\_M\] The morphism (\[eqn:ob\_theory\]) is an obstruction theory for the moduli space $M$.
Symmetric obstruction theory
----------------------------
We now restrict our attention to $(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ being Calabi–Yau of dimension $3$. Let $M$ be a quasi-projective coarse moduli scheme of stable ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules with a universal twisted ${\mathcal{A}}_M$-module ${\mathcal{F}}$ on $X\times M$.
First we construct a symmetric bilinear form $$\theta:R\pi_{M*}R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})\to \Big(R\pi_{M*}R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})\Big)^{\vee}[1].$$ We write ${\mathbb{F}}=R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})$. For a given isomorphism $\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\to{\mathcal{A}}$ of ${\mathcal{A}}$-bimodules, it induces an isomorphism $$R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}}{\mathcal{F}})\to{\mathbb{F}}\quad\text{ in }{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{O}}_{X\times M}).$$ Taking $(-)^{\vee}[-1]$ on both sides, it gives an isomorphism $$\label{eqn:sym-bilinear}
\left(R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}}\right)^{\vee}[-1]\to\Big(R\pi_{M*}R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}}{\mathcal{F}})\Big)^{\vee}[-1]\quad\text{ in }{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{O}}_M),$$ and the right hand side is isomorphic to $$R\pi_{M*}\Big(\big(\pi_X^*\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}{\mathcal{F}}\big)^{\vee}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}{\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_X^*\omega_X\Big)[2].$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\pi_X^*\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}{\mathcal{F}}\big)^{\vee} &=R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times M}}(\pi_X^*\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}{\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times M})\\
&\cong R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times M}}(\pi_X^*\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}},{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times M}))\\
&\cong R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{A}}_M\otimes\pi_X^*\omega_X^{\vee}) & \text{ in }{\mathbfcal{D}}({\mathcal{A}}_M^{{\mathrm{op}}}),\end{aligned}$$ where the last isomorphism is given by $\pi_X^*\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\cong{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_{X\times M}}(\pi_X^*{\mathcal{A}},\pi_X^*\omega_X)\cong{\mathcal{A}}_M^{\vee}\otimes\pi_X^*\omega_X$. Therefore $$\big(\pi_X^*\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}{\mathcal{F}}\big)^{\vee}\otimes_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}\big({\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_X^*\omega_X\big)\cong R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},({\mathcal{F}}\otimes\pi_X^*\omega_X)\otimes\pi_X^*\omega_X^{\vee})\cong{\mathbb{F}}.$$ Thus (\[eqn:sym-bilinear\]) is an isomorphism $$\theta:(R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}})^{\vee}[-1]\to R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}}\,[2]=\Big((R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}})^{\vee}[-1]\Big)^{\vee}[1].$$ In fact, we have $\theta^{\vee}[1]=\theta$, so $\theta$ is symmetric.
\[thm:sym\_ob\] The moduli scheme $M$ carries a symmetric obstruction theory $$\Big(\tau^{[1,2]}R\pi_{M*}R{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_M}({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})\Big)^{\vee}[-1]\to{\mathbb{L}}_M$$ which in particular is a perfect obstruction theory.
Consider the map $\sigma:{\mathcal{O}}_M\to R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}}$ induced by the scalar map $R\pi_M^*{\mathcal{O}}_M={\mathcal{O}}_{X\times M}\to{\mathbb{F}}$. For any point $m\in M$, this map induces the scalar map $\sigma_m:\mathbb{C}\to\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}}_m,{\mathcal{F}}_m)$, which is an isomorphism since ${\mathcal{F}}_m$ is stable. Thus the cone of $\sigma$ is the truncated complex $\tau^{\geq 1}R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{E}}$.
On the other hand, we may consider $$R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}}\xrightarrow{\theta^{-1}[-2]}(R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}})^{\vee}[-3]\xrightarrow{\sigma^{\vee}[-3]}{\mathcal{O}}_M[-3].$$ The induced map $\operatorname{Ext}^3_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{F}}_m,{\mathcal{F}}_m)\to\mathbb{C}$ on each point $m\in M$ is dual to the scalar map, which is an isomorphism. The cone of the composition $\tau^{\geq 1}R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}}\to{\mathcal{O}}_M[-3]$ is the truncated complex $\tau^{[1,2]}R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}}$.
Therefore, $\tau^{[1,2]}R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}}$ is perfect of amplitude in degree $1$ and $2$, and the obstruction theory $(R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}})^{\vee}[-1]\to{\mathbb{L}}_M$ induces a morphism $$(\tau^{[1,2]}R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}})^{\vee}[-1]\to{\mathbb{L}}_M.$$ Furthermore, by the construction, $\theta$ induces a symmetric bilinear form $$\theta:(\tau^{[1,2]}R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}})^{\vee}[-1]\to\big((\tau^{[1,2]}R\pi_{M*}{\mathbb{F}})^{\vee}[-1]\big)^{\vee}[1].$$
If the moduli space $M=M^{s,h}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is projective (for example, when the Hilbert polynomial $h$ has coprime coefficients), then we may define the DT invariant via integration $$\int_{[M]_{{\text{vir}}}}1,$$ which equals to the Behrend function weighted Euler characteristic $\chi(M,\nu_M)$ by [@Beh09]. In particular, this invariant depends only on the scheme structure of the moduli space $M$, which depends only on the abelian category ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})$ with a chosen stability condition.
Donaldson–Thomas invariants
---------------------------
Recall that in classical Donaldson–Thomas theory, the Hilbert schemes (with a fixed curve class) are isomorphic to the moduli spaces of stable sheaves with fixed determinant. Therefore one may study Donaldson–Thomas invariants on Hilbert schemes. We do not have the notion of determinant for ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules, but we can still define Donaldson–Thomas type invariants on Hilbert schemes under some suitable assumptions.
\[lem:dt-on-hilb\] Let $h$ be a polynomial of degree $\leq 1$. Suppose the stalk ${\mathcal{A}}_{\eta}$ at generic point $\eta\in X$ is a division algebra, then there is a natural morphism $$\label{eqn:hilb2M}
\operatorname{Hilb}^h(X,{\mathcal{A}})\to M^{s,p-h}(X,{\mathcal{A}}),$$ sending any quotient ${\mathcal{A}}\to{\mathcal{F}}$ to its kernel, where $p$ is the Hilbert polynomial of ${\mathcal{A}}$.
This is the analogue of the classical result that all torsion-free rank $1$ sheaves are stable. Since ${\mathcal{A}}_{\eta}$ is a division algebra, any ${\mathcal{A}}$-submodule of ${\mathcal{A}}$ has the same rank as ${\mathcal{A}}$.
\[prop:dt-on-hilb\] Under the assumptions in Lemma \[lem:dt-on-hilb\], if $H^1(X,{\mathcal{A}})=0$, then the natural morphism (\[eqn:hilb2M\]) is an open immersion.
Let $0\to{\mathcal{I}}\to{\mathcal{A}}\to{\mathcal{F}}\to 0$ be a quotient in $\operatorname{Hilb}^h(X,{\mathcal{A}})$. Since ${\mathcal{F}}$ has codimension $\geq 2$ support, the map ${\mathcal{I}}\to{\mathcal{A}}$ induces an isomorphism $${\mathcal{I}}^{\vee\vee}\to{\mathcal{A}}^{\vee\vee}\cong{\mathcal{A}}$$ of ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules. This shows that the quotient ${\mathcal{A}}\to{\mathcal{F}}$ is uniquely determined by its kernel ${\mathcal{I}}$, which means that the morphism (\[eqn:hilb2M\]) is injective.
Next we show the morphism is étale. Let $S$ be a scheme and $S\subset\overline{S}$ a square-zero extension. Fix a flat family of ${\mathcal{A}}$-module quotient $$0\to{\mathcal{I}}\to{\mathcal{A}}_S\to{\mathcal{F}}\to 0$$ on $X\times S$. Suppose there exists a ${\mathcal{A}}$-module extension $\overline{{\mathcal{I}}}$ of ${\mathcal{I}}$ over $\overline{S}$, then $\overline{{\mathcal{I}}}$ induces a short exact sequence $$0\to\overline{{\mathcal{I}}}\to \overline{{\mathcal{I}}}^{\vee\vee}\to\overline{{\mathcal{F}}}\to 0$$ of ${\mathcal{A}}_{\overline{S}}$-modules. Since $\overline{{\mathcal{I}}}^{\vee\vee}|_S={\mathcal{I}}^{\vee\vee}\cong{\mathcal{A}}_S$, $\overline{{\mathcal{I}}}^{\vee\vee}$ is a deformation of ${\mathcal{A}}_S$ over $\overline{S}$, which by our assumption, it must be ${\mathcal{A}}_{\overline{S}}$. Note that taking double dual $(-)^{\vee\vee}$ in general does not preserve flatness, but it is flat over an open subset. So in our situation, ${\mathcal{I}}^{\vee\vee}$ is flat over $S$, which implies it is flat over $\overline{S}$. Thus ${\mathcal{A}}_{\overline{S}}\to\overline{F}$ is a deformation (as ${\mathcal{A}}$ modules) of the quotient ${\mathcal{A}}_S\to{\mathcal{F}}$. This is easy to see that the converse is also true: any deformation of the quotient ${\mathcal{A}}_S\to{\mathcal{F}}$ gives a deformation of ${\mathcal{I}}$. The proof is completed.
Consequencely, the Hilbert scheme $\operatorname{Hilb}^h(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ for polynomial $h$ with $\deg(h)\leq 1$ carries a symmetric obstruction theory. We define the DT invariant $${\mathsf{DT}}^h(X,{\mathcal{A}})=\int_{[\operatorname{Hilb}^h(X,{\mathcal{A}})]_{{\text{vir}}}}1.$$ which is equal to the Behrend function weighted Euler characteristic $\chi(\operatorname{Hilb}^h(X,{\mathcal{A}},\nu)$.
Recall that any Azumaya algebra on a Calabi–Yau variety is again Calabi–Yau. Via the correspondence between Azumaya algebras and gerbes, this gives a definition of Donaldson–Thomas invariants on gerbes ${\mathfrak{X}}\to X$ over Calabi–Yau threefolds, which has been studied by [@GT13].
\[rmk:dt-ncy\] While we only construct a perfect obstruction theory when ${\mathcal{A}}$ is Calabi–Yau. It is expected that (some truncation of) the obstruction theory (\[eqn:ob\_theory\_U\]) is perfect for more general $(X,{\mathcal{A}})$. For example, if ${\mathcal{A}}$ is of global dimension $\leq 2$, then $\operatorname{Ext}_{{\mathcal{A}}}^3({\mathcal{F}},{\mathcal{F}})=0$ for all ${\mathcal{F}}$, thus the obstruction theory is automatically perfect. This gives an analogue of Donaldson invariants for certain non-commutative surfaces.
Another example is if ${\mathcal{A}}$ is of global dimension $3$ and $H^i(X,{\mathcal{A}})=0$ for all $i>0$, then it is easy to see that $\operatorname{Ext}^3_{{\mathcal{A}}}({\mathcal{I}},{\mathcal{I}})=0$ for any ideal sheaf ${\mathcal{I}}$ in $\operatorname{Hilb}^h(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ (see [@MNOP06-1 Lemma 2]). This implies that $\operatorname{Hilb}^h(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ carries a perfect obstruction theory via Proposition \[prop:dt-on-hilb\].
We consider the case $X=\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{C})$ is a point with ${\mathcal{A}}=A$ a finite-dimensional algebra of finite global dimension. Then (stable) coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules are exactly finite-dimensional (irreducible) representations of $A$. These DT invariants give virtual counts of irreducible representations. Unfortunately, the moduli space $M^{s,n}(A)$ is in general not projective unless $n=1$.
Non-commutative projective schemes {#sec:ncps-to-ncv}
==================================
We first review the notion of non-commutative projective schemes defined by Artin and Zhang ([@AZ94]).
Let $A$ be a locally finite $\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$-graded $\mathbb{C}$-algebra, by which we means $A=\oplus_{i\geq 0}A_i$ and each $A_i$ is finite-dimensional. We define $${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)={{\mathbf{gr}}}(A)/{{\mathbf{tor}}}(A)$$ to be the quotient abelian category, where ${{\mathbf{gr}}}(A)$ is the category of finitely-generated graded $A$-modules, and ${{\mathbf{tor}}}(A)$ is its Serre subcategory consisting of torsion modules, here a graded $A$-module $M$ is said to be torsion if each element $m\in M$ is annihilated by $A_{\geq n}$ for some $n$.
The non-commutative projective scheme defined by $A$ is a triple $$({{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A),{\mathbf{A}},[1]),$$ where ${\mathbf{A}}$ is the object in ${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)$ corresponding to $A$ as a $A$-module, and $[1]$ is the functor induced by sending any graded module $M$ to $M[1]$ defined by $(M[1])_i=M_{i+1}$.
More generally, we consider a triple $({\mathbf{C}},{\mathbf{O}},s)$ of an abelian category ${\mathbf{C}}$, an object ${\mathbf{O}}$, and a natural equivalence $s:{\mathbf{C}}\to{\mathbf{C}}$. A morphism $({\mathbf{C}}_1,{\mathbf{O}}_1,s_1)\to({\mathbf{C}}_2,{\mathbf{O}}_2,s_2)$ between two such triples consists of a functor $F:{\mathbf{C}}_1\to{\mathbf{C}}_2$, an isomorphism $F({\mathbf{O}}_1)\cong{\mathbf{O}}_2$, and a natural isomorphism $s_2\circ F\cong F\circ s_1$. This morphism is an isomorphism if $F$ is an equivalence of categories.
A non-commutative projective scheme is a triple $({\mathbf{C}},{\mathbf{O}},s)$ which is isomorphic to $({{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A),{\mathbf{A}},[1])$ for some graded algebra $A$.
For example, if $A$ is commutative and generated by degree $1$ elements, then by Serre’s theorem, $({{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A),{\mathbf{A}},[1])$ is isomorphic to the triple $(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X,-\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_X(1))$, where $X=\operatorname{Proj}(A)$.
Furthermore, let $X$ be a (smooth) projective variety with a polarization ${\mathcal{O}}_X(1)$, and ${\mathcal{A}}$ a coherent sheaf of non-commutative ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-algebras on $X$. Then we may consider the *homogeneous coordinate ring* of $(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ $$A=\bigoplus_{n=0}^{\infty} H^0(X,{\mathcal{A}}(n)),$$ which is naturally a graded algebra via the multiplication ${\mathcal{A}}\otimes{\mathcal{A}}\to{\mathcal{A}}$.
The triple $({{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}}),{\mathcal{A}},-\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_X(1))$ is isomorphic to the non-commutative projective scheme defined by the graded algebra $A$. In particular, there is an equivalence of (abelian) categories ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})\cong{{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)$.
This follows directly from [@AZ94 Theorem 4.5].
Observe that if the graded algebra $A$ is given by such $(X,{\mathcal{A}})$, then the homogeneous coordinate ring $B:=\oplus_n H^0(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X(n))$ of $X$ is a graded subalgebra of $A$, which is contained in the center $Z(A)$. Since ${\mathcal{A}}$ is coherent, ${\mathcal{A}}(n)$ is generated by global sections for sufficiently large $n$. This implies that $A$ is a finite $B$-module.
Algebras finite over their centers
----------------------------------
Let $A$ be a non-commutative graded algebra. For simplicity, we assume both $A$ and $Z(A)$ is finitely-generated. Suppose there exists a graded subalgebra $B\subset Z(A)$ of $A$ such that $A$ is a finite $B$-module. We consider $X=\operatorname{Proj}(B)$ and $${\mathcal{A}}=\widetilde{{}_B A}$$ the coherent sheaf on $X$ corresponding to the graded $B$-module ${}_B A$. Then ${\mathcal{A}}$ is naturally a sheaf of non-commutative ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-algebras.
From now on we assume that $A$ is of finite global dimension. In fact, this forces $A$ to be an Artin–Schelter regular algebra since $A$ is finite over its center $Z(A)$. We omit the details and only mention two important consequences that $A$ satisfies the technical $\chi$ condition in the study of non-commutative projective schemes, and the category ${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)$ has finite cohomological dimension (which equals to the global dimension of $A$ minus $1$).
\[prop:qgr-to-coh\] Suppose $A$ is generated by degree one elements. Then there is an equivalence of (abelian) categories ${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)\cong{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})$.
If the chosen $B$ is also generated by degree one elements, then we have $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)}({}_A A,M)=\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathbf{qgr}}}(B)}({}_B B,{}_B M)=H^0(X,\widetilde{{}_B M})$$ for any graded $A$-module $M$. Thus [@AZ94], Theorem 4.5(2) states that there is a morphism $$A\to A':=\bigoplus_{n=0}^{\infty}\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)}({}_A A,{}_A A[n])=\bigoplus_{n=0}^{\infty} H^0(X,{\mathcal{A}}(n))$$ of graded algebras which is an isomorphism at sufficiently large degrees. This then implies that ${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)\cong{{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A')\cong{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})$.
In general, we choose $k$ such that the graded algebra $B^{(k)}:=\oplus_i B_{ki}$ is generated by degree one elements. Then it is well-known that $X=\operatorname{Proj}(B)=\operatorname{Proj}(B^{(k)})$, and ${}_B A$ and ${}_{B^{(k)}} A^{(k)}$ define the same coherent sheaf on $X$. In fact, the same result also holds non-commutative projective schemes ([@AZ94 Proposition 5.10]). Therefore we have equivalences of categories $${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)\cong{{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A^{(k)})\cong{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}}).$$
It is easy to verify that the equivalence ${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)\to{{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A^{(k)})$ in the above proof does not change the stability condition. This is the analogue of the fact that stability conditions on a projective variety only depend on the rays in the ample cone ([@HL10]).
In [@AZ01], Artin and Zhang define the notion of (flat) families of objects in any abelian category. One may check that the equivalence ${{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)\cong{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})$ in Proposition \[prop:qgr-to-coh\] induces equivalence between families, which also preserve flatness. This implies that the Hilbert schemes $\operatorname{Hilb}^h(A)$ constructed in [@AZ01] agrees with Simpson’s Hilbert schemes $\operatorname{Hilb}^h(X,{\mathcal{A}})$. In particular, this proves the projectivity of $\operatorname{Hilb}^h(A)$ under the assumption of Proposition \[prop:qgr-to-coh\].
If $A$ is not generated by degree one elements, one may take the *stacky* $\operatorname{Proj}$ $${\mathfrak{X}}=\mathfrak{Proj}(B)=\big[(\operatorname{Spec}(B)\setminus\{0\})/\mathbb{C}^*\big],$$ where $\mathbb{C}^*$ acts on $\operatorname{Spec}(B)$ via the grading. Then ${\mathfrak{X}}$ is a Deligne–Mumford stack with a projective coarse moduli scheme $X=\operatorname{Proj}(B)$. The graded algebra $A$ also defines a sheaf ${\mathcal{A}}$ of ${\mathcal{O}}_{{\mathfrak{X}}}$-algebras on ${\mathfrak{X}}$. Then there is also an equivalence of categories ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})\cong{{\mathbf{qgr}}}(A)$ by the same argument.
Finally, since $Z(A)$ is a finitely-generated commutative algebra, by Noether normalization lemma, there exists a regular subalgebra $B\subset Z(A)$ such that $Z(A)$ is finite over $B$, hence $A$ is finite over $B$. Thus we can always choose $B$ so that $X=\operatorname{Proj}(B)$ is smooth (in fact, a projective space). Note that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is locally free if $A$ is a projective, or equivalently, graded free $B$-module.
Consider the quantum $\mathbb{P}^3$, a non-commutative projective scheme defined by $$A=\mathbb{C}\langle x_0,\ldots, x_3\rangle\Big/\left( x_ix_j-q_{ij}x_jx_i\right),$$ where $q_{ij}$’s are roots of unity and $q_{ii}=q_{ij}q_{ji}=1$ for all $i,j$. Then $A$ is finite over its center $Z(A)$. Following Remark \[rmk:dt-ncy\], we can define DT invariants on the quantum $\mathbb{P}^3$. Note that it is toric in the sense that there is a natural $(\mathbb{C}^*)^3$-action. Therefore one may use virtual localization to compute these invariants. We expect these invariants coincide with the invariants for commutative $\mathbb{P}^3$, as they share same fixed points.
Invariants for quantum Fermat quinitc threefolds {#sec:calculation}
================================================
In this section, we study the Hilbert schemes of points and compute some invariants for the quantum Fermat quintic threefold. Let $$A=\mathbb{C}\langle x_0,\ldots,x_4\rangle\Big/\left(\sum_{n=0}^4 x_n^5,x_ix_j-q_{ij}x_jx_i \right).$$ where $q_{ij}\in\mu_5$ and $q_{ii}=q_{ij}q_{ji}=1$ for all $i,j$. We take the subalgebra $B=\mathbb{C}[y_0,\ldots,y_4]/(\sum_{i=0}^4 y_i)\subset Z(A)$, where $y_i=x_i^5$. Then $X=\operatorname{Proj}(B)\cong\mathbb{P}^3$ is identified with the hyperplane in $\mathbb{P}^4$ defined by $y_0+\ldots+y_4=0$.
Since $A$ is a graded-free $B$-module, the sheaf ${\mathcal{A}}$ of non-commutative algebra ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-algebras induced by $A$ is locally free. In fact, $${\mathcal{A}}={\mathcal{O}}_X\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_X(-1)^{\oplus 121}\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_X(-2)^{\oplus 381}\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_X(-3)^{\oplus 121}\oplus{\mathcal{O}}_X(-4)$$ as a ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-module.
It is shown in [@Kan15] that the graded algebra $A$ is of finite global dimension, so ${\mathcal{A}}$ also has finite global dimension. Here we give an alternative proof that $(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is Calabi–Yau.
\[lem:A-is-CY\] The sheaf ${\mathcal{A}}$ of ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-algebras is Fobenius via $$(-,-):{\mathcal{A}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}{\mathcal{A}}\to{\mathcal{A}}\to\omega_X,$$ where the first arrow is the multiplication map, and the second arrow is the projection to the component ${\mathcal{O}}_X(-4)\cong\omega_X$. If $\prod_{j} q_{ij}=1$ for all $i$, then the pairing is symmetric.
We write down the multiplication maps of ${\mathcal{A}}$ explicitly. Consider $$I=\Big\{{\mathbf{a}}=(a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_4)\in\{0,1,\ldots,4\}^5, a_0+a_1+\ldots+a_4\text{ is a multiple of $5$}\Big\},$$ a basis of $A^{(5)}$ over $B=B^{(5)}$. For simplicity, we will write $a_0+a_1+\ldots+a_4=5\,|{\mathbf{a}}|$. Note that $I$ is naturally an abelian group as a subgroup of $(\mathbb{Z}/5\mathbb{Z})^5$ (but the function $|-|$ is not linear). Then as a ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-module, we may write $${\mathcal{A}}=\bigoplus_{{\mathbf{a}}\in I}{\mathcal{O}}_X(-|{\mathbf{a}}|).$$ We denote the multiplication map ${\mathcal{A}}\otimes{\mathcal{A}}\to{\mathcal{A}}$ on each component by $${\mathcal{O}}_X(-|{\mathbf{a}}|)\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_X(-|{\mathbf{b}}|)\xrightarrow{\phi_{{\mathbf{a}},{\mathbf{b}}}}{\mathcal{O}}_X(-|{\mathbf{a}}+{\mathbf{b}}|),$$ where $$\phi_{{\mathbf{a}},{\mathbf{b}}}=q_{{\mathbf{a}},{\mathbf{b}}}x_0^{c_0}x_1^{c_1}x_2^{c_2}x_3^{c_3}x_4^{c_4}$$ is the section in $H^0\big(X,{\mathcal{O}}_X(|{\mathbf{a}}|+|{\mathbf{b}}|-|{\mathbf{a}}+{\mathbf{b}}|)\big)$ given by $$q_{{\mathbf{a}},{\mathbf{b}}}=\prod_{i>j}q_{ij}^{a_i b_j},\quad
c_i=\begin{cases}
5, & a_i+b_i\geq 5;\\
0, & a_i+b_i<5.
\end{cases}$$
Write ${\mathbf{4}}=(4,4,4,4,4)\in I$, ${\mathcal{O}}_X(-|{\mathbf{4}}|)={\mathcal{O}}_X(-4)$ is the component corresponding to $\omega_X$. Since for each component ${\mathcal{O}}_X(-|{\mathbf{a}}|)$, there is a unique component ${\mathcal{O}}_X(-|{\mathbf{4}}-{\mathbf{a}}|)$ such that the multiplication map $${\mathcal{O}}_X(-|{\mathbf{a}}|)\otimes{\mathcal{O}}_X(-|{\mathbf{4}}-{\mathbf{a}}|)\to{\mathcal{O}}_X(-|{\mathbf{4}}|)\cong\omega_X$$ is an isomorphism, the induced map ${\mathcal{A}}\to{\mathcal{H}\mathnormal{om}}_{{\mathcal{O}}_X}({\mathcal{A}},\omega_X)$ is an isomorphism of ${\mathcal{O}}_X$-modules.
The pairing $(-,-)$ is symmetric if and only if $q_{{\mathbf{a}},{\mathbf{4}}-{\mathbf{a}}}=q_{{\mathbf{4}}-{\mathbf{a}},{\mathbf{a}}}$ for all ${\mathbf{a}}\in I$. That is, $$\prod_{i>j} q_{ij}^{a_i(4-a_j)}=\prod_{i>j} q_{ij}^{(4-a_i)a_j}\iff \prod_{i>j} q_{ij}^{a_i-a_j}=1,$$ which is equivalent to that $\prod_{j}q_{ij}=1$ for all $i$.
Next we verify that ${\mathcal{A}}$ satisfies the requirements in Proposition \[prop:dt-on-hilb\]. Since the graded algebra $A$ is a domain, the stalk ${\mathcal{A}}_{\eta}$ at generic point $\eta\in X$ is also a domain. Combining this with the fact that ${\mathcal{A}}_{\eta}$ is a finite-dimensional algebra over the function field $k(X)$, which is a division algebra. Also $X\cong\mathbb{P}^3$ and ${\mathcal{A}}$ is locally free, so $H^1(X,{\mathcal{A}})=0$.
Local models for Hilbert schemes of points
------------------------------------------
The rest of the section is devoted to studying $\operatorname{Hilb}^n(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ for quantum Fermat quintic $3$-folds. A coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-module has constant Hilbert polynomials if and only if it has zero-dimensional support and is of finite length as coherent sheaves on $X$. Denote ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})_{0}$ the category of zero-dimensional coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-module on $X$.
For any ${\mathcal{F}}\in{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})_{0}$, ${\mathcal{F}}$ is supported at finitely many points $p_1,\ldots,p_k$ on $X$. It is clear that the stalk ${\mathcal{F}}_{p_i}$ is a ${\mathcal{A}}$-submodule of ${\mathcal{F}}$ for each $i$ and ${\mathcal{F}}=\oplus_i {\mathcal{F}}_{p_i}$ as ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules. If ${\mathcal{F}}$ is an indecomposable ${\mathcal{A}}$-module, then ${\mathcal{F}}$ is supported at a single point of $X$, in particular, it is supported at an affine open set of $X$.
For each $n$, let $U_n$ be the affine open set of $X\subset\mathbb{P}^4$ defined by $y_i\neq 0$, and let $A^{(n)}={\mathcal{A}}|_{U_n}$. We first look at the patch $U_0$, the algebra $A^{(0)}$ can be written down explicitly, $$A^{(0)}=\mathbb{C}\langle u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4 \rangle\Big/\left(\sum_{n=1}^4 u_n^5=-1,u_iu_j-\tilde{q}_{ij}u_ju_i \right),$$ where $\tilde{q}_{ij}=q_{0j}^4q_{ij}q_{i0}^4$ and $u_i=(x_ix_0^4)/x_0^5$.
For each $i$, $A^{(i)}$ is in the same form as $A^{(0)}$ with the quantum parameters $\tilde{q}^{(n)}_{ij}$ is given by $q^4_{in}q^4_{nj}q_{ij}$ for all $i,j\neq n$. Note that $\tilde{q}^{(n)}_{ij}=1$ if and only if $q_{in}q_{nj}=q_{ij}$.
From now on we fix a particular set of quantum parameters $$\label{eqn:q-para}
(q_{ij})=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & q & q^{-1} & q & q^{-1}\\
q^{-1} & 1 & q & q^{-1} & q \\
q & q^{-1} & 1 & q & q^{-1}\\
q^{-1} & q & q^{-1} & 1 & q\\
q & q^{-1} & q & q^{-1} & 1
\end{pmatrix},$$ for a fixed primitive root $q\in\mu_5$. These $q_{ij}$’s satisfies the conditions that $\prod_j q_{ij}=1$ for all $i$, and $q_{ij}q_{jk}\neq q_{ik}$ for distinct $i,j,k$. We have $$(\tilde{q}_{ij})=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & q^3 & q^4 & q^3\\
q^2 & 1 & q^4 & q^4\\
q & q & 1 & q^3\\
q^2 & q & q^2 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$
Let $V$ be a $d$-dimension representation of $A_{(0)}$. If $V$ is simple, then either $d=1$ or $d$ is a multiple of $5$.
We denote by $X_i:V\to V$ the action of $u_i\in A_{(0)}$. Since $X_iX_j=\tilde{q}_{ij}X_jX_i$, $\ker(X_i)\subset V$ is an invariant subspace for all $i$. So each $X_i$ is either $0$ or invertible. On the other hand, we also have $\det(X_i)\det(X_j)=\tilde{q}_{ij}^d\det(X_j)\det(X_i)$. So if $d$ is not a multiple of $5$, then there is at most one $X_i\neq 0$. In this situation $X_i^d=-1$, then $X_i$ is diagonalizable, thus $d=1$.
From previous Lemma, we also see that one-dimensional representations of $A_{(0)}$ are identified with $$\Big\{(u_1,\ldots,u_4)\in\mathbb{A}^4: u_iu_j=0\text{ for all }i\neq j,\text{ and } u_1^5+\ldots+u_4^5=-1 \Big\}.$$ Patching these together we obtain that
The moduli scheme $M^{s,1}(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ is the intersection of the union of coordinate $\mathbb{P}^1$’s in $\mathbb{P}^4$ with the (commutative) Fermat quintic threefold $Y\subset\mathbb{P}^4$.
To be more specific, there are $10$ coordinate $\mathbb{P}^1$’s in $\mathbb{P}^4$, and each of them intersects with $Y$ at $5$ points. So the moduli space $M^{s,1}$ consists of $50$ closed points. Note that for each $[{\mathcal{F}}]\in M^{s,1}(X,{\mathcal{A}})\subset Y$, ${\mathcal{F}}$ is supported at the point in the image of $Y\to X$. In other words, let $X_{(1)}$ be the image of the covering $Y\to X$, which is the intersection of the hyperplane $X\subset\mathbb{P}^4$ with the union of coordinate $\mathbb{P}^1$’s in $\mathbb{P}^4$. Then $X_{(1)}$ consists of $10$ points, there are exactly $5$ ${\mathcal{A}}$-structures on ${\mathcal{O}}_p$ for each $p\in X_{(1)}$.
For our choice of quantum parameters (\[eqn:q-para\]), the categories of coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules supported at $p$ are equivalent for all $p\in X_{(1)}$. Indeed, it is easy to verify that the algebras $A^{(i)}$ are all isomorphic, and for each $A^{(i)}$, we can always interchange variables and keep $\tilde{q}_{ij}$ in the same form. For example, for $A^{(0)}$ and if we let $v_1=u_2$, $v_2=u_4$, $v_3=u_1$, $v_4=u_3$, then $\tilde{q}_{ij}$ becomes $$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & q^4 & q^2 & q^4\\
q & 1 & q^2 & q^2\\
q^3 & q^3 & 1 & q^4\\
q & q^3 & q & 1
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & (q^3)^3 & (q^3)^4 & (q^3)^3\\
(q^3)^2 & 1 & (q^3)^4 & (q^3)^4\\
q^3 & (q^3) & 1 & (q^3)^3\\
(q^3)^2 & q^3 & (q^3)^2 & 1
\end{pmatrix}.$$
We focus on a particular point $p_0=[1{:}-1{:}0{:}0{:}0]\in X_{(1)}$. Let $E_i$ be the simple $A^{(0)}$-module correspond to the point $(-q^i,0,0,0)\in\mathbb{A}^4$.
\[lem:quiver\] The $\operatorname{Ext}^1$-quiver $Q$ of $(E_0,E_1,\ldots,E_4)$ is $$\begin{xy} 0;<2pt,0pt>:<0pt,-2pt>::
(40,16) *+[Fo]{E_0} ="0",
(8,40) *+[Fo]{E_2} ="2",
(32,40) *+[Fo]{E_1} ="1",
(0,16) *+[Fo]{E_3} ="3",
(20,0) *+[Fo]{E_4} ="4",
(20,20) *+<2pt>{},
"4":{\ar@<-.5ex>"2"},
"4":{\ar@<.5ex>"2"},
"4":{\ar"3"},
"0":{\ar@<-.5ex>"3"},
"0":{\ar@<.5ex>"3"},
"0":{\ar"4"},
"1":{\ar@<-.5ex>"4"},
"1":{\ar@<.5ex>"4"},
"1":{\ar"0"},
"2":{\ar@<-.5ex>"0"},
"2":{\ar@<.5ex>"0"},
"2":{\ar"1"},
"3":{\ar@<-.5ex>"1"},
"3":{\ar@<.5ex>"1"},
"3":{\ar"2"},
\end{xy}$$
We compute $\operatorname{Ext}^1_{A^{(0)}}(E_i,E_j)$ by classifying all possible extensions $0\to E_j\to F\to E_i\to 0$. Such extension $F$ must be in the form $$\left(
\begin{bmatrix}
-q^j & a_1 \\
0 & -q^i
\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & a_2 \\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & a_3 \\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix},
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & a_4 \\
0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\right),$$ and clearly $a_1=0$. The relation $u_1u_k=\tilde{q}_{1k}u_ku_1$ is equivalent to $a_k(\tilde{q}_{1k}q^i-q^j)=0$. Thus $$\dim\operatorname{Ext}^1_{A^{(0)}}(E_i,E_j)=\Big(\#\text{ of $k$'s such that }\tilde{q}_{1k}=q^{j-i}\Big).$$
We consider the category ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})_{p_0}$ of coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules supported at the point $p_0$. We observe that there is no simple ${\mathcal{A}}$-module supported at $p_0$ with length $>1$. If $V$ is a simple ${\mathcal{A}}_0$-module supported at $p_0$, that is, $u_i$ acts nilpotently on $V$ for $i\neq 1$, then $u_1^5=-1$ which implies $u_1$ is diagonalizable and $u_i=0$ for all $i\neq 1$. Thus any coherent ${\mathcal{A}}$-module supported at $p_0$ is S-equivalent to $\oplus_i E_i^{\oplus r_i}$ for some $r_i$’s.
Let $Q$ be the quiver from Lemma \[lem:quiver\]. We denote the arrows by $x_i,z_i:E_i\to E_{i-2}$ and $y_i:E_i\to E_{i-1}$. Write $X=x_0+\ldots+x_4$, $Y=q^4y_0+y_1+qy_2+q^2y_3+q^3y_4$, and $Z=z_0+\ldots+z_4$ for the elements in the path algebra $\mathbb{C}[Q]$.
\[prop:A-to-Q-equiv\] Let ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})_{p_0,\leq 4}$ be the subcategory of ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})_{p_0}$ consisting of ${\mathcal{A}}$-modules with length $\leq 4$. Then there is an equivalence of categories between ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})_{p_0,\leq 4}$ with the category ${{\mathbf{Rep}}}(Q,W)_{\leq 4}$ of representations of the quiver $Q$ with potential $W$ of dimension $\leq 4$, where $W=YXZ-q^4YZX$.
We first define a functor ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})_{p_0,\leq 4}\to{{\mathbf{Rep}}}(Q)_{\leq 4}$. Let $V$ be an ${\mathcal{A}}_{(0)}$-module supported at $p_0$, so $u_i$ acts nilpotently on $V$ for $i\neq 1$. Since $\dim(V)\leq 4$, $u_i^5=0$ for $i\neq 1$, so $u_1^5=-1$ which implies $u_1$ is diagonalizable, and eigenvalues are $-q^i$, $i\in\mathbb{Z}/5\mathbb{Z}$. Write $V=\oplus_i V_i$, where $V_i$ is the eigenspace for $-q^i$. We claim that $V$ associates to a representation of $Q$ with dimension vector $(\dim V_i)_i$. Since $u_1u_2=q^3u_2u_1$, $u_2$ maps an eigenvector in $V_i$ to $V_{i-2}$ (possibly to zero), so the action of $u_2\in\operatorname{End}(V)$ defines an action of arrows $x_i\in\operatorname{Hom}(V_i,V_{i-2})$. Similarly $u_3$ defines an action of $y_i\in\operatorname{Hom}(V_i,V_{i-1})$ and $u_4$ defines an action of $z_i\in\operatorname{Hom}(V_i,V_{i-2})$.
Now observe that $u_2,u_3,u_4$ satisfy the addition relations $u_i u_j-q_{ij}u_j u_i=0$. Therefore a representation of $Q$ is induced by an $A_{(0)}$-module if and only if it satisfies the relations $$x_{i}y_{i+1}-q^4y_{i-1}x_{i+1}=0, x_{i}z_{i+2}-q^4z_{i}x_{i+2}=0, y_{i}z_{i+2}-q^3z_{i+1}y_{i+2}=0,$$ and these relations are in fact given by the potential $W$, which completes the proof.
With the aid of computer, we see that all quantum Fermat quintic threefolds, with parameters $q_{ij}$ satisfying $\prod_j q_{ij}=1$ for all $i$ and $q_{ij}q_{jk}=q_{ik}$ for all distinct $i,j,k$, are modelled by the same quiver $Q$ with superpotential $W$ (for length $\leq 4$).
\[cor:qgr-to-Q\] There is an equivalence of categories between ${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})_{0,\leq 4}$ and ${{\mathbf{Rep}}}(\tilde{Q},\tilde{W})_{\leq 4}$, where $\tilde{Q}$ is the disjoint union of $10$ copies of $Q$, and $\tilde{W}$ is given by $W$ on each component $Q$.
The is a direct consequence of the fact any ${\mathcal{F}}\in{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}}){0,\leq 4}$ is supported at $X_{(1)}\subset X$, and $${{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})_{0,\leq 4}=\coprod_{\sum_p a_p=4}\left(\bigoplus_{p\in X_{(1)}}{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})_{p,\leq a_p}\right).$$
\[thm:hilb-to-Q\] There is an isomorphism $$\operatorname{Hilb}^n_X({\mathcal{A}})\cong\coprod_{|{\mathbf{v}}|=n} M^{\tilde{Q},\tilde{W}}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{1}}).$$
This can be seen in the proof of Proposition \[prop:A-to-Q-equiv\]. For an $A_{(0)}$-module $V$ of dimension $\leq 4$, $u_1^5=-1$ as an action on $V$, and $u_i^5=0$ for $i\neq 1$. This means that the underlying coherent sheaf of any ${\mathcal{F}}\in{{\mathbf{Coh}}}({\mathcal{A}})_{p,\leq 4}$ is a direct sum of ${\mathcal{O}}_p$ (there is no non-trivial thickening). Therefore an ${\mathcal{A}}$-module epimorphism ${\mathcal{A}}\to{\mathcal{F}}$ is given by a section ${\mathcal{O}}_X\to{\mathcal{F}}$, or equivalently, a $\mathbb{C}$-linear map $\mathbb{C}\to V$ such that its image generates the whole $V$ via compositions of actions of $u_i$’s. By definition, they are framed representations of $(\tilde{Q},\tilde{W})$ with framing vector ${\mathbf{1}}=(1,\ldots,1)$.
Finally, since $(\tilde{Q},\tilde{W})$ is a disjoint union of $(Q,W)$, we conclude that
For $n\leq 4$, the DT invariant $${\mathsf{DT}}^n(X,{\mathcal{A}}):=\int_{[\operatorname{Hilb}^n(X,{\mathcal{A}}]_{{\text{vir}}}}1$$ agrees the coefficient of $t^n$ in $$\left(\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\Big(\sum_{|{\mathbf{v}}|=k}\chi(M^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{1}}),\nu_{M})\Big)t^k\right)^{10}.$$
Motivic invariants for the quiver
---------------------------------
We begin with a short review of motivic DT invariants for quivers with potentials.
Let $Q$ be a quiver. We write $Q_0$ the set of vertices, $Q_1$ the set of arrows, and $s,t:Q_1\to Q_0$ the source and target map. For ${\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{w}}\in\mathbb{Z}^{Q_0}$, we define the pairings $${\mathbf{v}}\cdot{\mathbf{w}}=\sum_{i\in Q_0} v_iw_i,$$ $$\langle{\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{w}}\rangle=\sum_{i\in Q_0} v_iw_i-\sum_{a\in Q_1} v_{s(a)}w_{t(a)}.$$ For a dimension vector ${\mathbf{v}}\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{Q_0}$, let $$R^{Q}({\mathbf{v}})=\bigoplus_{a\in Q_1}\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb{C}}(\mathbb{C}^{v_{s(a)}},\mathbb{C}^{v_{t(a)}}),$$ and $${\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbf{v}})=\prod_{i\in Q_0}{\mathrm{GL}}(v_i).$$ Then ${\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbf{v}})$ acts naturally on $R^{Q}({\mathbf{v}})$, and the quotient stack $${\mathfrak{M}}^{Q}({\mathbf{v}})=[R^{Q}({\mathbf{v}})/{\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbf{v}})]$$ is the moduli stack of representations of $Q$ with dimension vector ${\mathbf{v}}$.
Let $W$ be a potential on $Q$, i.e., a finite linear combination of cycles in $Q$. Then we consider the closed subscheme $R^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}})\subset R^{Q}({\mathbf{v}})$ defined by the relations $$\frac{\partial W}{\partial a}=0, a\in Q_1.$$ Then the quotient stack $${\mathfrak{M}}^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}})=[R^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}})/{\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbf{v}})]$$ is the moduli stack of representations of $(Q,W)$ with dimension vector ${\mathbf{v}}$.
The closed subscheme $R^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}})$ is the critical locus of a ${\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbf{v}})$-equivariant function $$f_{{\mathbf{v}}}=\operatorname{Tr}(W): R^{Q}({\mathbf{v}})\to\mathbb{C}.$$ In this situation, the virtual motivic class $$[R^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}})]_{{\text{vir}}}:=[\mathrm{crit}(f_{{\mathbf{v}}})]_{{\text{vir}}}$$ in the ring $K({{\mathbf{Var}}}_{\mathbb{C}})[{\mathbb{L}}^{-1/2},(1-{\mathbb{L}}^n)^{-1},n\in\mathbb{N}]$ of motivic classes. Then the motivic DT invariants of $(Q,W)$ with dimension vector ${\mathbf{v}}$ is defined by $$[{\mathfrak{M}}^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}})]_{{\text{vir}}}:=\frac{[R^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}})]_{{\text{vir}}}}{[{\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbf{v}})]_{{\text{vir}}}}.$$
On the other hand, for a framing vector ${\mathbf{f}}\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{Q_0}$, ${\mathbf{f}}\neq{\mathbf{0}}$, we may consider the framed representations of $Q$. Let $$U^{Q}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}})\subset R^{Q}({\mathbf{v}})\times\prod_{i\in Q_0}(\mathbb{C}^{v_i})^{f_i}$$ be the open subscheme consisting of pairs $(M,x)$, where $M\in R^{Q}({\mathbf{v}})$ is a representation of $Q$ and $x\in (\mathbb{C}^{v_i})^{f_i}$ is a collection of elements in $M$, such that $M$ is generated by $x$ as a $\mathbb{C}[Q]$-module. Then ${\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbf{v}})$ acts naturally on $U^{Q}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}})$, and it is well-known that the quotient $$M^{Q}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}}):=U^{Q}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}})/{\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbf{v}})$$ is a smooth quasi-projective GIT quotient, and it is the fine moduli space of ${\mathbf{f}}$-framed representations of $Q$ with dimension vector ${\mathbf{v}}$.
For a potential $W$ on $Q$, we may also define the closed subscheme $U^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}})\subset U^{Q}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}})$ and the quotient $M^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}})$ in the obvious way. Then $M^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}})$ is also the critical locus of a function $$g_{{\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}}}: M^{Q}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}})\to\mathbb{C}$$ induced by the trace of the potential $W$. Therefore we define the motivic DT invariant by $$[M^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}})]_{{\text{vir}}}:=[\mathrm{crit}(g_{{\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}}})]_{{\text{vir}}}.$$
Now suppose that the potential $W$ has a linear factor, that is, there exists a subset $I\subset Q_1$ of arrows such that $W$ is homogeneous of degree $1$ with arrows in $I$ having degree $1$ and arrows not in $I$ having degree $0$. We call a such subset $I$ a cut of $(Q,W)$. Consider the closed subscheme $R^{Q,W}_I({\mathbf{v}})$ of $R^Q({\mathbf{v}})$ defined by the relations $$\frac{\partial W}{\partial a}=0, a\in I.$$ Then we have the dimension reduction formula
If $I$ is a cut for $(Q,W)$, then $$[{\mathfrak{M}}^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}}))]_{{\text{vir}}}=({\mathbb{L}}^{1/2})^{\langle{\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{v}}\rangle}\frac{[R^{Q,W}_I({\mathbf{v}})]}{[{\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbf{v}})]}.$$ Furthermore, for any framing vector ${\mathbf{f}}\neq 0$, the virtual motivic classes $[M^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{f}})]_{{\text{vir}}}$ satisfy a recursion $$\frac{[R^{Q,W}_I({\mathbf{v}})]}{[{\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbf{v}})]}\,{\mathbb{L}}^{\frac{{\mathbf{f}}\cdot{\mathbf{v}}}{2}}=\sum_{{\mathbf{w}}\leq{\mathbf{v}}}{\mathbb{L}}^{-\langle{\mathbf{v}}-{\mathbf{w}},{\mathbf{w}}\rangle-\frac{\langle{\mathbf{w}},{\mathbf{w}}\rangle}{2}}\,[M^{Q,W}({\mathbf{w}},{\mathbf{f}})]_{{\text{vir}}}\,\frac{[R^{Q,W}_I({\mathbf{v-w}})]}{[{\mathrm{GL}}({\mathbf{v-w}})]}\,{\mathbb{L}}^{\frac{{\mathbf{f}}\cdot({\mathbf{v-w}})}{2}}.$$
Now we consider the quiver $(Q,W)$ with potential from Proposition \[prop:A-to-Q-equiv\]. We relabel the vertices and write $(Q,W)$ as $$\begin{xy} 0;<2pt,0pt>:<0pt,-2pt>::
(40,16) *+[Fo]{0} ="0",
(8,40) *+[Fo]{2} ="2",
(32,40) *+[Fo]{1} ="1",
(0,16) *+[Fo]{3} ="3",
(20,0) *+[Fo]{4} ="4",
(20,20) *+<2pt>{},
"4":{\ar@<-.5ex>"0"},
"4":{\ar@<.5ex>"0"},
"4":{\ar"2"},
"0":{\ar@<-.5ex>"1"},
"0":{\ar@<.5ex>"1"},
"0":{\ar"3"},
"1":{\ar@<-.5ex>"2"},
"1":{\ar@<.5ex>"2"},
"1":{\ar"4"},
"2":{\ar@<-.5ex>"3"},
"2":{\ar@<.5ex>"3"},
"2":{\ar"0"},
"3":{\ar@<-.5ex>"4"},
"3":{\ar@<.5ex>"4"},
"3":{\ar"1"},
\end{xy}$$ with potential $$W=YXZ-qYZX,$$ where $X=x_0+\ldots+x_4$, $Y=qy_0+q^3y_1+y_2+q^2y_3+q^4y_4$, and $Z=z_0+\ldots+z_4$. Note that $(Q,W)$ admits $3$ cuts $I=\{x_i\},\{y_i\}$ and $\{z_i\}$. We apply dimension reduction to compute motivic invariants $[M^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{1}})]_{{\text{vir}}}$ for $|{\mathbf{v}}|\leq 4$. The results can be found in the table \[tableA\], where we denote $\chi(M^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}},{\mathbf{1}}),\nu_M)$ by $Z^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}})$. We write $Z^{Q,W}(n):=\sum_{|{\mathbf{v}}|=n} Z^{Q,W}({\mathbf{v}})$, then $$\sum_{n=0}^4 Z^{Q,W}(n)\,t^n=1+5\,t+5\,t^2+20\,t^3-210\,t^5.$$ We conclude that
The first four degree zero DT invariants are given by $$\sum_{n=0}^4{\mathsf{DT}}^n(X,{\mathcal{A}})\,t^n=1+50\,t+1175\,t^2+17450\,t^3+184275\,t^4.$$
It is shown in [@BF08] that the degree zero DT invariants (weighted Euler characteristics) are given by McMahon function $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\chi(\operatorname{Hilb}^n(Y),\nu)\,t^n=\left(\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(1-(-t)^n)^n}\right)^{\chi(Y)}$$ for any (Calabi–Yau) threefolds. Therefore our invariants ${\mathsf{DT}}^n(X,{\mathcal{A}})$ are different than DT invariants for any (Calabi–Yau) threefold.
[MNOP06]{}
M. Artin and J. J. Zhang. , 109(2):228–287, 1994.
M. Artin and J. J. Zhang. , 4(4):305–394, 2001.
K. Behrend. , 170(3):1307–1338, 2009.
K. Behrend and B. Fantechi. , 128(1):45–88, 1997.
K. Behrend and B. Fantechi. , 2(3):313–345, 2008.
A. C[ă]{}ld[ă]{}raru. . 2000. Thesis, Cornell University.
A. Cazzaniga, A. Morrison, B. Pym, and B. Szendrői. , 11(3):1115–1139, 2017.
A. Gholampour and H.-H. Tseng. , 141(1):191–203, 2013.
D. Huybrechts and M. Lehn. . Cambridge Mathematical Library. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2010.
D. Huybrechts and R. P. Thomas. , 346(3):545–569, 2010.
D. Joyce and Y. Song. , 217(1020):iv+199, 2012.
A. Kanazawa. , 219(7):2771–2780, 2015.
M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman. In [Mirror symmetry and tropical geometry]{}, volume 527 of [Contemp. Math.]{}, pages 55–89. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2010.
M. Kontsevich and Y. Soibelman. , 5(2):231–352, 2011.
O. A. Laudal. , volume 754 of [Lecture Notes in Mathematics]{}. Springer, Berlin, 1979.
W. Lowen. , 33(9):3195–3223, 2005.
D. Maulik, N. Nekrasov, A. Okounkov, and R. Pandharipande. , 142(5):1263–1285, 2006.
A. Morrison. , 18(4):779–797, 2012.
J. C. McConnell and J. C. Robson. , volume 30 of [*Graduate Studies in Mathematics*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, revised edition, 2001. With the cooperation of L. W. Small.
C. T. Simpson. projective variety. [I]{}. , (79):47–129, 1994.
B. Szendrői. , 12(2):1171–1202, 2008.
R. P. Thomas. , 54(2):367–438, 2000.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present results on the compact steep-spectrum quasar 3C 48 from observations with the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), the Multi-Element Radio Linked Interferometer Network (MERLIN) and the European VLBI Network (EVN) at multiple radio frequencies. In the 1.5-GHz VLBI images, the radio jet is characterized by a series of bright knots. The active nucleus is embedded in the southernmost VLBI component A, which is further resolved into two sub-components A1 and A2 at 4.8 and 8.3 GHz. A1 shows a flat spectrum and A2 shows a steep spectrum. The most strongly polarized VLBI components are located at component C $\sim$0.25 arcsec north of the core, where the jet starts to bend to the northeast. The polarization angles at C show gradual changes across the jet width at all observed frequencies, indicative of a gradient in the emission-weighted intrinsic polarization angle across the jet and possibly a systematic gradient in the rotation measure; moreover, the percentage of polarization increases near the curvature at C, likely consistent with the presence of a local jet-ISM interaction and/or changing magnetic-field directions. The hot spot B shows a higher rotation measure, and has no detected proper motion. These facts provide some evidence for a stationary shock in the vicinity of B. Comparison of the present VLBI observations with those made 8.43 years ago suggests a significant northward motion for A2 with an apparent transverse velocity $\beta_{app}=3.7\pm0.4\, c$. The apparent superluminal motion suggests that the relativistic jet plasma moves at a velocity of $\gtrsim0.96\,
c$ if the jet is viewed at an inclination angle less than $20\degr$. A simple precessing jet model and a hydrodynamical isothermal jet model with helical-mode Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities are used to fit the oscillatory jet trajectory of 3C 48 defined by the bright knots.
author:
- |
T. An$^{1}$[^1], X.Y. Hong$^{1}$, M.J. Hardcastle$^{2,3}$, D.M. Worrall$^{3}$, T. Venturi$^{4}$, T.J. Pearson$^{5}$, Z.-Q. Shen$^{1}$, W. Zhao$^{1}$ and W.X. Feng$^{6}$\
$^{1}$ Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 200030, Shanghai, China\
$^{2}$ School of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield AL10 9AB\
$^{3}$ Department of Physics, University of Bristol, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TL\
$^{4}$ INAF – Istituto di Radioastronomia, I-40129, Bologna, Italy\
$^{5}$ California Institute of Technology, Mail Stop 105-24, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA\
$^{6}$ Liaocheng University, 252059, Liaocheng, China
title: 'Kinematics of the parsec-scale radio jet in 3C 48'
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: active, galaxies: kinematics, galaxies: jets, quasars: individual: 3C 48
INTRODUCTION {#section:intro}
============
Compact Steep Spectrum (CSS) sources are a population of powerful radio sources with projected linear size less than 20 kpc and steep high radio frequency spectrum $\alpha<-0.5$ [^2] (Peacock & Wall 1982, Fanti et al. 1990, and review by O’Dea 1998 [**and Fanti 2009**]{}). Kinematical studies of the hot spots and analysis of the high-frequency turnover in the radio spectrum due to radiative cooling imply ages for CSS sources in the range 10$^2$–10$^5$ yr (e.g., Owsianik, Conway & Polatidis 1998; Murgia et al. 1999). The sub-galactic size of CSS sources has been used to argue that CSS sources are probably young radio sources, (the ‘youth’ model: Fanti et al. 1995; Readhead et al. 1996). However, another interpretation attributes the apparent compactness of the CSS sources to being strongly confined by the dense ISM in the host galaxy (the ‘frustration’ model: van Breugel, Miley & Heckman 1984). Spectroscopic observations of CSS sources provide evidence for abundant gas reservoirs in the host galaxies and strong interaction between the radio sources and the emission-line clouds [@ODe02]. Some CSS sources have been observed to have high-velocity clouds (as high as $\sim500$ kms$^{-1}$) in the Narrow-Line Region (NLR), presumably driven by radio jets or outflows; an example is 3C 48 [@Cha99; @Sto07]. In addition, many CSS sources show distorted radio structures, suggestive of violent interaction between the jet and the ambient interstellar medium [@Wil84; @Fan85; @Nan91; @Spe91; @Nan92; @Aku91]. The ample supply of cold gas in their host galaxies and their strong radio activity, which results in a detection rate as high as $\sim30$ per cent in flux-density limited radio source surveys [@Pea82; @Fan90], make CSS sources good laboratories for the study of AGN triggering and feedback.
3C 48 ($z=0.367$) is associated with the first quasar to be discovered [@Mat61; @Gre63] in the optical band. Its host galaxy is brighter than that of most other low redshift quasars. The radio source 3C 48 is classified as a CSS source due to its small size and steep radio spectrum [@Pea82]. Optical and NIR spectroscopic observations suggest that the active nucleus is located in a gas-rich environment and that the line-emitting gas clouds are interacting with the jet material [@Can90; @Sto91; @Cha99; @Zut04; @Kri05; @Sto07]. VLBI images [@Wil90; @Wil91; @Nan91; @Wor04] have revealed a disrupted jet in 3C 48, indicative of strong interactions between the jet flow and the dense clouds in the host galaxy. Although some authors [@Wil91; @Gup05; @Sto07] have suggested that the vigorous radio jet is powerful enough to drive massive clouds in the NLR at speeds up to 1000 km s$^{-1}$, the dynamics of the 3C 48 radio jet have yet to be well constrained. Due to the complex structure of the source, kinematical analysis of 3C 48 through tracing proper motions of compact jet components can only be done with VLBI observations at 4.8 GHz and higher frequencies, but until now the required multi-epoch high-frequency VLBI observations had not been carried out.
In order to study the kinematics of the radio jet for comparison with the physical properties of the host galaxy, we observed 3C 48 in full polarization mode with the VLBA at 1.5, 4.8 and 8.3 GHz in 2004, and with the EVN and MERLIN at 1.65 GHz in 2005. Combined with earlier VLBA and EVN observations, these data allow us to constrain the dynamics of the jet on various scales. Our new observations and our interpretation of the data are presented in this paper. The remainder of the paper is laid out as follows. Section 2 describes the observations and data reduction; Section 3 presents the total intensity images of 3C 48; and Section 4 discusses the spectral properties and the linear polarization of the components of the radio jet. In Section 5, we discuss the implications of our observations for the kinematics and dynamics of the radio jet. Section 6 summarizes our results. Throughout this paper we adopt a cosmological model with Hubble constant $H_0$=70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m=0.3$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$. Under this cosmological model, a 1-arcsec angular separation corresponds to a projected linear size of 5.1 kpc in the source frame at the distance of 3C 48 ($z=0.367$).
OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION
===============================
The VLBA observations (which included a single VLA antenna) of 3C 48 were carried out at 1.5, 4.8, and 8.3 GHz on 2004 June 25. The EVN and MERLIN observations at 1.65 GHz were simultaneously made on 2005 June 7. Table \[tab:obs\] lists the parameters of the VLBA, EVN and MERLIN observations. In addition to our new observations, we made use of the VLBA observations described by Worrall et al. (2004) taken in 1996 at 1.5, 5.0. 8.4 and 15.4 GHz.
VLBA observations and data reduction
------------------------------------
The total 12 hours of VLBA observing time were evenly allocated among the three frequencies. At each frequency the effective observing time on 3C 48 is about 2.6 hours. The data were recorded at four observing frequencies (IFs) at 1.5 GHz and at two frequencies at the other two bands, initially split into 16 channels each, in full polarization mode. The total bandwidth in each case was 32 MHz. The detailed data reduction procedure was as described by Worrall et al. (2004) and was carried out in [aips]{}. We used models derived from our 1996 observations to facilitate fringe fitting of the 3C 48 data. Because the source structure of 3C 48 is heavily resolved at 4.8 and 8.3 GHz, and missing short baselines adds noise to the image, the initial data were not perfectly calibrated. We carried out self-calibration to further correct the antenna-based phase and amplitude errors. This progress improves the dynamic range in the final images.
Polarization calibration was also carried out in the standard manner. Observations of our bandpass calibrator, 3C 345, were used to determine the R-L phase and delay offsets. The bright calibrator source DA 193 was observed at a range of parallactic angles and we used a model image of this, made from the Stokes $I$ data, to solve for instrumental polarization. Our observing run included a snapshot observation of the strongly polarized source 3C 138. Assuming that the polarization position angle (or the E-Vector position angle in polarization images, ‘EVPA’) of 3C 138 on VLBI scales at 1.5 GHz is the same as the value measured by the VLA, and we used the measured polarization position angle of this source to make a rotation of $94\degr$ of the position angles in our 3C 48 data. We will show later that the corrected EVPAs of 3C 48 at 1.5 GHz are well consistent with those derived from the 1.65-GHz EVN data that are calibrated independently. At 4.8 GHz, 3C 138 shows multiple polarized components; we estimated the polarization angle for the brightest polarized component in 3C 138 from Figure 1 in Cotton et al. 2003, and determined a correction of $-55\degr$ for the 3C 48 data. After the rotation of the EVPAs, the polarized structures at 4.8 GHz are basically in agreement with those at 1.5 GHz. At 8.3 GHz the polarized emission of 3C 138 is too weak to be used to correct the absolute EVPA; we therefore did not calibrate the absolute EVPAs at 8.3 GHz.
EVN observations and data reduction
-----------------------------------
The effective observing time on 3C 48 was about 8 hours. Apart from occasional RFI (radio frequency interference), the whole observation ran successfully. The data were recorded in four IFs. Each IF was split into 16 channels, each of 0.5-MHz channel width. In addition to 3C 48 we observed the quasars DA 193 and 3C 138 for phase calibration. 3C 138 was used as a fringe finder due to its high flux density of $\sim$9 Jy at 1.65 GHz.
The amplitude of the visibility data was calibrated using the system temperatures, monitored during the observations, and gain curves of each antenna that were measured within 2 weeks of the observations. The parallactic angles were determined on each telescope and the data were corrected appropriately before phase and polarization calibration. We corrected the ionospheric Faraday rotation using archival ionospheric model data from the CDDIS. DA 193 and OQ 208 were used to calibrate the complex bandpass response of each antenna. We first ran fringe fitting on DA 193 over a 10-minute time span to align the multi-band delays. Then a full fringe fitting using all calibrators over the whole observing time was carried out to solve for the residual delays and phase rates. The derived gain solutions were interpolated to calibrate the 3C 48 visibility data. The single-source data were split for hybrid imaging. We first ran phase-only self-calibration of the 3C 48 data to remove the antenna-based, residual phase errors. Next we ran three iterations of both amplitude and phase self-calibration to improve the dynamic range of the image.
DA 193 is weakly polarized at centimetre wavelengths (its fractional polarization is no more than 1 per cent at 5 GHz, Xiang et al. 2006), and was observed over a wide range of parallactic angles to calibrate the feed response to polarized signals. The instrumental polarization parameters of the antenna feeds (the so-called ‘D-terms’) were calculated from the DA 193 data and then used to correct the phase of the 3C 48 data. The absolute EVPA was then calibrated from observations of 3C 138 [@Cot97b; @Tay00]. A comparison between the apparent polarization angle of 3C 138 and the value from the VLA calibrator monitoring program (i.e., $-15\degr$ at 20 cm wavelength) leads to a differential angle $-22\degr$, which was applied to correct the apparent orientation of the E-vector for the 3C 48 data. After correction of instrumental polarization and absolute polarization angle, the cross-correlated 3C 48 data were used to produce Stokes $Q$ and $U$ images, from which maps of linear polarization intensity and position angle were produced.
MERLIN observations and data reduction
--------------------------------------
The MERLIN observations of 3C 48 were performed in the fake-continuum mode: the total bandwidth of 15 MHz was split into 15 contiguous channels, 1 MHz for each channel. A number of strong, compact extragalactic sources were interspersed into the observations of 3C 48 to calibrate the complex antenna gains.
The MERLIN data were reduced in [aips]{} following the standard procedure described in the MERLIN cookbook. The flux-density scale was determined using 3C 286 which has a flux density of 13.7 Jy at 1.65 GHz. The phases of the data were corrected for the varying parallactic angles on each antenna. Magnetized plasma in the ionosphere results in an additional phase difference between the right- and left-handed signals, owing to Faraday rotation. This time-variable Faraday rotation tends to defocus the polarized image and to give rise to erroneous estimates of the instrumental polarization parameters. We estimated the ionospheric Faraday rotation on each antenna based on the model suggested in the [aips]{} Cookbook, and corrected the phases of the visibilities accordingly. DA 193, OQ 208, PKS 2134+004 and 3C 138 were used to calibrate the time- and elevation-dependent complex gains. These gain solutions from the calibrators were interpolated to the 3C 48 data. The calibrated data were averaged in 30-second bins for further imaging analysis. Self-calibration in both amplitude and phase was performed to remove residual errors.
The observations of OQ 208 were used to calculate the instrumental polarization parameters of each antenna assuming a point-source model. The derived parameters were then applied to the multi-source data. We compared the right- and left-hand phase difference of the 3C 286 visibility data with the phase difference value derived from the VLA monitoring program (i.e., $66\degr$ at 20 cm, Cotton et al. 1997b; Taylor & Myers 2000), and obtained a differential angle of $141\degr$. This angle was used to rotate the EVPA of the polarized data for 3C 48.
Combination of EVN and MERLIN data
----------------------------------
After self-calibration, the EVN and MERLIN data of 3C 48 were combined to make an image with intermediate resolution and high sensitivity. The pointing centre of the MERLIN observation was offset by 0.034 arcsec to the West and 0.378 arcsec to the North with respect to the EVN pointing centre (Table \[tab:obs\]). Before combination, we first shifted the pointing centre of the MERLIN data to align with that of the EVN data. The Lovell and Cambridge telescopes took part in both the EVN and MERLIN observations. We compared the amplitude of 3C 48 on the common Lovell–Cambridge baseline in the EVN and MERLIN data, and re-scaled the EVN visibilities by multiplying them by a factor of 1.4 to match the MERLIN flux. After combination of EVN and MERLIN visibility data, we performed a few iterations of amplitude and phase self-calibration to eliminate the residual errors resulting from minor offsets in registering the two coordinate frames and flux scales.
RESULTS – total intensity images
================================
Figures \[fig:MERcont\] and \[fig:vlbimap\] exhibit the total intensity images derived from the MERLIN, VLBA and EVN data. The final images were created using the [aips]{} and [miriad]{} software packages as well as the [mapplot]{} program in the Caltech VLBI software package.
MERLIN images
-------------
Figure \[fig:MERcont\] shows the total intensity image of 3C 48 from the MERLIN observations. We used the multi-frequency synthesis technique to minimize the effects of bandwidth smearing, and assumed an optically thin synchrotron spectral index ($\alpha=-0.7$) to scale the amplitude of the visibilities with respect to the central frequency when averaging the data across multiple channels. The final image was produced using a hybrid of the Clark (BGC CLEAN) and Steer (SDI CLEAN) deconvolution algorithms. The image shows that the source structure is characterized by two major features: a compact component contributing about half of the total flux density (hereafter referred to as the ‘compact jet’), and an extended component surrounding the compact jet like a cocoon (hereafter called the ‘extended envelope’). The compact jet is elongated in roughly the north-south direction, in alignment with the VLBI jet. The galactic nucleus corresponding to the central engine of 3C 48 is associated with VLBI component A [@Sim90; @Wil91]. It is embedded in the southern end of the compact jet. The emission peaks at a location close to the VLBI jet component D; the second brightest component in the compact jet is located in the vicinity of the VLBI jet component B2 (Figure \[fig:vlbimap\]: see Section \[section:vlbimap\]). The extended envelope extends out to $\sim$1 arcsec north from the nucleus. At $\sim$0.25 arcsec north of the nucleus, the extended component bends and diffuses toward the northeast. The absence of short baselines ($uv<30 k\lambda$) results in some negative features (the so-called ‘negative bowl’ in synthesis images) just outside the outer boundary of the envelope.
The integrated flux density over the whole source is 14.36$\pm$1.02 Jy (very close to the single-dish measurement), suggesting that there is not much missing flux on short spacings. The uncertainty we assign includes both the systematic errors and the [*r.m.s.*]{} fluctuations in the image. Since the calibrator of the flux density scale, 3C 286, is resolved on baselines longer than 600 k$\lambda$ [@An04; @Cot97a], a model with a set of CLEAN components was used in flux density calibration instead of a point-source model. We further compared the derived flux density of the phase calibrator DA 193 from our observations with published results [@Sta98; @Con98]. The comparison suggests that the flux density of DA 193 from our MERLIN observation was consistent with that from the VLBI measurements to within 7 per cent. We note that this systematic error includes both the amplitude calibration error of 3C 286 and the error induced by the intrinsic long-term variability of DA 193; the latter is likely to be dominant.
The optical and NIR observations [@Sto91; @Cha99; @Zut04] detect a secondary continuum peak, denoted 3C 48A, at $\sim$1 arcsec northeast of the optical peak of 3C 48. Although MERLIN would be sensitive to any compact structure with this offset from the pointing centre, we did not find any significant radio emission associated with 3C 48A. There is no strong feature at the position of 3C 48A even in high-dynamic-range VLA images [@Bri95; @Feng05]. It is possibly that the radio emission from 3C 48A is intrinsically weak if 3C 48A is a disrupted nucleus of the companion galaxy without an active AGN [@Sto91] or 3C 48A is an active star forming region [@Cha99]. In either case, the emission power of 3C 48A would be dominated by thermal sources and any radio radiation would be highly obscured by the surrounding interstellar medium.
VLBA and EVN images {#section:vlbimap}
-------------------
Figure \[fig:vlbimap\] shows the compact radio jet of 3C 48 on various scales derived from the VLBA and EVN observations. Table \[tab:figpar\] gives the parameters of the images.
The VLBI data have been averaged on all frequency channels in individual IFs to export a single-channel dataset. The visibility amplitudes on each IF have been corrected on the assumption of a spectral index of $-0.7$.
The total-intensity images derived from the 1.5-GHz VLBA and 1.65-GHz EVN data are shown in Figures \[fig:vlbimap\]-a to \[fig:vlbimap\]-c. The jet morphology we see is consistent with other published high-resolution images [@Wil90; @Wil91; @Nan91; @Wor04; @Feng05]. The jet extends $\sim$0.5 arcsec in the north-south direction, and consists of a diffuse plume in which a number of bright compact knots are embedded. We label these knots in the image using nomenclature consistent with the previous VLBI observations [@Wil91; @Wor04] (we introduce the labels B3 and D2 for faint features in the B and D regions revealed by our new observations). The active nucleus is thought to be located at the southern end of the jet, i.e., close to the position of component A [@Sim90; @Wil91]. The bright knots, other than the nuclear component A, are thought to be associated with shocks that are created when the jet flow passes through the dense interstellar medium in the host galaxy [@Wil91; @Wor04; @Feng05]. Figure \[fig:vlbimap\]-b enlarges the inner jet region of the 3C 48, showing the structure between A and B2. At $\sim$0.05 arcsec north away from the core A, the jet brightens at the hot spot B. B is in fact the brightest jet knot in the VLBI images. Earlier 1.5-GHz images (Figure 1 : Wilkinson et al. 1991; Figure 5 : Worrall et al. 2004) show only weak flux ($\sim4\sigma$) between A and B, but in our high-dynamic-range image in Figure \[fig:vlbimap\]-b, a continuous jet is distinctly seen to connect A and B. From component B, the jet curves to the northwest. At $\sim$0.1 arcsec north of the nucleus, there is a bright component B2. After B2, the jet position angle seems to have a significant increase, and the jet bends into a second curve with a larger radius. At 0.25 arcsec north of the nucleus, the jet runs into a bright knot C which is elongated in the East-West direction. Here a plume of emission turns toward the northeast. The outer boundary of the plume feature is ill-defined in this image since its surface brightness is dependent on the [*r.m.s.*]{} noise in the image. The compact jet still keeps its northward motion from component C, but bends into an even larger curvature. Beyond component D2, the compact VLBI jet is too weak to be detected.
At 4.8 and 8.3 GHz, most of the extended emission is resolved out (Figures \[fig:vlbimap\]-d to \[fig:vlbimap\]-g) and only a few compact knots remain visible. Figure \[fig:vlbimap\]-e at 4.8 GHz highlights the core-jet structure within 150 pc ($\sim$30 mas); the ridge line appears to oscillate from side to side. At the resolution of this image the core A is resolved into two sub-components, which we denote A1 and A2. Figure \[fig:vlbimap\]-g at 8.3 GHz focuses on the nuclear region within 50 pc ($\sim$10 mas) and clearly shows two well-separated components. Beyond this distance the brightness of the inner jet is below the detection threshold. This is consistent with what was seen in the 8.4- and 15.4-GHz images from the 1996 VLBA observations [@Wor04].
Figure \[fig:core\] focuses on the core A and inner jet out to the hot spot B. Figure \[fig:core\]-a shows the 1.5-GHz image from 2004. Unlike the image already shown in Figure \[fig:vlbimap\]-b, this image was produced with a super-uniform weighting of the $uv$ plane (see the caption of Figure \[fig:core\] for details). The high-resolution 1.5-GHz image reveals a quasi-oscillatory jet extending to a distance of $\sim$40 mas ($\sim$200 pc) to the north of the core A. Interestingly, Figure \[fig:core\]-b shows similar oscillatory jet structure at 4.8-GHz on both epoch 2004 (contours) and epoch 1996 (grey-scale, Worrall et al. 2004). The consistency of the jet morphology seen in both 1.5- and 4.8-GHz images and in both epochs may suggest that the oscillatory pattern of the jet seen on kpc scales (Figure \[fig:vlbimap\]) may be traced back to the innermost jet on parsec scales. Figure \[fig:core\]-c shows the 8.3-GHz images in 2004 (contours) and 1996 (grey scale, Worrall et al. 2004). In 1996 (the image denoted ‘1996X’) the core is only slightly resolved into the two components A1 and A2, while these are well separated by 3.5 mas (2 times the synthesized beam size) in the 2004 observations (‘2004X’). Direct comparison of 1996X and 2004X images thus provides evidence for a northward position shift of A2 between 1996 and 2004. Figure \[fig:core\]-d overlays the 2004X contour map on the 1996U (15.4 GHz, Worrall et al. 2004) grey-scale map. Neglecting the minor positional offset of A1 between 1996U and 2004X, possibly due to opacity effects, this comparison of 1996U and 2004X maps is also consistent with the idea that A2 has moved north between 1996 and 2004. We will discuss the jet kinematics in detail in Section \[section:pm\].
image analysis
==============
Spectral index distribution along the radio jet
-----------------------------------------------
In order to measure the spectral properties of the 3C 48 jet, we re-mapped the 4.99-GHz MERLIN data acquired on 1992 June 15 [@Feng05] and compared it with the 1.65-GHz EVN+MERLIN data described in the present paper. The individual data sets were first mapped with the same [*uv*]{} range, and convolved with the same 40$\times$40 (mas) restoring beam. Then we compared the intensities of the two images pixel by pixel to calculate the spectral index $\alpha^{4.99}_{1.65}$. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:spix\]. Component A shows a rather flat spectrum with a spectral index $\alpha^{4.99}_{1.65}=-0.24\pm0.09$. All other bright knots show steep spectral indices, ranging from $-0.66$ to $-0.92$. The extended envelope in general has an even steeper spectrum with $\alpha\lesssim-1.10$. Spectral steepening in radio sources is a signature of a less efficient acceleration mechanism and/or the depletion of high-energy electrons through synchrotron/Compton radiation losses and adiabatic losses as a result of the expansion of the plasma as it flows away from active acceleration region. The different spectral index distribution seen in the compact jet and extended envelope may indicate that there are different electron populations in these two components, with the extended component arising from an aged electron population.
Linear polarization images
--------------------------
### MERLIN images {#section:rm-reference}
Figure \[fig:MERpol\] displays the polarization image made from the MERLIN data.
The majority of the polarized emission is detected in the inner region of the source, in alignment with the compact jet. The polarized intensity peaks in two locations. The brightest one is near the VLBI jet component C, with an integrated polarized intensity of 0.31 Jy and a mean percentage of polarization (defined as $\frac{\Sigma
\sqrt{Q_i^2+U_i^2}}{\Sigma I_i}$, where $i$ represents the $i$th polarized sub-components) of $m=5.8$ per cent. The secondary one is located between VLBI jet components B and B2, with an integrated polarized intensity of 0.23 Jy and a mean degree of polarization $m=9.5$ per cent. Both of the two peaks show clear deviations from the total intensity peaks in Figure \[fig:MERcont\]. These measurements of polarization structure and fractional polarization are in good agreement with those observed with the VLA at 2-cm wavelength with a similar angular resolution [@Bre84]. The integrated polarized flux density in the whole source is 0.64$\pm$0.05 Jy and the integrated fractional polarization is (4.9$\pm$0.4) per cent. Since the integrated polarized intensity is in fact a vector sum of different polarized sub-components, the percentage polarization calculated in this way represents a lower limit. We can see from the image (Figure \[fig:MERpol\]) that the percentage of the polarization at individual pixels is higher than 5 per cent, and increases toward the south of the nucleus. A maximum value of $m\gtrsim30$ per cent is detected at $\sim$0.045 arcsec south of the nucleus. The fractional polarization ($m>4.9$ per cent) measured from our MERLIN observation at 18 cm is at least an order of magnitude higher than the VLA measurement at 20 cm, although it is consistent with the values measured by the VLA at 6 cm and shorter wavelengths. This difference in the fractional polarization at these very similar wavelengths is most likely to be an observational effect due to beam depolarization, rather than being due to intrinsic variations in the Faraday depth (R. Perley, private communication).
The averaged polarization angle (or EVPA) is $-18\degr\pm5\degr$ in the polarization structure. On the basis of the new measurements of the Rotation Measure (RM) towards 3C 48 by Mantovani et al. (2009), i.e., RM=$-64$ rad m$^{-2}$ and intrinsic position angle $\phi_0=116\degr$ [@Sim81; @Man09], we get a polarization angle of $-4\degr$ at 1.65 GHz. This result suggests that the absolute EVPA calibration of 3C 48 agrees with the RM-corrected EVPA within 3$\sigma$. We show in Figure \[fig:MERpol\] the RM-corrected EVPAs. The EVPAs are well aligned in the North-South direction, indicating an ordered magnetic field in the Faraday screen.
### EVN and VLBA images
At the resolution of the EVN, most of the polarized emission from extended structures is resolved out. In order to map the polarized emission with modest sensitivity and resolution, we created Stokes $Q$ and $U$ maps using only the European baselines. Figure \[fig:VLBIpol\]-a shows the linear polarization of 3C 48 from the 1.65 GHz EVN data. The polarized emission peaks at two components to the East (hereafter, ‘C-East’) and West (hereafter, ‘C-West’) of component C. The integrated polarized flux density is 24.8 mJy in ‘C-West’ and of 22.9 mJy in ‘C-East’, and the mean percentage polarization in the two regions is 6.3 per cent and 10.7 per cent respectively. The real fractional polarization at individual pixels is much higher, for the reasons discussed above (Section 4.2.1). There is clear evidence for the existence of sub-components in ‘C-West’ and ‘C-East’; these polarized sub-components show a variety of EVPAs, and have much higher fractional polarization than the ‘mean’ value. The polarization is as high as 40 per cent at the inner edge of the knot C, which would be consistent with the existence of a shear layer produced by the jet-ISM interaction and/or a helical magnetic field (3C 43: Cotton et al. 2003; 3C 120: Gómez et al. 2008). Component B, the brightest VLBI component, however, is weakly polarized with an intensity $<$4.0 mJy beam$^{-1}$ (percentage polarization less than 1 per cent). The nucleus A shows no obvious polarization.
The 20-cm VLBA observations were carried out in four 8-MHz bands, centred at 1404.5, 1412.5, 1604.5 and 1612.5 MHz. In order to compare with the 1.65-GHz EVN polarization image, we made a VLBA polarization image (Figure \[fig:VLBIpol\]-b) using data in the latter two bands. This image displays a polarization structure in excellent agreement with that detected at 1.65 GHz with the EVN, although the angular resolution is 3 times higher than the latter: the polarized emission mostly comes from the vicinity of component C and the fractional polarization increases where the jet bends; the hot spot B and the core A are weakly polarized or not detected in polarization. The 1.65- and 1.61-GHz images show detailed polarized structure in the component-C region on a spatial scale of tens of parsecs: the polarization angle (EVPA) shows a gradual increase across component C, with a total range of $160\degr$, and the percentage of polarization gradually increases from 5 per cent to $\gtrsim$30 per cent from the Western edge to the Eastern edge at both ‘C-West’ and ‘C-East’.
Figure \[fig:VLBIpol\]-c and \[fig:VLBIpol\]-d show the 4.8- and 8.3-GHz polarization images made with the VLBA data. Both images were made by tapering the visibility data using a Gaussian function in order to increase the signal-to-noise of the low-surface brightness emission. Similar to what is seen in the 1.65 and 1.61-GHz images, component ‘C-West’ shows a polarization angle that increases by $80\degr$ across the component, but these images show the opposite sense of change of fractional polarization – fractional polarization decreases from 60 per cent down to 20 per cent from the northwest to the southeast. Another distinct difference is that hot spot B shows increasing fractional polarization toward the higher frequencies, $m \sim2.0$ per cent at 4.8 GHz and $m\sim12$ per cent at 8.3 GHz in contrast with $m\lesssim1$ per cent at 1.6 GHz. The difference in the fractional polarizations of B at 1.6/4.8 GHz and 8.3 GHz imply that a component of the Faraday screen is unresolved at 1.6 and 4.8 GHz and/or that some internal depolarization is at work. The non-detection of polarization from the core A at all four frequencies may suggest a tangled magnetic field at the base of the jet.
EVPA gradient at component C and RM distribution
------------------------------------------------
We found at all four frequencies that the polarization angles undergo a rotation by $\gtrsim 80\degr$ across the jet ridge line at both the ‘C-East’ and ‘C-West’ components. There are four possible factors that may affect the observed polarization angle: (1) the calibration of the absolute EVPAs; (2) Faraday rotation caused by Galactic ionized gas; (3) Faraday rotation due to gas within the 3C 48 system and (4) intrinsic polarization structure changes. The correction of absolute EVPAs applies to all polarization structure, so it can not explain the position-dependent polarization angle changes at component C; in any case, the fact that we see similar patterns at four different frequencies, calibrated following independent procedures, rules out the possibility of calibration error. Galactic Faraday rotation is non-negligible (Section \[section:rm-reference\]; $-64$ rad m$^{-2}$ implies rotations from the true position angle of $168\degr$ at 1.4 GHz, $129\degr$ at 1.6 GHz, $14.3\degr$ at 4.8 GHz and $4.8\degr$ at 8.3 GHz), and means that we expect significant differences between the EVPA measured at our different frequencies; however, the Galactic Faraday screen should vary on much larger angular scales than we observe. Only factors (3) and (4), which reflect the situation internal to the 3C 48 system itself, will give rise to a position-dependent rotation of the EVPAs. The EVPA gradient is related to the gradient of the RM and the intrinsic polarization angle by: $\frac{{\rm d}\phi}{{\rm d}x}=\lambda^2\frac{{\rm d}(RM)}{{\rm
d}x}+\frac{{\rm d}\phi_0}{{\rm d}x}$, where the first term represents the RM gradient and the latter term represents the intrinsic polarization angle gradient. If the systematic gradient of EVPAs, $\frac{{\rm d}\phi}{{\rm d}x}$, were solely attributed to an RM gradient, then $\frac{d\phi}{dx}$ would show a strong frequency dependence; on the other hand, if $\frac{{\rm d}\phi}{{\rm d}x}$ is associated with the change of the intrinsic polarization angle, there is no frequency-dependence. We compared the $\frac{{\rm d}\phi}{{\rm
d}x}$ at 1.6 and 4.8 GHz and found a ratio $\frac{{\rm d}\phi/{\rm
d}x (1.6GHz)}{{\rm d}\phi/{\rm d}x(4.8GHz)}=1.8$. This number falls between 1.0 (the value expected if there were no RM gradient) and 8.8 (the ratio of $\lambda^2$), suggesting that a combination of RM and intrinsic polarization angle gradients are responsible for the systematic gradient of EVPAs at C. Accordingly, it is worthwhile to attempt to measure the RM in the VLBI components of 3C 48.
The first two bands of the 20-cm VLBA data (centre frequency 1.408 GHz) are separated from the last two bands (centre frequency 1.608 GHz) by 200 MHz, indicating a differential polarization angle of $\sim
40\degr$ across the passband. The low integrated rotation measure means that the effects of Faraday rotation are not significant ($<10\degr$) between 4.8 and 8.3 GHz, while the absolute EVPA calibration at 8.3 GHz is uncertain; moreover, the [*uv*]{} sampling at 8.3 GHz is too sparse to allow us to image identical source structure at 1.5 and 4.8 GHz. Therefore we used the 1.408, 1.608 and 4.78 GHz data to map the RM distribution in 3C 48.
We first re-imaged the Stokes $Q$ and $U$ data at the three frequencies with a common [*uv*]{} cutoff at $>$400 k$\lambda$ and restored with the same convolving beam. We tapered the $uv$ plane weights when imaging the 4.78-GHz data in order to achieve a similar intrinsic resolution to that of the images at the two lower frequencies. We then made polarization angle images from the Stokes $Q$ and $U$ maps. The three polarization angle images were assembled to calculate the RM (using [aips]{} task RM). The resulting RM image is shown in Figure \[fig:RM\]. The image shows a smooth distribution of RM in the component-C region except for a region northeast of ‘C-West’. The superposed plots present the fits to the RM and intrinsic polarization angle ($\phi_0$, the orientation of polarization extrapolated at $\lambda=0$) at four selected locations. The polarization position angles at individual frequencies have multiples of $\pi$ added or subtracted to remove the $n\pi$ amibiguity. The errors in the calculated RMs and $\phi_0$ are derived from the linear fits. We note that the systematic error due to the absolute EVPA calibration feeds into the error on the observed polarization angle. All four fits show a good match with a $\lambda^2$ law. The fitted parameters at ‘P4’ in the ‘C-East’ region are consistent with those derived from the single-dish measurements for the overall source [@Man09]. The western component (‘C-West’) shows a gradient of RM from $-95$ rad m$^{-2}$ at ‘P1’ to $-85$ rad m$^{-2}$ at ‘P3’, and the intrinsic polarization angle varies from $123\degr$ (or $-57\degr$) at ‘P1’, through $146\degr$ (or $-34\degr$) at ‘P2’ to $5\degr$ at ‘P3’. This result is in good agreement with the qualitative analysis of the EVPA gradients above. A straightforward interpretation of the gradients of the RMs and the intrinsic polarization angles is that the magnetic field orientation gradually varies across the jet ridge line; for example, a helical magnetic field surrounding the jet might have this effect. An alternative interpretation for the enhancement of the rotation measurement at the edge of the jet is that it is associated with thermal electrons in a milliarcsec-scale Faraday screens surrounding or inside the jet due to jet-ISM interactions [@Cot03; @Gom08]. More observations are needed to investigate the origins of the varying RM and $\phi_0$.
The hot spot B shows a much larger difference of EVPAs between 4.8 and 8.3 GHz than is seen in component C. This might be a signature of different RMs at B and C. A rough calculation suggests a RM of $-330\pm60$ rad m$^{-2}$ at B. The high rotation measure and high fractional polarization (Section 4.2) is indicative of a strong, ordered magnetic field in the vicinity of B. This might be expected in a region containing a shock in which the line-of-sight component of the magnetic field and/or the density of thermal electrons are enhanced; in fact, the proper motion of B (Section 4.5) does provide some evidence for a stationary shock in this region.
Physical properties of compact components in VLBI images
--------------------------------------------------------
In order to make a quantitative study of the radiation properties of the compact VLBI components in 3C 48, we fitted the images of compact components in the VLBI images from our new observations and from the VLBA data taken in 1996 [@Wor04] with Gaussian models. Measurements from the 1996 data used mapping parameters consistent with those for the 2004 images. Table \[tab:model\] lists the fitted parameters of bright VLBI components in ascending frequency order.
The discrete compact components in the 4.8- and 8.3-GHz VLBA images are well fitted with Gaussian models along with a zero-level base and slope accounting for the extended background structure. The fit to extended emission structure is sensitive to the [*uv*]{} sampling and the sensitivity of the image. We have re-imaged the 1.5-GHz VLBA image using the same parameters as for the 1.65-GHz EVN image, i.e., the same [*uv*]{} range and restoring beam. At 1.5 and 1.65 GHz, Gaussian models are good approximations to the emission structure of compact sources with high signal-to-noise ratio, such as components A and B. For extended sources (i.e., components B2 to D2) whose emission structures are either not well modelled by Gaussian distribution, or blended with many sub-components, model fitting with a single Gaussian model gives a larger uncertainty for the fitted parameters. In particular, the determination of the integrated flux density is very sensitive to the apparent source size.
The uncertainties for the fitted parameters in Table \[tab:model\] are derived from the output of the [aips]{} task [JMFIT]{}. These fitting errors are sensitive to the intensity fluctuations in the images and source shapes. In most cases, the fitting errors for the peak intensities of Gaussian components are roughly equal to the [ *r.m.s.*]{} noise. We note that the uncertainty on the integrated flux density should also contain systematic calibration errors propagated from the amplitude calibration of the visibility data, in addition to the fitting errors. The calibration error normally dominates over the fitting error. The amplitude calibration for the VLBI antennas was made from the measurements of system temperature ($T_{sys}$) at two-minute intervals during the observations combined with the antenna gain curves measured at each VLBI station. For the VLBA data, this calibration has an accuracy $\lesssim$5 per cent of the amplitude scale[^3]. Because of the diversity of the antenna performance of the EVN elements, we adopted an averaged amplitude calibration uncertainty of 5 per cent for the EVN data.
The positions of the VLBI core A1 at 4.8, 8.3 and 15.4 GHz show good alignment within 0.4 mas at different frequencies and epochs. The positions of the unresolved core A at 1.5 and 1.65 GHz show a systematic northward offset by 2–4 mas relative to the position of A1 at higher frequencies. Due to the low resolution and high opacity at 1.5 GHz, the position of A at this frequency reflects the centroid of the blended emission structure of the active galactic nucleus and inner 40-pc jet. The parameters that we have derived for the compact components A, B and B2 in epoch 1996 are in good agreement with those determined by Worrall et al. (2004) at the same frequency band. The results for fitting to extended knots at 1.5 and 1.65 GHz are in less good agreement. This is probably because of the different [*uv*]{} sampling on short spacings, meaning that the VLBA and EVN data sample different extended structures in the emission.
The integrated flux densities of the VLBI components A1 and A2 in 1996X (8.3 GHz) are higher than those in 2004X (8.3 GHz) by $\sim$100 per cent (A1) and $\sim$60 per cent (A2), respectively. The large discrepancy in the flux densities of A1 and A2 between epochs 1996X and 2004X can not easily be interpreted as an amplitude calibration error of larger than 60 per cent since we do not see a variation at a comparable level in the flux densities of components B, B2 and D. Although the [*total*]{} flux densities of CSS sources in general exhibit no violent variability at radio wavelengths, the possibility of small-amplitude ($\lesssim$100 per cent) variability in the VLBI core and inner jet components is not ruled out.
Component A1 has a flat spectrum with $\alpha^{8.3}_{4.8}=-0.34\pm0.04$ between 4.8 and 8.3 GHz in epoch 2004; component A2 has a rather steeper spectrum with $\alpha^{8.3}_{4.8}=-1.29\pm0.16$ (epoch 2004). The spectral properties of these two components support the idea that A1 is associated with the active nucleus and suffers from synchrotron self-absorption at centimetre radio wavelengths; in this picture, A2 is the innermost jet. The spectral indices of components B and B2 in epoch 2004 are $\alpha^{8.3}_{4.8}=-0.82\pm0.10$ (B) and $\alpha^{8.3}_{4.8}=-0.79\pm0.10$ (B2), respectively. This is consistent with the measurements from the 1.65 and 4.99 GHz images (Figure \[fig:spix\]). Component D shows a relatively flatter spectrum in epoch 2004 with $\alpha^{8.3}_{4.8}=-0.46\pm0.06$, in contrast to the other jet knots. While this spectral index is consistent with those of the shock-accelerated hot spots in radio galaxies, the flattening of the spectrum in D might also arise from a local compression of particles and magnetic field.
Table \[tab:tb\] lists the brightness temperatures ($T_b$) of the compact VLBI components A1, A2 and B. All these VLBI components have a brightness temperatures ($T_b$) higher than $10^8$K, confirming their non-thermal origin. These brightness temperatures are well below the $10^{11-12}$ K upper limit constrained by the inverse Compton catastrophic [@KP69], suggesting that the relativistic jet plasma is only mildly beamed toward the line of sight. The $T_b$ of A1 is about 3 times higher than that of A2 at 4.8 and 8.3 GHz, and the $T_b$ of A1 decreases toward higher frequencies. Together with the flat spectrum and variability of A1, the observed results are consistent with A1 being the self-absorbed core harbouring the AGN. $T_b$ is much higher in 1996X than 2004X for both A1 and A2, a consequence of the measured flux density variation between the two epochs.
Proper motions of VLBI components {#section:pm}
---------------------------------
The Gaussian fitting results presented in Table \[tab:model\] may be used to calculate the proper motions of VLBI components. In order to search for proper motions in 3C 48, maps at different epochs should be aligned at a compact component such as the core [@Wor04]. However, thanks to our new VLBI observations we know that aligning the cores at 1.5-GHz is not likely to be practical, since the core structure appears to be changing on the relevant timescales. Even at 4.8 GHz, the core still blends with the inner jet A2 in epoch 1996C (Figure \[fig:core\]). In contrast to these two lower frequencies, the 8.3-GHz images have higher resolution, better separation of A1 and A2, and less contamination from extended emission. These make 8.3-GHz images the best choice for the proper motion analysis. In the following discussion of proper motion measurements we rely on the 8.3 GHz images.
We have already commented on the shift of the peak of A2 to the north from epochs 1996X to 2004X in Figure \[fig:core\]. A quantitative calculation based on the model fitting results gives a positional variation of 1.38 mas to the North and 0.15 mas to the West during a time span 8.43 yr, assuming that the core A1 is stationary. That corresponds to a proper motion of $\mu_\alpha = -0.018\pm0.007$ mas yr$^{-1}$ (’minus’ mean moving to the West) and $\mu_\delta=0.164\pm0.015$ mas yr$^{-1}$, corresponding to an apparent transverse velocity of $v_\alpha =
-0.40\pm0.16 \,c$ and $v_\delta=3.74\pm0.35 \,c$. The error quoted here includes both the positional uncertainty derived from Gaussian fitting and the relative offset of the reference point ([*i.e.*]{}, A1). That means that we detect a significant ($>10\sigma$) proper motion for A2 moving to the north. The apparent transverse velocity for A2 is similar to velocities derived from other CSS and GPS sources in which apparent superluminal motions in the pc-scale jet have been detected, e.g., 3.3–9.7$c$ in 3C 138 [@Cot97b; @She01].
We also searched for evidence for proper motions of the other jet knots. The proper motion measurement is limited by the accuracy of the reference point alignment, our ability to make a high-precision position determination at each epoch, and the contamination from extended structure. We found only a $3\sigma$ proper motion from B2, which shows a position change of $\Delta\alpha=0.22\pm0.07$ mas and $\Delta\delta=0.48\pm0.13$ mas in 8.43 yr, corresponding to an apparent velocity of $\beta_{app}=1.43\pm0.33\,c$ to the northeast. The measurements of the position variation of the hot spot B between 1996X and 2004X show no evidence for proper motion with $\mu_\alpha = 0.012\pm0.007$ mas yr$^{-1}$ and $\mu_\delta=0.005\pm0.015$ mas yr$^{-1}$. Worrall et al. (2004) earlier reported a $3\sigma$ proper motion for B by comparing the the 1.5-GHz VLBA image taken in 1996 with Wilkinson et al’s 1.6-GHz image from 11.8 years previously. However, as mentioned above, the 1.5-GHz measurements are subject to the problems of lower angular resolution, poor reference point alignment and contamination from structural variation. In particular, if we extrapolate the observed angular motion of A2 back, the creation of jet component A2 took place in 1984, therefore in 1996 A2 would still have been blended with A1 in the 1.5-GHz image within $\frac{1}{4}$ beam. The fitting of a Gaussian to the combination of A1 and A2 at 1.5 GHz on epoch 1996 would then have suffered from the effects of the structural changes in the core due to the expansion of A2. For these reasons we conclude that the hot spot B is stationary to the limit of our ability to measure motions. For the other jet components, the complex source structure does not permit any determination of proper motions.
Kinematics of the radio jet {#section:kinematics}
===========================
Geometry of the radio jet
-------------------------
Most CSS sources show double or triple structures on kpc scales, analogous to classical FR I or FR II galaxies. However, some CSS sources show strongly asymmetric structures. At small viewing angles, the advancing jet looks much brighter than the receding one, due to Doppler boosting. The sidedness of radio jets can be characterized by the jet-to-counterjet intensity ratio $R$. In VLA images [@Bri95; @Feng05], 3C 48 shows two-sided structure in the north-south direction. The southern (presumably receding) component is much weaker than the north (advancing) one. In VLBI images (Wilkinson et al. 1991; Worrall et al. 2004; the present paper) 3C 48 shows a one-sided jet to the north of the nucleus. If the non-detection of the counterjet is solely attributed to Doppler deboosting, the sideness parameter $R$ can be estimated from the intensity ratio of jet knots to the detection limit (derived from the $3\sigma$ off-source noise). Assuming the source is intrinsically symmetric out to a projected separation of 600 pc (the distance of B2 away from A1), the sideness parameter would be $>200$ for B2 and B in the 1.5-GHz image (Figure \[fig:vlbimap\]-a). In the highest-sensitivity image on epoch 2004C (Figure \[fig:vlbimap\]-d), the off-source noise in the image is 40 $\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$, so that the derived $R$ at component B could be as high as $\gtrsim$900.
For a smooth jet which consists of a number of unresolved components, the jet-to-counterjet brightness ratio $R$ is related to the jet velocity ($\beta$) and viewing angle ($\Theta$) by $$R=\left(\frac{1+\beta\cos\Theta}{1-\beta\cos\Theta}\right)^{2-\alpha}$$ Assuming an optically thin spectral index $\alpha=-1.0$ for the 3C 48 jet (Figure \[fig:spix\]), the sideness parameter $R\gtrsim900$ estimated above gives a limit of $\beta\cos\Theta>0.81\,c$ for the projected jet velocity in the line of sight. Using only the combination of parameters $\beta\cos\Theta$ it is not possible to determine the kinematics (jet speed $\beta$) and the geometry (viewing angle $\Theta$) of the jet flow. Additional constraints may come from the apparent transverse velocity, which is related to the jet velocity by $\beta_{app} =
\frac{\beta\sin\Theta}{1-\beta\cos\Theta}$. In Section \[section:pm\] we determined the apparent velocities for components B and B2, $\beta_{app}(B)=3.74c\pm0.35c$, $\beta_{app}(B2)=1.43c\pm0.33c$, and so we can combine $\beta\cos\Theta$ and $\beta_{app}$ to place a constraint on the kinematics and orientation of the outer jet. The constraints to the jet velocity and source orientation are shown in Figure \[fig:viewangle\]. The results imply that the 3C 48 jet moves at $v>0.85c$ along a viewing angle less than $35\degr$.
Helical radio jet structure {#section:helic}
---------------------------
As discussed in Section \[section:vlbimap\] the bright jet knots define a sinusoidal ridge line. This is the expected appearance of a helically twisted jet projected on to the plane of the sky. Helical radio jets, or jet structure with multiple bends, can be triggered by periodic variations in the direction of ejection (e.g., precession of the jet nozzle), and/or random perturbations at the start of the jet (e.g., jet-cloud collisions). For example, the wiggles in the ballistic jets in SS 433 are interpreted in terms of periodic variation in the direction of ejection [@Hje81]. Alternatively, small perturbations at the start of a coherent, smooth jet stream might be amplified by the Kelvin-Helmholtz (K-H) instability and grow downstream in the jet. In this case, the triggering of the helical mode and its actual evolution in the jet are dependent on the fluctuation properties of the initial perturbations, the dynamics of the jet flow, and the physical properties of the surrounding interstellar medium [@Har87; @Har03]. In the following subsections we consider these two models in more detail.
### Model 1 – precessing jet
We use a simple precession model [@Hje81], taking into account only kinematics, to model the apparently oscillatory structure of the 3C 48 radio jet. Figure \[fig:sketch\] shows a sketch map of a 3-D jet projected on the plane of the sky. The X- and Y-axis are defined so that they point to the Right Ascension and Declination directions, respectively. In the right-handed coordinate system, the Z-axis is perpendicular to the XOY plane and the minus-Z direction points to the observer. The jet axis is tilting toward the observer by an inclination angle of ($90-\theta$). The observed jet axis lies at a position angle $\alpha$. In the jet rest frame, the kinematic equation of a precessing jet can be parameterized by jet velocity ($V_j$), half-opening angle of the helix cone ($\varphi$) and angular velocity (or, equivalently, precession period $P$).
To simplify the calculations, we assume a constant jet flow velocity $V_j$, a constant opening angle $\varphi$ of the helix, and a constant angular velocity. We ignore the width of the jet itself, so we are actually fitting to the ridge line of the jet. The jet thickness does not significantly affect the fitting unless it is far wider than the opening angle of the helix cone. (We note that, although we have measured lower proper motion velocities in B and B2 than the velocity in the inner jet A2, this does not necessarily imply deceleration in the outer jet flow, since the brightening at B, and to some extent at B2, may arise mostly from stationary shocks; the proper motions of B and B2 thus represent a lower limit on the actual bulk motions of the jet.) We further assume the origin of the precession arises from the central black hole and accretion disk system, so that ($X_0$,$Y_0$,$Z_0$) can be taken as zero. In the observer’s frame the jet trajectory shown in the CLEAN image can be acquired by projecting the 3-D jet on the plane of the sky and then performing a rotation by an angle $\alpha$ in the plane of the sky so that the Y-axis aligns to the North (Declination) and X-axis points to the East (Right Ascension). In addition to the above parameters, we need to define a rotation sign parameter $s_{rot}$ ($s_{rot}=+1$ means counterclockwise rotation) and jet side parameter ($s_{jet}=+1$ means the jet moves toward the observer). Since we are dealing with the advancing jet, the jet side parameter is set to 1. Based on our calculations, we found that a clockwise rotation pattern ($s_{rot}=-1$) fits the 3C 48 jet.
To estimate the kinematical properties of the precessing jet flow, we use the proper motion measurements of component A2 as an estimate of the jet velocity and orientation (Figure \[fig:viewangle\]). We have chosen a set of parameters consistent with the curve for $V_{\rm
app,j}=3.7c$ and a viewing angle of $17\degr$. Other combinations of angles to the line of sight and velocities give qualitatively similar curves. For example, if we use a lower flow speed instead, a similar model structure can be produced by adjusting other parameters accordingly, e.g. by increasing the precessing period by the same factor. The high-resolution VLBI images (Figure \[fig:core\]) show that the innermost jet aligns to the North. So an initial position angle $\alpha=0$ should be a reasonable estimate. The VLBI images (Figure \[fig:vlbimap\]) suggest that the position angle of the jet ridge line shows an increasing trend starting from the hot spot B. Moreover, we found that a model with a constant position angle does not fit simultaneously to both the inner and outer jet. To simplify the calculation, we introduced a parameter $\frac{{\rm d}\alpha}{{\rm
d}t}$ to account for the increasing position angle in the outer jet.
The fitted jet ridge line is shown (thick green line) in the upper panel of Figure \[fig:helicalfit\] overlaid on the total intensity image. The assumed and fitted parameters are listed in Table \[tab:helicalfit\]. The modelled helix fits the general wiggling jet structure with at least two complete periods of oscillation. The fitted opening angle of $2.0\degr$ suggests that the line of sight falls outside the helix cone. The initial phase angle $\phi_0$ is loosely constrained; it is related to the reference time of the ejection of the jet knot, $\phi_0 = 2\pi t_{ref}/P$. The fits suggest that the reference time is $t_{ref}=-480$ yr. In the presence of the gradual tilting of the jet axis as well as the helical coiling around the jet axis, the fits most likely represents a superposition of the precession of the jet knots and the nutation of the jet axis, analogous to SS 433 (e.g. Katz et al. 1982; Begelman, King & Pringle 2006). The fitted period of 3500 yr is then a nutation period, about 0.4 times the dynamical time scale of the jet, assuming a flow speed of $0.965c$, while the precession period is much longer. From the rate of the jet axis tilting, we estimate a precession period of $\sim2\times10^5$ yr. The ratio of the estimated precession period to the nutation period is 57:1, 2.2 times the ratio in SS 433 (which has a 162-day periodic precession and 6.3-day nodding motion: see Begelman, King & Pringle 2006 and references therein). The precessing jet model predicts a smooth structure on small scales, and a constant evolution of the wavelength so long as the jet kinetic energy is conserved and the helix cone is not disrupted (the opening angle of the helix cone is constant). However, the real 3C 48 jet probably does not conserve kinetic energy, as it is characterized by a disrupted jet and violent jet-ISM interactions. In particular, the inner-kpc jet is seen to be physically interacting with a massive gas system, and the observed blue-shifted NIR clouds could be driven by the radio jet to move at velocities up to 1000 km s$^{-1}$ [@Cha99; @Gup05; @Sto07]. The 3C 48 radio jet thus might lose a fraction of its kinetic energy, resulting in a slowing down of the jet flow and the shrinking of the wavelength in the outer jet, assuming that the precessing periodicity is not destroyed.
### Model 2 – Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities
We next investigate the interpretation of a hydrodynamic or magnetized jet instability for a helical structure [@Har87; @Cam86]. We used the simple analytic model described in Steffen et al. (1995) to fit to the helical jet trajectory in 3C 48. The kinematic equations of this toy model are solved on the basis of the conservation of kinetic energy $E_{kin}$ and the specific momentum in the jet motion direction (Case 2 : Steffen et al. 1995). It is in fact identical to the isothermal hydrodynamic model [@Har87] under the condition of a small helix opening angle. Model fitting with an adiabatically expanding jet can basically obtain similar helical twisting jet as well, but the initial amplitude growth is much faster [@Har87] than that of the isothermal jet. In this analysis we confine our discussion to the isothermal case.
To make the calculations simple but not to lose generality, we used similar assumptions to those of Model 1 on the jet kinematics and geometry. (We should note that although we used an apparent velocity $V_{\rm app,j}$ with same value in Model 1, the jet speed $V_j$ in the K-H model is the pattern speed, and therefore the real flow speed and the viewing angle in the K-H model are more uncertain than for the ballistic case.) In addition, we assume that the initial perturbations originate from a region very close to the central engine. The calculations thus start from an initial distance of zero along the jet axis and a small displacement $r_0$ in the rotation plane away from the jet axis. Moreover, we assumed an initial position angle $\alpha_0=0\degr$ , and again introduced a rate ${\rm d}\alpha/{\rm
d}t$ to explain the eastward tilting of the jet axis. The half opening angle, which is a parameter to be fitted, is assumed constant. This assumption is plausible since the jet width seems not to change much within 0.5 arcsec, indicating that the trajectory of the jet is not disrupted even given the occurrence of a number of jet-ISM interactions. In addition to the above morphological assumptions, the model also assumes the conservation of specific momentum and kinetic energy $E_{\rm kin}$ along the jet axis. The conservation of specific momentum is equivalent to a constant velocity along the jet axis if mass loss or entrainment are negligible. The combination of the conservation of specific momentum and kinetic energy along the jet axis results in a constant pitch angle along the helical jet. Furthermore, the constant jet opening angle and pitch angle lead to a helical geometry in which the oscillatory wavelength linearly increases with time. The parameter $r_0$ controls how fast the wavelength varies (Equation 12 : Steffen et al. 1995). The model describes a self-similar helical trajectory with a number of revolutions as long as the helical amplitude is not dampened too rapidly.
The modelled curve is exhibited in the lower panel of Figure \[fig:helicalfit\]. The assumed and fitted parameters are listed in Table \[tab:helicalfit\]. As mentioned above, this K-H instability model predicts that, when the helical amplitude is not dampened and the opening angle $\varphi$ is small ($\varphi\ll
\arctan{\frac{r_0}{\lambda_0}}$), the oscillating wavelength (or period) along the jet axis increases linearly with time. The fits give an initial wavelength of 60 mas and initial period of 370 yr. The period increases to $1.3\times10^4$ yr at the end of the plot window of 9000 yr. The fitted curve displays more oscillations in the inner part of the jet and smoother structure in the outer part, due to the decreasing angular velocity downstream. The initial transverse distance $r_0$ represents the location where the K-H instability starts to grow in the surface of the jet. It is associated with the varying rate of the wavelength. A value of $r_0=1.8$ mas corresponds to a projected linear distance of 9.2 pc off the jet axis. As discussed above, the major discrepancy between the helical model and the real 3C 48 jet could be the assumption of the conservation of kinetic energy $E_{kin}$. We have tried to fit the helical model without the conservation of kinetic energy but with conserved angular momentum, which is in principle similar to Case 4 in Steffen et al. (1995). However, in this case, the modelled helix rapidly evolves into a straight line, and thus fails to reproduce the observed 3C 48 jet on kpc scales.
### Comparison of the two models
Both two models give fits to the overall jet structure of 3C 48 within 0.45 arcsec with 2–3 complete revolutions, but they have some differences in detail. The helical shape of the precessing jet is a superposition of ballistic jet knots modulated by a nodding motion (nutation). In this case, the whole jet envelope wiggles out and shows a restricted periodicity. The observed jet structure displays a smooth shape on rather smaller scales. If, alternatively, the coherent, smooth jet stream is initially disturbed at the jet base, and is amplified by the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability downstream in the jet, the jet stream itself is bent. The resulting helical jet flow rotates faster at the start and gradually slows down as it moves further away. If the twisted inner jet morphology detected at 1.5 and 4.8 GHz (Figure \[fig:core\]) is real, this would support the K-H instability model. Further high-dynamic-range VLBI maps of the inner jet region could test this scenario.
In addition to the morphological discrepancy, the two models require different physical origins. In the precessing-jet model, ballistic knots are ejected in different directions which are associated with an ordered rotation in the jet flow direction in the vicinity of the central engine. If the precession results from a rotating injector at the jet base (see discussion in Worrall et al. 2007), the precession period of 0.2 million yr requires a radius of $17 \times
(\frac{M_{\bullet} }{10^9 M_{\odot}})^{1/3}$ pc, assuming the injector is in a Keplerian motion around the black hole. This size scale is much larger than the accretion disk, and so we may simply rule out the possibility of an injection from the rotating accretion disk. Instead the long-term precession can plausibly take place in a binary SMBH system or a tilting accretion disk (e.g. [@Beg80; @Lu05]). For example, the precessing period caused by a tilting disk is $\sim
2\times10^5$ yr, assuming a $3\times10^9 M_{\sun}$ SMBH for 3C 48, a dimensionless viscosity parameter $\alpha=0.1$ and the dimentionless specific angular momentum of the black hole $a=0.5$ [@Lu05]. In this scenario, the short-term nodding motion can then be triggered by the tidally-induced torque on the outer brim of the wobbling accretion disk, analogous to SS 433 [@Kat82; @Bat00].
On the other hand, the helical K-H instabilities modes can be triggered by ordered or random perturbations to the jet flow. The fits with Model 2 give an initial perturbation period $\sim370$ yr, which leads to a radius of $\sim 0.25 \times (\frac{M_{\bullet} }{10^9
M_{\odot}})^{1/3}$ pc where perturbations take place. This radius is still larger than the size of the accretion disk, but at this size scale it is still plausible for the perturbations to be due to interactions between the jet flow and the broad-line-region clouds (e.g. 3C120: [@Gom00]). However, the high Faraday depth and/or the possible internal depolarization structure in the radio core A makes it difficult to investigate this scenario through VLBI polarimetric measurements. In addition, K-H instabilities would not only produce simple helical modes, but also many other instability modes mixed together; the K-H interpretation of the oscillatory 3C 48 jet on both pc and kpc scales requires a selection of modes or a simple mix of low-order modes. However, it is difficult to see how these required modes are excited while others with higher growth rates are suppressed (see the discussion of the wiggling filament in NGC 315 by Worrall et al. 2007). Moreover, the K-H model does not have a ready explanation for the observed large-scale gradual bend of the jet axis. Simple kinematical models, such as a reflection by an oblique shock or a pressure gradient in the Narrow-Line-Region ISM, may not be adequate to explain the bends of the robust ($\gtrsim0.9c$) jet flow.
Summary
=======
We have observed 3C 48 at multiple frequencies with the VLBA, EVN and MERLIN with spatial resolutions between tens and hundreds of parsec. Our principal results may be summarized as follows:
\(1) The total-intensity MERLIN image of 3C 48 is characterized by two components with comparable integrated flux density. A compact component aligns with the VLBI jet, while an extended envelope surrounds it. The extended emission structure becomes diffuse and extends toward the northeast at $\sim$0.25 arcsec from the nucleus. The extended component shows a steeper spectrum than the compact jet.
\(2) In the VLBA and EVN images, the compact jet seen in the MERLIN image is resolved into a series of bright knots. Knot A is further resolved into two smaller features A1 and A2 in 4.8- and 8.3-GHz VLBA images. A1 shows a flat spectrum with spectral index $\alpha^{4.8}_{8.3}=-0.34\pm0.04$. A2 shows a steep spectrum with $\alpha^{4.8}_{8.3}=-1.29\pm0.16$, and may be identified with the inner jet. The brightness temperature of A1 is $>10^9$ K and much higher than the $T_b$ of A2. The flux densities of A1 and A2 in epoch 2004 show a 100 and 60 per cent decrease compared with those in 1996. The high brightness temperature, flat spectrum and variability imply that A1 is the synchrotron self-absorbed core found close to the active nucleus.
\(3) Comparison of the present VLBA data with those of 1996 January 20 strongly suggests that A2 is moving, with an apparent velocity $3.7c\pm0.4c$ to the North. Combining the apparent superluminal motion and the jet-to-counterjet intensity ratio yields a constraint on the jet kinematics and geometry: the jet is relativistic ($>0.85c$) and closely aligned to the line of sight ($<35\degr$).
\(4) We present for the first time VLBI polarization images of 3C 48, which reveal polarized structures with multiple sub-components in component C. The fractional polarization peaks at the interface between the compact jet and the surrounding medium, perhaps consistent with a local jet-induced shock. The systematic gradient of the EVPAs across the jet width at C can be attributed to the combination of a gradient in the emission-weighted intrinsic polarization angle across the jet and possibly a systematic gradient in the RM. Changing magnetic field directions are a possible interpretation of the RM gradient, but other alternatives can not be ruled out. The fractional polarization of the hot spot B increases towards higher frequencies, from $\sim1$ per cent (1.6 GHz), $\sim2.0$ per cent (4.8 GHz) to $12$ per cent (8.3 GHz). The relatively low degree of polarization at lower frequencies probably results from a unresolved Faraday screen associated with the NLR clouds and/or the internal depolarization in the jet itself. Hot spot B has a higher RM than C, which can perhaps be attributed to a stationary shock in the vicinity of B. The core A at all frequencies is unpolarized, which may be the result of a tangled magnetic field in the inner part of the jet.
\(5) The combined EVN+MERLIN 1.65-GHz image and 1.5-GHz VLBA images show that the bright knots trace out a wave-like shape within the jet. We fitted the jet structure with a simple precession model and a K-H instability model. Both models in general reproduce the observed oscillatory jet trajectory, but neither of them is able to explain all the observations. More observations are required to investigate the physical origin of the helical pattern. Further monitoring of the proper motion of the inner jet A2 should be able to constrain the ballistic motion in the framework of the precessing jet. High-resolution VLBI images of the inner jet region will be required to check whether or not the jet flow is oscillating on scales of tens of mas, which might give a morphological means of discriminating between the two models. Sophisticated simulations of the jet would be needed to take into account the deceleration of the jet flow due to kinetic energy loss via jet-cloud interaction and radiation loss, but these are beyond the scope of the present paper.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
TA and XYH are grateful for partial support for this work from the National Natural Science Foundation of PR China (NSFC 10503008, 10473018) and Shanghai Natural Science Foundation (09ZR1437400). MJH thanks the Royal Society (UK) for support. We thank Mark Birkinshaw for helpful discussions on the jet kinematics. The VLBA is an instrument of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a facility of the US National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. The European VLBI Network (EVN) is a joint facility of European, Chinese, South African and other radio astronomy institutes funded by their national research councils. MERLIN is a National Facility operated by the University of Manchester at Jodrell Bank Observatory on behalf of the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).
[99]{} Akujor C.E., Spencer R.E., Zhang F.J., Davis R.J., Browne I.W.A., Fanti C., 1991, MNRAS, 250, 215 An T., Hong X.Y., Wang W.H., 2004, ChJAA, 4, 28 Bate M.R., Bonnell I.A., Clarke C.J., Lubow S.H., Ogilvie G.I., Pringle J.E., Tout C.A., 2000, MNRAS, 317, 773 Begelman M.C., Blandford R.D., Rees M.J., 1980, Nature, 287, 307 Begelman M.C., King A.R., Pringle J.E., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 399 Briggs D.S., 1995, Ph.D. thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mines and Technology Chatzichristou E.T., Vanderriest C., Jaffe W., 1999, A&A, 343, 407 Canalizo G., & Stockton A., 2000, ApJ, 528, 201 Camenzind M., 1986, A&A, 156, 137 Condon J.J., Cotton W.D., Greisen E.W., Yin Q.F., Perley R.A., Taylor G.B., Broderick J.J., 1998, AJ, 115, 1693 Cotton W.D., Fanti C., Fanti R., Dallacasa D., Foley A.R., Schilizzi R.T., Spencer R.E., 1997a, A&A, 325, 479 Cotton W.D., Dallacasa D., Fanti C., Fanti R., Foley A.R., Schilizzi R.T., Spencer R.E., 1997b, A&A, 325, 493 Cotton W.D., Dallacasa D., Fanti C., Fanti R., Foley A.R., Schilizzi R.T., Spencer R.E., 2003, A&A, 406, 43 Fanti C., Fanti R., Parma P., Schilizzi R.T., van Breugel W.J.M., 1985, A&A, 143, 292 Fanti R., Fanti C., Schilizzi R.T., Spencer R.E., Nan R.D., Parma P., van Breugel W.J.M., Venturi T., 1990, A&A, 231, 333 Fanti C., Fanti R., Dallacasa D., Schilizzi R.T., Spencer R.E., Stanghellini C., 1995, A&A, 302, 317 [ **Fanti C., 2009, AN, 330, 120** ]{} Feng W.X., An T., Hong X.Y., Zhao J.-H., Venturi T., Shen Z.-Q., Wang W.H., 2005, A&A, 434, 101 Gómez J.-L., Marscher A.P., Alberdi A., Jorstad S.G., García-Miró C., 2000, Science, 289, 2317 Gómez J.-L., Marscher A.P., Jorstad S.G., Agudo I., Roca-Sogorb M., 2008, ApJ, 681, L69 Greenstein J.L., 1963, Nature, 197,1041 Gupta N., Srianand R., & Saikia D.J., 2005, MNRAS, 361, 451 Hardee P.E., 1987, ApJ, 318, 78 Hardee P.E., 2003, ApJ, 597, 798 Hjellming R.M., & Johnston K.J., 1981, ApJ, 246, L141 Katz J.I., Anderson S.F., Grandi S.A., Margon B., 1982, ApJ, 260, 780 Kellermann K.I., & Pauliny-Toth I.I.K., 1969, ApJ, 155, L71 Krips M., Eckart A., Neri R., Zuther J., Downes D., Scharwachter J., 2005, A&A, 439, 75 Lu J.-F. & Zhou B.-Y., 2005, ApJ, 635, L17 Mantovani F., Mack K.-H., Montenegro-Montes F.M., Rossetti A., Kraus A., 2009, A&A, 502, 61 Matthews T. A., Bolton J. G., Greenstein J. L., Munch G. & Sandage A. R., 1961, Sky and Telescope, 21, 148 Murgia M., Fanti C., Fanti R., Gregorini L., Klein U., Mack K.-H., Vigotti M., 1999, A&A, 345, 769 Nan R.D., Schilizzi R.T., Fanti C., Fanti R., 1991, A&A, 252, 513 Nan R.D., Cai Z.D., Inoue M., Kameno S., Schilizzi R.T., Fanti C., Fanti R., 1992, PASJ, 44, 273 O’Dea C.P., 1998, PASP, 110, 493 O’Dea C.P., de Vries W.H., Koekemoer A.M., Baum S.A., Morganti R., Fanti R., Capetti A., Tadhunter C.N., Barthel P.D., Axon D.J., Gelderman R., 2002, ApJ, 123, 2333 Peacock J.A., & Wall J.V., 1982, MNRAS, 198, 843 Shen Z.-Q., Jiang D.R., Kameno S., Chen Y.J., 2001, A&A, 370, 65 Simard-Normandin M., Kronberg P.P., & Button S., 1981, ApJS, 45, 97 Simon R.S., Readhead A.C.S., Moffet A.T., Wilkinson P.N., Booth R., Allen B., Burke B.F., 1990, ApJ, 354, 140 Spencer R.E., Schilizzi R.T., Fanti C., Fanti R., Parma P., van Breugel W.J.M., Venturi T., Muxlow T.W.B., Nan R.D., 1991, MNRAS, 250, 225 Stanghellini C., O’Dea C.P., Dallacasa D., Baum S.A., Fanti R., Fanti C., 1998, A&AS, 131, 303 Steffen W., Zensus J.A., Krichbaum T.P., Witzel A., Qian S.J., 1995, A&A, 302, 335 Stockton A., & Ridgway S.E., 1991, AJ, 102, 488 Stockton A., Canalizo G., Fu H., Keel W., 2007, ApJ, 659, 195 Taylor G.B., & Myers S.T., 2000, VLBA Scientific Memorandum 26 van Breugel W., Miley G., & Heckman T., 1984, AJ, 89, 5 Xiang L., Reynolds C., Strom R.G., Dallacasa D., 2006, A&A, 454, 729 Wilkinson P.N., Spencer R.E., Readhead A.C.S., Pearson T.J., Simon R.S., 1984, IAU Symposium 110, ‘VLBI and Compact Radio Sources’, eds. R. Fanti, K.I. Kellermann, G. Setti, p.25 Wilkinson P.N., Tzioumis A.K., Akujor C.E., Benson J.M., Walker R.C., Simon R.S., 1990, in Zensus J.A., Pearson T.J., eds. Parsec-Scale Radio Jets, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, p. 152 Wilkinson P.N., Tzioumis A.K., Benson J.M., Walker R.C., Simon R.S., Kahn F.D., 1991, Nature, 352, 313 Worrall D.M., Hardcastle M.J., Pearson T.J., Readhead A.C.S., 2004, MNRAS, 347, 632 Worrall D.M., Birkinshaw M., Laing R.A., Cotton W.D., & Bridle A.H., 2007, MNRAS, 380, 2 Zuther J., Eckart A., Scharwachter J., Krips M., Straubmeier C., 2004, A&A, 414, 919
\[lastpage\]
![Total intensity (Stokes $I$) image of 3C 48 from the MERLIN observation at 1.65 GHz. The image was made with uniform weighting. The restoring beam is 138$\times$115 (mas), PA=65.1. The phase centre is at RA=01$^h$37$^d$41$^s$.29949, Dec=$+$330935.1338. The [*r.m.s.*]{} noise in the image measured in an off-source region is $\sim$1.3 mJy b$^{-1}$, corresponding to a dynamic range of $\sim$2800:1 in the image. The contours are 6 mJy b$^{-1}\times$(-2, 1, 2, 4, ..., 512). The cross denotes the location of the hidden AGN. The square marks the region in which compact jet dominates the emission structure. []{data-label="fig:MERcont"}](Fig1.ps)
![Total intensity (Stokes $I$) image of 3C 48 from VLBA and EVN observations. The phase centres of all images have been shifted to RA=01$^h$37$^d$41$^s$.29949, Dec=$+$330935.1338. Table \[tab:figpar\] presents the image parameters. The horizon bars in the subpanels illuminates the length scale in projection. A number of bright components are labeled in the images. []{data-label="fig:vlbimap"}](Fig2.eps)
![Total intensity (Stokes $I$) image of 3C 48 from VLBA observations in 2004 and 1996. [**top left:**]{} 1.5 GHz image on epoch 2004. The image was made with a super-uniform weighting (ROBUST=$-4$ and UVBOX=3 in [aips]{} task IMAGR) and restored with a beam of 6.2$\times$3.9 (mas), PA=$-30\degr$ Contours: 0.4 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,2,...,128); [**top right:**]{} 4.8 GHz contours (epoch 1996) superposited on the grey-scale image (epoch 2004); [**bottom left:**]{} 8.3 GHz contours (epoch 2004) and grey-scale (epoch 1996), [**bottom right:**]{} 8.3 GHz contours (epoch 2004) and 15.4 GHz grey-scale (epoch 1996). []{data-label="fig:core"}](Fig3.eps){width="\textwidth"}
![Spectral index map (gray scale) of 3C 48 between 1.65 and 4.99 GHz. The 4.99 GHz total intensity map (contours) is derived from the MERLIN observations on 1992 June 15 (Feng et al. 2005). The restoring beam of the 4.99 GHz image is 40$\times$40 (mas). The lowest contour is 0.7 mJy b$^{-1}$, increasing in a step of 4. The 1.65 GHz data are obtained from the combined EVN and MERLIN data observed on 2005 June 7 (the present paper). The two images are re-produced using visibility data on the common [*uv*]{} range, and restored with the same 40$\times$40 (mas) beam. Compact VLBI components are labeled in the image. []{data-label="fig:spix"}](Fig4.ps){width="\textwidth"}
![Polarization structure of 3C 48 from the MERLIN observations at 1.65 GHz. The contours map is Stokes $I$ image (Figure \[fig:MERcont\]). The polarization image is derived from Stokes $Q$ and $U$ images above a 4$\sigma$ cutoff (1$\sigma$=6 mJy b$^{-1}$). The wedge at the top indicates the percentage of the polarization. The length of the bars represents the strength of polarized emission, 1 arcsec represents 0.5 Jy b$^{-1}$. The orientation of the bar indicates the RM-corrected EVPA. []{data-label="fig:MERpol"}](Fig5.ps){width="\textwidth"}
![ Polarization structure of 3C 48 derived from the EVN and VLBA data. The contours show the total intensity (Stoke I) emission, and the grey scale indicates the fractional polarization. The length of the bars indicates the strength of the linear polarization intensity, and the orientation of the bars indicates the polarization angle, which has been corrected by the RM on the basis of the measurements by Mantovani et al. (2009). We should note that the VLBI images show more complex polarization structure than that shown in MERLIN image (Figure \[fig:MERpol\]): quantitative calculations (Figure \[fig:RM\]) show that the RMs in the component C region is about 1.4 times the value measured from the overall source; moreover, the intrinsic polarization angles rotate by $\sim 60\degr$ from the northwest edge of component C to the southeast edge. Therefore the correction based on the overall-source RM might not be sufficiently accurate to all sub-components, while this uncertainty tends to small toward the higher frequencies. [**(a)**]{}: the EVN image at 1.65 GHz. Contours are 4 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,16,64,256). The Stokes $Q$ and $U$ maps were convolved with a 20-mas circular beam, and we used intensities above 4$\sigma$ to calculate the polarized intensity and polarization angle; [**(b)**]{}: contours : 1 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,16,64,256); [**(c)**]{}: contours : 1 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,16,64,256); [**(d)**]{}: contours : 1.2 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (4,16,64,256); the contours in the inset panel are 1.2 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512). []{data-label="fig:VLBIpol"}](Fig6a.ps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![ Polarization structure of 3C 48 derived from the EVN and VLBA data. The contours show the total intensity (Stoke I) emission, and the grey scale indicates the fractional polarization. The length of the bars indicates the strength of the linear polarization intensity, and the orientation of the bars indicates the polarization angle, which has been corrected by the RM on the basis of the measurements by Mantovani et al. (2009). We should note that the VLBI images show more complex polarization structure than that shown in MERLIN image (Figure \[fig:MERpol\]): quantitative calculations (Figure \[fig:RM\]) show that the RMs in the component C region is about 1.4 times the value measured from the overall source; moreover, the intrinsic polarization angles rotate by $\sim 60\degr$ from the northwest edge of component C to the southeast edge. Therefore the correction based on the overall-source RM might not be sufficiently accurate to all sub-components, while this uncertainty tends to small toward the higher frequencies. [**(a)**]{}: the EVN image at 1.65 GHz. Contours are 4 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,16,64,256). The Stokes $Q$ and $U$ maps were convolved with a 20-mas circular beam, and we used intensities above 4$\sigma$ to calculate the polarized intensity and polarization angle; [**(b)**]{}: contours : 1 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,16,64,256); [**(c)**]{}: contours : 1 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,16,64,256); [**(d)**]{}: contours : 1.2 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (4,16,64,256); the contours in the inset panel are 1.2 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512). []{data-label="fig:VLBIpol"}](Fig6b.ps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![ Polarization structure of 3C 48 derived from the EVN and VLBA data. The contours show the total intensity (Stoke I) emission, and the grey scale indicates the fractional polarization. The length of the bars indicates the strength of the linear polarization intensity, and the orientation of the bars indicates the polarization angle, which has been corrected by the RM on the basis of the measurements by Mantovani et al. (2009). We should note that the VLBI images show more complex polarization structure than that shown in MERLIN image (Figure \[fig:MERpol\]): quantitative calculations (Figure \[fig:RM\]) show that the RMs in the component C region is about 1.4 times the value measured from the overall source; moreover, the intrinsic polarization angles rotate by $\sim 60\degr$ from the northwest edge of component C to the southeast edge. Therefore the correction based on the overall-source RM might not be sufficiently accurate to all sub-components, while this uncertainty tends to small toward the higher frequencies. [**(a)**]{}: the EVN image at 1.65 GHz. Contours are 4 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,16,64,256). The Stokes $Q$ and $U$ maps were convolved with a 20-mas circular beam, and we used intensities above 4$\sigma$ to calculate the polarized intensity and polarization angle; [**(b)**]{}: contours : 1 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,16,64,256); [**(c)**]{}: contours : 1 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,16,64,256); [**(d)**]{}: contours : 1.2 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (4,16,64,256); the contours in the inset panel are 1.2 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512). []{data-label="fig:VLBIpol"}](Fig6c.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![ Polarization structure of 3C 48 derived from the EVN and VLBA data. The contours show the total intensity (Stoke I) emission, and the grey scale indicates the fractional polarization. The length of the bars indicates the strength of the linear polarization intensity, and the orientation of the bars indicates the polarization angle, which has been corrected by the RM on the basis of the measurements by Mantovani et al. (2009). We should note that the VLBI images show more complex polarization structure than that shown in MERLIN image (Figure \[fig:MERpol\]): quantitative calculations (Figure \[fig:RM\]) show that the RMs in the component C region is about 1.4 times the value measured from the overall source; moreover, the intrinsic polarization angles rotate by $\sim 60\degr$ from the northwest edge of component C to the southeast edge. Therefore the correction based on the overall-source RM might not be sufficiently accurate to all sub-components, while this uncertainty tends to small toward the higher frequencies. [**(a)**]{}: the EVN image at 1.65 GHz. Contours are 4 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,16,64,256). The Stokes $Q$ and $U$ maps were convolved with a 20-mas circular beam, and we used intensities above 4$\sigma$ to calculate the polarized intensity and polarization angle; [**(b)**]{}: contours : 1 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,16,64,256); [**(c)**]{}: contours : 1 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,16,64,256); [**(d)**]{}: contours : 1.2 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (4,16,64,256); the contours in the inset panel are 1.2 mJy b$^{-1}\times$ (1,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512). []{data-label="fig:VLBIpol"}](Fig6d.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
![RM distribution in the component-C region. The patchy morphology is because at some pixels polarization was not detected at all three frequencies simultaneously. The contours represent the total intensity: 1.0 mJy b$^{-1}\times$(1,4,8,16). The wedge at the top indicates the RM in the observer’s frame, in unit of rad m$^{-2}$. The insets show the measured values of the observed polarization angle for four selective locations as a function of $\lambda^2$ along with a linear fitting of rotation measure.[]{data-label="fig:RM"}](Fig7.eps){width="\textwidth"}
![ Constraints on source orientation and jet velocity from the VLBI observations. The shaded region indicates the parameter space constrained by the proper motion measurements and the jet-to-counterjet intensity ratios.[]{data-label="fig:viewangle"}](Fig8.ps)
![Sketch plot of the helical jet in 3C 48. The jet knots move on the surface of a helical cone. The XOY plane in the plot represents the projected sky plane, and the X-axis points to the RA direction and Y-axis to the DEC direction. The Z-axis is perpendicular to the plane of the sky and points away from the observer. The half of the opening angle of the helix is $\varphi$. The jet axis ’OP’ is inclining by an angle of ($90-\theta$) with respect to the line of sight. The angle $\alpha$ between the OP’ and Y-axis is defined as the position angle in the 2-Dimension CLEAN image. []{data-label="fig:sketch"}](Fig9.eps)
![Helical model fits overlaid on the total intensity images. [**Upper panel**]{} : the ridge line of the fitted precessing jet (thick green lines) overlaid on the 1.5-GHz VLBA (left) and 1.65-GHz EVN+MERLIN images. The CLEAN image parameters are referred to Table \[tab:figpar\]. [**Lower panel**]{} : the fitted jet trajectory (thick green line) from the K-H instability model. []{data-label="fig:helicalfit"}](Fig10.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Array$^a$ VLBA EVN MERLIN
------------------ -------------------- --------------------- ----------------------------
R.A.$^b$ 01 37 41.29943 01 37 41.29949 01 37 41.29675
Dec.$^b$ 33 09 35.1330 33 09 35.1338 33 09 35.5117
Date 2004 June 25 2005 June 7 2005 June 7
Time(UT) 08:00–20:00 02:00–14:00 02:00–14:00
$\tau$(hour)$^c$ 2.6/2.6/2.6 8.0 8.0
Freq(GHz)$^d$ 1.5/4.8/8.3 1.65 1.65
BL(km)$^e$ 20–8600 130–8800 0.3–220
Calibrators DA193, 3C138,3C345 DA193, 3C138, 3C286 DA193, 3C138, 3C286, OQ208
BW(MHz) 32 32 15
Correlator Socorro (VLBA) JIVE (MK IV) Jodrell Bank
: Observational parameters of 3C 48
\
$^a$ : Participating EVN telescopes were Jodrell Bank (Lovell 76-m), Westerbork (phased array), Effelsberg, Onsala (25-m), Medicina, Noto, Torun, Shanghai, Urumqi, Hartebeesthoek and Cambridge; the MERLIN array consistsed of Defford, Cambridge, Knockin, Darnhall, MK2, Lovell and Tabley; all ten telescopes of the VLBA and a single VLA telescope participated in the VLBA observations;\
$^b$ : pointing centre of the observations;\
$^c$ : total integrating time on 3C 48;\
$^d$ : the central frequency of the observing band. The VLBA observations were carried out at three frequency bands of 1.5, 5 and 8 GHz;\
$^e$ : the projected baseline range of the array in thousands of wavelengths.\
\[tab:obs\]
--------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------------- --------------------------------
Label Frequency rms noise Contours
(GHz) Maj(mas) Min(mas) PA(deg) (mJy b$^{-1}$) (mJy b$^{-1}$)
Figure 1 1.65 138 115 65.1 1.3 6.0$\times$(-2,1,2,4,8,...512)
Figure 2-a 1.51 8.3 5.3 1.0 0.25 1.0$\times$(1,2,4,8,16,64,256)
Figure 2-b 1.65 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.30 1.0$\times$(1,4,16,64,256)
Figure 2-c 4.78 2.7 1.7 0.0 0.040 0.16$\times$(1,4,16,64,256)
Figure 2-d 8.31 1.8 1.1 9.7 0.060 0.24$\times$(1,4,16,64,256)
Figure 10$^*$ 1.65 16 10 $-$4.4 1.6 6.0$\times$(1,4,16,32,64,128)
--------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------------- --------------------------------
: Parameters of total intensity maps of Figure \[fig:vlbimap\]
\
\[tab:figpar\] Note: all images are registered to the phase centre of the 2005 EVN image. $^*$: the parameters are for the 1.65-GHz EVN+MERLIN image in the right panel.
[llrrrrrrr]{} Freq.&Comp. &RA(J2000)$^a$&Dec(J2000)$^a$& S$_p$ & S$_i$ & $\theta_{maj}$ & $\theta_{min}$ & P.A.\
(GHz)& &($^h$,$^m$,$^s$)&($\degr$,$\arcmin$,$\arcsec$) &(mJy b$^{-1}$) & (mJy) & (mas) & (mas) & (degree)\
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) &(8) &(9)\
\
1.53 &A &01 37 41.2994260 &33 09 35.021073 & 59.94$\pm$0.84& 93.29$\pm$1.97& 4.77$\pm$0.14 & 2.58$\pm$0.18 &173.0$\pm$2.7\
&B &$-$2.69 & 53.61 &153.56$\pm$0.84&224.45$\pm$1.89& 4.02$\pm$0.06 & 2.72$\pm$0.07 &157.2$\pm$1.8\
&B2 & 0.58 &113.73 & 93.20$\pm$0.78&529.51$\pm$5.17&13.46$\pm$0.13 & 8.53$\pm$0.10 & 22.8$\pm$0.8\
&B3 &$-$20.97 & 84.80 & 37.04$\pm$0.78&309.78$\pm$7.23&20.38$\pm$0.45 & 8.62$\pm$0.24 &131.8$\pm$1.0\
&C & 37.56 &247.68 &24.42$\pm$0.62&385.70$\pm$10.30&27.94$\pm$0.73 &12.98$\pm$0.38 & 70.1$\pm$1.3\
&D & 70.64 &331.18 & 86.88$\pm$0.78&518.96$\pm$5.40&14.39$\pm$0.15 & 8.43$\pm$0.10 &123.7$\pm$0.8\
&D2 & 50.59 &378.93 & 21.07$\pm$0.76&219.28$\pm$8.62&19.56$\pm$0.75 &11.87$\pm$0.51 & 31.4$\pm$3.1\
\
1.51 &A &01 37 41.2993864 &33 09 35.018436 & 72.33$\pm$0.71& 99.91$\pm$1.53& 4.87$\pm$0.14& 0.00$\pm$0.00&173.2$\pm$1.1\
&B &$-$2.57 &52.94 &264.06$\pm$0.72&308.76$\pm$1.38& 2.56$\pm$0.06& 1.43$\pm$0.05& 0.7$\pm$1.4\
&B2 & 0.73 &112.98 &130.17$\pm$0.66&657.32$\pm$3.92&13.17$\pm$0.13& 7.43$\pm$0.06& 20.6$\pm$0.4\
&B3 &$-$21.79 &84.88 & 47.78$\pm$0.65&371.90$\pm$5.67&18.56$\pm$0.45& 8.80$\pm$0.16&127.6$\pm$0.8\
&C & 38.82 &246.04 & 28.84$\pm$0.57&376.94$\pm$7.94&28.05$\pm$0.73& 10.31$\pm$0.25& 65.4$\pm$0.8\
&D & 70.82 &329.60 &119.13$\pm$0.66&616.05$\pm$3.99&13.49$\pm$0.15& 7.46$\pm$0.06&125.4$\pm$0.5\
&D2 & 50.52 &377.20 & 26.99$\pm$0.65&235.54$\pm$6.27&18.01$\pm$0.75& 10.54$\pm$0.31& 62.5$\pm$2.0\
\
1.65 &A &01 37 41.2993690 &33 09 35.018826 & 75.23$\pm$0.29&108.27$\pm$0.64&4.94$\pm$0.04 &1.09$\pm$0.10 &178.0$\pm$0.5\
&B &$-$2.56 & 52.92 &279.84$\pm$0.30&318.86$\pm$0.56&2.40$\pm$0.01 &1.18$\pm$0.02 & 23.7$\pm$0.6\
&B2 & 2.24 &111.56 &155.31$\pm$0.27&771.75$\pm$1.59&13.44$\pm$0.03 &7.08$\pm$0.02 & 12.1$\pm$0.1\
&B3 &$-$20.48 & 85.23 &50.78$\pm$0.27&297.29$\pm$1.82&17.98$\pm$0.10 &6.04$\pm$0.05 &126.9$\pm$0.2\
&C & 40.60 &249.55 &53.14$\pm$0.27&388.12$\pm$2.20&26.65$\pm$0.14 &4.51$\pm$0.05 & 62.6$\pm$0.1\
&D & 70.31 &329.77 &190.60$\pm$0.28&597.33$\pm$1.10&9.79$\pm$0.02 &5.08$\pm$0.02 &109.9$\pm$0.1\
&D2 & 53.48 &377.67 &46.10$\pm$0.27&186.20$\pm$1.34&11.92$\pm$0.08 &6.00$\pm$0.06 & 40.6$\pm$0.4\
\
4.99 &A &01 37 41.2993853 &33 09 35.016904 &46.80$\pm$0.04 & 60.77$\pm$0.08 &1.80$\pm$0.01 &0.43$\pm$0.01 &174.4$\pm$ 0.1\
&B &$-$2.71 & 54.85 &88.73$\pm$0.04 &135.70$\pm$0.08 &2.11$\pm$0.01 &1.37$\pm$0.01 & 36.3$\pm$ 0.2\
&B2 & 0.19 &115.75 &17.99$\pm$0.03 &162.30$\pm$0.34 &9.37$\pm$0.02 &4.99$\pm$0.01 & 44.8$\pm$ 0.1\
&B3 &$-$22.32 & 90.35 & 4.04$\pm$0.03 & 46.77$\pm$0.39&10.21$\pm$0.08 &6.21$\pm$0.06 &149.3$\pm$ 0.7\
&D & 71.33 &331.53 &11.75$\pm$0.02 &300.35$\pm$0.56&15.82$\pm$0.03 &9.28$\pm$0.02 &121.1$\pm$ 0.1\
\
4.78 &A1 &01 37 41.2993814 &33 09 35.016523 & 26.75$\pm$0.05 & 28.80$\pm$0.10& 1.00$\pm$0.02 &0.56$\pm$0.02 &176.3$\pm$ 2.2\
&A2 &$-$0.28 & 3.39 & 16.69$\pm$0.05 & 22.86$\pm$0.11& 2.97$\pm$0.02 &0.57$\pm$0.03 &175.7$\pm$ 0.3\
&B &$-$2.63 & 55.19 &105.06$\pm$0.05 &140.80$\pm$0.11& 2.00$\pm$0.01 &0.96$\pm$0.01 & 39.8$\pm$ 0.2\
&B2 &$-$0.02 &116.06 & 23.11$\pm$0.05 &161.84$\pm$0.37& 9.12$\pm$0.02 &4.61$\pm$0.02 & 42.9$\pm$ 0.2\
&B3 &$-$22.39 & 90.01 & 4.07$\pm$0.04 & 52.92$\pm$0.57&12.42$\pm$0.13 &6.92$\pm$0.09 &112.9$\pm$ 0.8\
&D & 71.39 &331.59 & 14.88$\pm$0.03 &322.44$\pm$0.72&16.36$\pm$0.04 &9.22$\pm$0.03 &121.1$\pm$ 0.2\
\
8.41 &A1 &01 37 41.2993871&33 09 35.016521 & 30.55$\pm$0.06 & 47.91$\pm$0.15& 1.39$\pm$0.01 &0.22$\pm$0.01&176.0$\pm$0.2\
&A2 &$-$0.14 & 2.03 & 11.30$\pm$0.06 & 18.27$\pm$0.15& 1.39$\pm$0.03 &0.34$\pm$0.02&174.0$\pm$0.5\
&B &$-$2.73 & 55.20 & 46.00$\pm$0.06 & 89.00$\pm$0.17& 1.38$\pm$0.01 &0.71$\pm$0.01& 46.8$\pm$0.3\
&B2 &$-$0.34 &115.65 & 5.04$\pm$0.05 & 96.36$\pm$0.86& 6.08$\pm$0.06 &3.54$\pm$0.03& 46.2$\pm$0.5\
&D & 71.46 &331.98 & 4.41$\pm$0.02 & 271.57$\pm$1.46&13.10$\pm$0.07 &8.09$\pm$0.04&121.5$\pm$0.4\
\
8.31 &A1 &01 37 41.2993822 &33 09 35.016514& 18.09$\pm$0.06 & 23.85$\pm$0.12& 1.18$\pm$0.01 &0.38$\pm$0.02&178.7$\pm$0.6\
&A2 &$-$0.29 & 3.41 & 6.89$\pm$0.05 & 11.19$\pm$0.14& 1.80$\pm$0.03 &0.41$\pm$0.04&175.1$\pm$0.8\
&B &$-$2.63 & 55.24 & 55.84$\pm$0.06 & 89.38$\pm$0.14& 1.34$\pm$0.01 &0.72$\pm$0.01& 37.8$\pm$0.3\
&B2 &$-$0.12 &116.13 & 6.61$\pm$0.04 & 104.47$\pm$0.74& 7.14$\pm$0.05 &3.60$\pm$0.03& 43.4$\pm$0.4\
&D & 70.99 &331.82 & 4.16$\pm$0.02 & 250.24$\pm$1.39&13.11$\pm$0.07 &7.89$\pm$0.04&120.8$\pm$0.4\
\
15.36&A1 &01 37 41.2993868& 33 09 35.016511& 9.22$\pm$0.20 & 14.59$\pm$0.48& 1.05$\pm$0.04 & 0.44$\pm$0.06 & 11.3$\pm$3.0\
&A2 &$-$0.10 & 1.76 & 5.48$\pm$0.18 & 7.50$\pm$0.44& 0.93$\pm$0.08 & 0.20$\pm$0.04 & 19.4$\pm$5.0\
&B &$-$2.72 & 55.20 & 16.27$\pm$0.17 & 27.83$\pm$0.51& 1.18$\pm$0.03 & 0.47$\pm$0.03 & 41.8$\pm$1.6\
&B2 &$-$0.07 &116.01 & 1.63$\pm$0.14 & 29.50$\pm$2.65& 6.59$\pm$0.57 & 2.52$\pm$0.25 & 39.8$\pm$3.3\
\[tab:model\] $^a$ : for individual data sets, the Right Ascension and Declination positions of the nuclear component A (A1) in J2000.0 coordinate frame are presented; the relative positions of jet components are given with respect to the nuclear component A (A1).
$T_b$ A1 A2 B
------- ------ ----- ------
2004C 37.4 9.8 53.4
1996X 74.2 8.9 17.2
2004X 12.8 3.7 22.4
1996U 2.2 2.7 23.2
: Brightness temperature ($T_b$) of compact VLBI components
\
Note : T$_b$ are given in units of $10^8$ K. \[tab:tb\]
------------- ---------- ------------- ------------ ---------------- ----------- ---------- ------------ ----------
$V_j$ $90-\theta$ $\alpha_0$ $d\alpha/dt$ $\varphi$ $\psi_0$ P $r_0$
(mas/yr) (deg) (deg) (deg/$10^3$yr) (deg) (deg) ($10^3$yr) (mas)
Model 1$^a$ 0.164 17 0.0 1.8 2.0 50.0 3.5 $\cdots$
Model 2$^b$ 0.164 17 0.0 1.6 1.5 50.0 0.366 1.8
------------- ---------- ------------- ------------ ---------------- ----------- ---------- ------------ ----------
: Parameters of helical jet models
\
$^a$ : a precessing jet model;\
$^b$ : a helical-mode K-H instability model;\
$V_j$: in the precessing model, $V_j$ represents the flow speed in the observer’s frame, taking into account relativistic aberration effects; in the K-H model, $V_j$ denotes the pattern velocity. The velocity is expressed in terms of proper motion in order to agree with the coordinates used in CLEAN images;\
$\theta$: the angle between the jet axis and the sky plane;\
$\alpha_0$: the initial position angle of the jet axis, measured from north to east ;\
$d\alpha/dt$: the rate of change of position angle with time. In the precessing model, it gives an estimate of the angular velocity of the precession;\
$\varphi$: half of the opening angle of the helix cone ;\
$\psi_0$: initial phase angle of the helical jet flow;\
$P$: in the ’Model 1’, the fitted $P$ is actually the nutation period, see discussion in Section 5.2.1; in the K-H model, $P$ represents an initial period for the triggered perturbations;\
$r_0$: the initial radius where the K-H instabilities starts to grow;\
\[tab:helicalfit\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: In the present paper, the spectral index is defined as $S_\nu\propto\nu^\alpha$.
[^3]: See the online VLBA status summary at http://www.vlba.nrao.edu/astro/obstatus/current/obssum.html .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we consider Bernoulli percolation on an infinite connected bounded degrees graph $G$. Assuming the uniqueness of the infinite open cluster and a quasi-multiplicativity of crossing probabilities, we prove the existence of Kesten’s incipient infinite cluster. We show that our assumptions are satisfied if $G$ is a slab $\Z^2\times\{0,\ldots,k\}^{d-2}$ ($d\geq 2$, $k\geq 0$). We also argue that the quasi-multiplicativity assumption is fulfilled for $G=\Z^d$ if and only if $d<6$.'
author:
- 'Deepan Basu [^1]'
- 'Artem Sapozhnikov [^2]'
title: 'Kesten’s incipient infinite cluster and quasi-multiplicativity of crossing probabilities'
---
Introduction
============
Let $G$ be an infinite connected bounded degrees graph with a vertex set $V$. Let $\rho$ be the graph metric on $V$, and define for $v\in V$ and positive integers $m\leq n$, $$B(v,n) = \{x\in V~:~\rho(v,x)\leq n\},\quad
S(v,n) = \{x\in V~:~\rho(v,x) = n\},$$ $$A(v,m,n) = B(v,n)\setminus B(v,m-1).$$
Consider Bernoulli bond percolation on $G$ with parameter $p\in[0,1]$ and denote the corresponding probability measure by $\P_p$. The open cluster of $v\in V$ is denoted by $C(v)$. Let $p_c$ be the critical threshold for percolation, i.e., for $v\in V$, $$p_c = \inf\left\{p:\P_p[|C(v)|=\infty]>0\right\}.$$ For $x,y\in V$ and $X,Y,Z\subset V$, we write $x\leftrightarrow y$ in $Z$ if there is a nearest neighbor path of open edges such that all its vertices are in $Z$, $X\leftrightarrow Y$ in $Z$ if there exist $x\in X$ and $y\in Y$ such that $x\leftrightarrow y$ in $Z$, and $x\leftrightarrow Y$ in $Z$, if there exist $y\in Y$ such that $x\leftrightarrow y$ in $Z$. If $Z=V$, we omit “in $Z$” from the notation. We use $\nleftrightarrow$ instead of $\leftrightarrow$ to denote complements of the respective events.
In this note we are interested in the existence and equality of the limits $$\label{eq:limits}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\P_{p_c}\left[E~|~w\longleftrightarrow S(w,n)\right]\quad\text{and}\quad
\lim_{p\searrow p_c}\P_p\left[E~|~|C(w)|=\infty\right],$$ where $E$ is a cylinder event. The question is highly non-trivial if $\P_{p_c}\left[|C(w)|=\infty\right]=0$. The seminal result of Kesten [@KestenIIC Theorem (3)] states that if $G$ is from a class of two dimensional graphs, such as $\Z^2$, then the above two limits exist and have the same value $\nu_{G,w}(E)$. By Kolmogorov’s extension theorem, $\nu_{G,w}$ extends uniquely to a probability measure on configurations of edges, which is often called [*Kesten’s incipient infinite cluster*]{} measure. It is immediate that $\nu_{G,w}[|C(w)|=\infty] = 1$. Kesten’s argument is based on the existence of an infinite collection of open circuits around $w$ in disjoint annuli and the properties that (a) each path from $w$ to infinity intersects every such circuit and (b) by conditioning on the innermost open circuit in an annulus, the occupancy configuration in the region not surrounded by the circuit is still an independent Bernoulli percolation. These properties are no longer valid when one considers higher dimensional lattices. In fact, the existence of Kesten’s IIC on $\Z^d$ for $d\geq 3$ is still an open problem. A partial progress has been recently made in sufficiently high dimensions by Heydenreich, van der Hofstad and Hulshof [@HvdHH14 Theorem 1.2], who showed using lace expansions the existence of the first limit in under the assumption that $n^{-2}\,\P_{p_c}[0\longleftrightarrow S(0,n)]$ converges. Concerning low dimensional lattices, almost nothing is known there about critical and near critical percolation, and the existence of Kesten’s IIC seems particularly hard to show. Several other constructions of incipient infinite clusters are obtained by Járai [@Jarai] for planar lattices and van der Hofstad and Járai [@vdHJ04] for high dimensional lattices.
The main result of this note is the existence and the equality of the two limits in for graphs satisfying two assumptions: (A1) uniqueness of the infinite open cluster and (A2) quasi-multiplicativity of crossing probabilities. While (A1) is satisfied by many amenable graphs, most notably $\Z^d$, (A2) can be expected only in low dimensional graphs. For instance, we argue below that (A2) holds for $\Z^d$ if and only if $d<6$. In our second result, we prove that (A2) is satisfied by slabs $\Z^2\times\{0,\ldots, k\}^{d-2}$ ($d\geq 2$, $k\geq 0$), thus showing for these graphs the existence and equality of the limits in . We now state the assumptions and the main result, and then comment more on the assumptions.
- (Uniqueness of the infinite open cluster) For any $p\in[0,1]$ there exists almost surely at most one infinite open cluster.
- (Quasi-multiplicativity of crossing probabilities) Let $v\in V$ and $\delta>0$. There exists $\qm>0$ such that for any $p\in[p_c,p_c+\delta]$, integer $m>0$, a finite connected set $Z\subset V$ such that $Z\supseteq A(v,m, 4m)$, and sets $X\subset Z\cap B(v,m)$ and $Y\subset Z\setminus B(v,4m)$, $$\label{eq:A2}
\P_p[X\leftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z] \geq \qm\cdot \P_p[X\leftrightarrow S(v,2m)\text{ in }Z]\cdot \P_p[Y\leftrightarrow S(v,2m)\text{ in }Z].$$
\[thm:IIC\] Assume that the graph $G$ satisfies the assumptions (A1) and (A2) for some choice of $v\in V$ and $\delta>0$. Then, for any cylinder event $E$, the two limits in exist and have the same value.
If the assumptions (A1) and (A2) are satisfied at $p=p_c$, then the first limit in exists.
Before we discuss the strategy of the proof, let us comment on the assumptions.
#### Comments on (A1):
1. (A1) is satisfied by many sufficiently regular (e.g., vertex transitive) amenable graphs, most notably lattices $\Z^d$ and slabs $\Z^2\times\{0,\ldots,k\}^{d-2}$ ($d\geq 2$, $k\geq 0$), see, e.g., [@BS96].
2. (A1) is equivalent to the assumption that for some $\delta>0$ there exists at most one infinite open cluster for any fixed $p\in[p_c,p_c+\delta]$. Indeed, if for a given $p$ the infinite open cluster is unique almost surely, then the same holds for any $p'>p$, see, e.g., [@HP99; @Sch99].
3. For $v\in V$ and $m\leq n$, let $E_1(v,m,n) = \{S(v,m)\leftrightarrow S(v,n)\}$ and $E_2(v,m,n)$ the event that in the annulus $A(v,m,n)$ there are at least two disjoint open crossing clusters.
Assumption (A1) is equivalent to the following one, which will be used in the proof of Theorem \[thm:IIC\]: For any $v\in V$, $\varepsilon>0$ and $m\in \N$, there exists $n>4m$ such that $$\label{eq:E2mn}
\sup_{p\in[0,1]}\P_p\left[E_2(v,m,n)\right]<\varepsilon$$ or, equivalently, $$\label{eq:E2mnE1mn}
\sup_{p\in[0,1]}\P_p\left[E_2(v,m,n)~|~E_1(v,m,n)\right]<\varepsilon.$$ The equivalence of the claims and follows from the inequalities $$\P_p\left[E_2(v,m,n)\right]\leq \P_p\left[E_2(v,m,n)~|~E_1(v,m,n)\right]\leq \P_p\left[E_2(v,m,n)\right]^{\frac 12},$$ where the second one is a consequence of the BK inequality.
It is elementary to see that implies (A1). On the other hand, if does not hold, then there exist $v_0\in V$, $\varepsilon_0>0$ and $m_0\in\N$ such that for all $n>4m_0$, $\sup_{p\in[0,1]}\P_p\left[E_2(v_0,m_0,n)\right]\geq \varepsilon_0$. The function $\P_p\left[E_2(v_0,m_0,n)\right]$ is continuous in $p\in[0,1]$ and monotone decreasing in $n$. Thus, there exists $p_0\in[0,1]$ such that $\P_{p_0}\left[E_2(v_0,m_0,n)\right]\geq \varepsilon_0$ for all $n>4m_0$. By passing to the limit as $n\to\infty$, we conclude that for $p=p_0$, with positive probability there exist at least two infinite open clusters and (A1) does not hold.
#### Comments on (A2):
4. It follows from the Russo-Seymour-Welsh Theorem [@R78; @SW78] that (A2) holds for two dimensional graphs, such as $\Z^2$, considered by Kesten in [@KestenIIC]. Russo-Seymour-Welsh ideas have been recently extended to slabs in [@NTW15; @BS15], after the absence of percolation at criticality in slabs was proved by Duminil-Copin, Sidoravicius and Tassion [@DCST14]. In Lemma \[l:main\] of the present paper we prove that (A2) is fulfilled by slabs $\Z^2\times\{0,\ldots, k\}^{d-2}$ ($d\geq 2$, $k\geq 0$), thus verifying the existence and equality of the limits for slabs.
5. We believe that assumption (A2) holds for lattices $\Z^d$ if $d<6$, but does not hold if $d>6$. Dimension $d_c=6$ is called the [*upper critical dimension*]{} above which the percolation phase transition should be described by mean-field theory, see, e.g., [@CC87]. This was rigorously confirmed in sufficiently high dimensions by Hara and Slade [@HS90; @Hara].
It is easy to see that the mean-field behavior excludes (A2). Indeed, it is believed that above $d_c$, the two point function decays as $$\P_{p_c}[x\leftrightarrow y] \asymp (1+\rho(x,y))^{2-d}.$$ (Here $f(z)\asymp g(z)$ if for some $c$, $cf(z)\leq g(z)\leq c^{-1}f(z)$ for all $z$.) Hara [@Hara] proved it rigorously in sufficiently high dimensions. Given this asymptotics, Aizenman showed in [@A97 Theorem 4(2)] that for all $m(n)\leq n$ such that $\frac{m(n)}{n^{2/(d-4)}} \to \infty$, $$\P_{p_c}\left[S(0,m(n))\leftrightarrow S(0,n)\right] \to 1,\quad\text{as }n\to \infty,$$ and Kozma and Nachmias [@KN11] that $\P_{p_c}\left[0\leftrightarrow S(0,n)\right]\asymp n^{-2}$. Thus, the inequality $$\P_{p_c}[0\leftrightarrow S(0,n)]\geq c\,\P_{p_c}[0\leftrightarrow S(0,m(n))]\,\P_{p_c}[S(0,m(n))\leftrightarrow S(0,n)]$$ cannot hold for large $n$.
The situation below $d_c$ is much more subtle. With the exception of $d=2$, where planarity helps enormously, the (near-)critical behavior below $d_c$ is widely unknown. Let us nevertheless give a few words about why we think (A2) should hold below $d_c$. It is believed that the number of clusters crossing any annulus $A(0,m,2m)$ is bounded uniformly in $m$ if $d<d_c$ and grows at $p=p_c$ like $m^{d-6}$ above $d_c$, with log-correction for $d=d_c$, and this dichotomy is intimately linked to the transition at $d_c$ from the hyperscaling to the mean-field; see [@Con85; @BCKS]. Thus, it would be not unreasonable to expect that below $d_c$, $$\P_p[\exists!\,\text{crossing cluster of $A(0,m,2m)$}~|~X\leftrightarrow S(0,2m)\text{ in }Z,\,Y\leftrightarrow S(0,m)\text{ in }Z]\geq c >0,$$ which is enough to establish (A2). We are not able to prove it yet or give a simpler sufficient condition for it. It would already be very nice if, for instance, (A2) was derived from the assumption that $\P_p[\exists!\,\text{crossing cluster of $A(0,m,2m)$}]\geq c$ or from the assumptions of [@BCKS].
We finish the introduction with a brief description of the proof of Theorem \[thm:IIC\]. Our proof follows the general scheme proposed by Kesten in [@KestenIIC] by attempting to decouple the configuration near $w$ from infinity on multiple scales. The implementations are however rather different. Using we identify a sufficiently fast growing sequence $N_i$ such that given $w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)$, the probability that the annulus $A(v,N_i,N_{i+1})\subset B(w,n)$ contains a unique crossing cluster is asymptotically close to $1$; see . Next, let an annulus $A(v,N_i,N_{i+1})$ contain a unique crossing cluster. We explore all the open clusters in this annulus that intersect the interior boundary $S(v,N_i)$, call their union $\mathcal C_i$, and let $\mathcal D_i$ be the subset of $S(v,N_{i+1}+1)$ of vertices connected by an open edge to $\mathcal C_i$; see . Then, the configuration outside $\mathcal C_i$ is distributed as the original independent percolation and every vertex from $\mathcal D_i$ is connected by an edge to the same (crossing) cluster from $\mathcal C_i$. Thus, $w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)$ if and only if (a) $w$ is connected to $\mathcal D_i$ (this event only depends on the edges intersecting $S(v,N_i)\cup \mathcal C_i$) and (b) $\mathcal D_i$ is connected to $S(w,n)$ outside $\mathcal C_i$ (this only depends on the edges outside $\mathcal C_i$). This allows to factorize $\P_p[E,\,w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)]$; see . The rest of the proof is essentially the same as that of Kesten [@KestenIIC]. We repeat the described factorization on several scales, obtaining in an approximation of $\P_p[E|w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)]$ in terms of products of positive matrices. Finally, we use (A2) to prove that the matrix operators are uniformly contracting, which is enough to conclude the proof; see and the text below.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:IIC\]
============================
We will prove the first claim of the theorem. The proof of the second one follows from the proof below by replacing everywhere $p$ by $p_c$. The general outline of the proof is the same as the original one of Kesten [@KestenIIC Theorem (3)], but the choice of scales and the decoupling are done differently.
First of all, it suffices to prove that for any $w\in V$ and a cylinder event $E$, $$\label{eq:uniformconvergence}
\text{$\P_p[E|w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)]$ converges to some $\nu_p(E)$ {\it uniformly} on $[p_c,p_c+\delta]$
for some $\delta>0$.}$$ Indeed, implies the existence of the first limit in and that $\nu_p(E)$ is continuous. Since for any $p>p_c$, $\nu_p(E) = \P_p[E~|~|C(v)|=\infty]$, the existence of the second limit in and its equality to the first one follows from the continuity of $\nu_p(E)$.
Actually, by the inclusion-exclusion formula, it suffices to prove for all events $E$ of the form $\{\text{edges }e_1,\ldots,e_k\text{ are open}\}$. Although our proof could be implemented for any cylinder event $E$, calculations are neater for increasing events.
Fix $w\in V$ and an increasing event $E$. Also fix $v\in V$ and $\delta>0$ for which the assumption (A2) is satisfied. Consider a sequence of scales $N_i$ such that $N_{i+1}>4N_i$ for all $i$, $B(v,N_0)$ contains $w$ and the states of its edges determine $E$. We will write $B_i = B(v,N_i)$, $S_i = S(v,N_i)$ and $A_i = A(v,N_i,N_{i+1})$. Let $F_i$ be the event that there exists a unique open crossing cluster in $A_i$. Define $$\varepsilon_i = \sup_{p\in[p_c,p_c+\delta]}\P_p\left[F_i^c~|~S_i\leftrightarrow S_{i+1}\right].$$ By , we can choose the scales $N_i$ so that $\varepsilon_i\to 0$ as $i\to\infty$.
We first note that for $n>N_{i+1}+N_0$, $$\label{eq:Fi:proba}
\P_p[w\leftrightarrow S(w,n), F_i^c] \leq \qm^{-2}\varepsilon_i\cdot \P_p[w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)],$$ where $\qm$ is the constant in the assumption (A2). Indeed, by independence, $$\begin{aligned}
\P_p[w\leftrightarrow S(w,n), F_i^c] &\leq &\P_p[w\leftrightarrow S_i]\cdot \P_p[S_i\leftrightarrow S_{i+1}, F_i^c]\cdot \P_p[S_{i+1}\leftrightarrow S(w,n)]\\
&\leq &\varepsilon_i\cdot \P_p[w\leftrightarrow S_i]\cdot \P_p[S_i\leftrightarrow S_{i+1}]\cdot \P_p[S_{i+1}\leftrightarrow S(w,n)]\\
&\leq &\qm^{-2}\varepsilon_i\cdot \P_p\left[w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from the assumption (A2).
We begin to describe the main decomposition step. Consider the random sets $$\label{eq:CD}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal C_i &= \left\{x\in B(v,N_{i+1})~:~x\leftrightarrow B(v,N_i)\text{ in }B(v,N_{i+1})\right\},\\
\mathcal D_i &= \left\{x\in S(v,N_{i+1}+1)~:~\text{$\exists\, y\in \mathcal C_i$, a neighbor of $x$, such that edge $\langle x,y\rangle$ is open}\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\mathcal C_i$ contains $B(v,N_i)$, the event $\{\mathcal C_i = U\}$ depends only on the states of edges in $B(v,N_{i+1})$ with at least one end-vertex in $U$, and either $\{\mathcal C_i = U\}\subset F_i$ or $\{\mathcal C_i = U\}\cap F_i = \emptyset$. Also note that the event $\{\mathcal C_i = U,\, \mathcal D_i = R\}$ depends only on the states of edges in $B(v,N_{i+1}+1)$ with at least one end-vertex in $U$.
For any $U\subset B(v,N_{i+1})$ and $R\subset S(v,N_{i+1}+1)$, consider the event $$F_i(U,R) = \{\mathcal C_i = U,\, \mathcal D_i = R\},$$ and let $\Pi_i$ be the collection of all such pairs $(U,R)$ that $\{\mathcal C_i = U\}\subset F_i$ and $F_i(U,R)\neq\emptyset$. Then $F_i = \cup_{(U,R)\in \Pi_i} F_i(U,R)$, and for all $n>N_{i+1}+N_0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\P_p\left[E,w\leftrightarrow S(w,n), F_i\right]
= \sum_{(U,R)\in \Pi_i}\P_p\left[E,w\leftrightarrow S(w,n), F_i(U,R)\right]\\
= \sum_{(U,R)\in \Pi_i}\P_p\left[E,w\leftrightarrow S_{i+1}, F_i(U,R)\right]\cdot\P_p\left[R\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\text{ in }B(w,n)\setminus U\right].\end{gathered}$$ Together with , this gives the inequality $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:difference:1}
\Big|\P_p\left[E,w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\right] -
\sum_{(U,R)\in \Pi_i}\P_p\left[E,w\leftrightarrow S_{i+1}, F_i(U,R)\right]\cdot\P_p\left[R\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\text{ in }B(w,n)\setminus U\right]\Big|\\
\leq \qm^{-2}\varepsilon_i\cdot \P_p[w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)]
\leq \frac{\qm^{-2}\varepsilon_i}{\P_{p_c}[E]}\cdot \P_p[E,w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)],\end{gathered}$$ where the last step follows from the FKG inequality, since $E$ is increasing. Define the constant $C_* = (\qm^2\,\P_{p_c}[E])^{-1}$ and for $(U,R)\in\Pi_i$, let $$\begin{aligned}
u_p'(U,R) &= \P_p\left[E,w\leftrightarrow S_{i+1}, F_i(U,R)\right],\\
u_p''(U,R) &= \P_p\left[w\leftrightarrow S_{i+1}, F_i(U,R)\right],\\
\gamma_p(U,R,n) &= \P_p\left[R\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\text{ in }B(w,n)\setminus U\right].\end{aligned}$$ In this notation, becomes $$\left(1 - C_*\varepsilon_i\right)\,\P_p\left[E,w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\right]
\leq
\sum_{(U,R)\in \Pi_i}u_p'(U,R)\,\gamma_p(U,R,n)
\leq
\left(1 + C_*\varepsilon_i\right)\,\P_p\left[E,w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\right]$$ and by replacing $E$ above with the sure event, we also get $$\left(1 - C_*\varepsilon_i\right)\,\P_p\left[w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\right]
\leq
\sum_{(U,R)\in \Pi_i}u_p''(U,R)\,\gamma_p(U,R,n)
\leq
\left(1 + C_*\varepsilon_i\right)\,\P_p\left[w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\right].$$
Now we iterate. Let $(U,R)\in \Pi_i$. We can apply a similar reasoning as in and to $\gamma_p(U,R,n)$ and obtain that for any $j>i+2$ and $n> N_{j+1}+N_0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:difference:2}
\Big|\gamma_p(U,R,n) -
\sum_{(U',R')\in \Pi_j}\P_p\left[R\leftrightarrow S_{j+1}\text{ in }B_{j+1}\setminus U, F_{j-1}, F_j(U',R')\right]
\cdot\gamma_p(U',R',n)\Big|\\
\leq \qm^{-2}(\varepsilon_{j-1} + \varepsilon_j)\cdot \gamma_p(U,R,n).\end{gathered}$$ For $j> i+2$, $(U,R)\in \Pi_i$ and $(U',R')\in \Pi_j$, define $$M_p(U,R;\,U',R') = \P_p\left[R\leftrightarrow S_{j+1}\text{ in }B_{j+1}\setminus U, F_{j-1}, F_j(U',R')\right].$$ Then becomes $$\begin{gathered}
(1- \qm^{-2}\,(\varepsilon_{j-1} + \varepsilon_j))\,\gamma_p(U,R,n)
\leq
\sum_{(U',R')\in \Pi_j}M_p(U,R;\,U',R')\,\gamma_p(U',R',n)\\
\leq
(1+ \qm^{-2}\,(\varepsilon_{j-1} + \varepsilon_j))\,\gamma_p(U,R,n).\end{gathered}$$ Iterating further gives that for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $s\in\N$, there exist indices $i_1,\ldots, i_s$ such that $i_{k+1}>i_k + 2$ and for all $n> N_{i_s+1} + N_0$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:ratio:main}
e^{-\varepsilon}\,\P_p\left[E\,|\,w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\right]\leq\\
\frac{\sum\, u_p'(U_1,R_1)\,M_p(U_1,R_1;\,U_2,R_2)\ldots M_p(U_{s-1},R_{s-1};, U_s,R_s)\,\gamma_p(U_s,R_s,n)}
{\sum\,u_p''(U_1,R_1)\,M_p(U_1,R_1;\,U_2,R_2)\ldots M_p(U_{s-1},R_{s-1};, U_s,R_s)\,\gamma_p(U_s,R_s,n)}\\
\leq e^{\varepsilon}\,\P_p\left[E\,|\,w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\right],\end{gathered}$$ where the two sums are over $(U_1,R_1)\in \Pi_{i_1},\ldots, (U_s,R_s)\in \Pi_{i_s}$.
We will prove that (A2) implies that there exists $\kappa$ such that for all $i$, $j>i+2$, all pairs $(U_1,R_1), (U_2,R_2)\in \Pi_i$, $(U_1',R_1'), (U_2',R_2')\in \Pi_j$, and all $p\in[p_c,p_c+\delta]$, $$\label{eq:Mratio}
\frac{M_p(U_1,R_1;\,U_1',R_1')\,M_p(U_2,R_2;\,U_2',R_2')}{M_p(U_1,R_1;\,U_2',R_2')\,M_p(U_2,R_2;\,U_1',R_1')}\leq \kappa^2.$$ (This is an analogue of [@KestenIIC Lemma (23)].) If so, then we can use Hopf’s contraction property of multiplication by positive matrices as in [@KestenIIC pages 377-378] to conclude from that there exists $\xi\leq 1$, which depends on $E$, $p$, and the scales $i_1,\ldots, i_s$, such that for all $n> N_{i_s+1} + N_0$, $$\label{eq:inequality:xi}
e^{-\varepsilon}\left(\xi - \left(\frac{\kappa - 1}{\kappa + 1}\right)^{s-1}\right)
\leq
\P_p\left[E\,|\,w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\right]
\leq
e^{\varepsilon}\left(\xi + \left(\frac{\kappa - 1}{\kappa + 1}\right)^{s-1}\right).$$ It follows from and the fact that $\xi\leq 1$ that for any $m,n> N_{i_s+1} + N_0$ and $p\in[p_c,p_c+\delta]$, $$\Big|\P_p\left[E\,|\,w\leftrightarrow S(w,m)\right] - \P_p\left[E\,|\,w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\right]\Big|\\
\leq
\left(e^{\varepsilon} - e^{-\varepsilon}\right) + \left(e^{\varepsilon} + e^{-\varepsilon}\right)\,\left(\frac{\kappa - 1}{\kappa + 1}\right)^{s-1},$$ which implies .
It remains to prove . Let $j>i+2$. Consider the random sets $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal X_j &= \left\{x\in A_{j-1}~:~x\leftrightarrow S_j\text{ in }A_{j-1}\right\},\\
\mathcal Y_j &= \left\{y\in S(v,N_{j-1}-1)~:~\text{$\exists\, x\in \mathcal X_j$, a neighbor of $y$, such that the edge $\langle x,y\rangle$ is open}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\mathcal X_j$ contains $S_j$, the event $\{\mathcal X_j = X\}$ depends only on the states of edges in $A_{j-1}$ with at least one end-vertex in $X$, and either $\{\mathcal X_j = X\}\subset F_{j-1}$ or $\{\mathcal X_j = X\}\cap F_{j-1} = \emptyset$. Also note that the event $\{\mathcal X_j = X,\, \mathcal Y_j = Y\}$ depends only on the states of edges in $B_j$ with at least one end-vertex in $X$. For any $X\subset A_{j-1}$ and $Y\subset S(v,N_{j-1}-1)$, consider the event $$G_j(X,Y) = \{\mathcal X_j = X,\, \mathcal Y_j = Y\},$$ and let $\Gamma_j$ be the collection of all such pairs $(X,Y)$ that $\{\mathcal X_j = X\}\subset F_{j-1}$ and $G_j(X,Y)\neq\emptyset$. Then $F_{j-1} = \cup_{(X,Y)\in \Gamma_j} G_j(X,Y)$ and for any $(U,R)\in\Pi_i$, $(U',R')\in\Pi_j$, $$M_p(U,R;\,U',R') =
\sum_{(X,Y)\in \Gamma_j} \P_p\left[R\leftrightarrow Y \text{ in }B_j\setminus (X\cup U)\right]\cdot
\P_p\left[G_j(X,Y), F_j(U',R'), Y\leftrightarrow R'\right].$$ By the assumption (A2), $$\begin{gathered}
\P_p\left[R\leftrightarrow Y \text{ in }B_j\setminus (X\cup U)\right]\\
\geq \qm\cdot\P_p\left[R\leftrightarrow S(v,2N_{i+1}) \text{ in }B(v,2N_{i+1})\setminus U\right]
\cdot
\P_p\left[S(v,2N_{i+1})\leftrightarrow Y \text{ in }B_j\setminus X\right]\\
\geq
\qm\cdot\P_p\left[R\leftrightarrow Y \text{ in }B_j\setminus (X\cup U)\right].\end{gathered}$$ This easily implies with $\kappa = \qm^{-1}$. The proof of Theorem \[thm:IIC\] is complete.
\[rem:JaraiIIC\] Instead of conditioning on the events $\{w\leftrightarrow S(w,n)\}$, one could condition on $\{w\leftrightarrow Y_n\text{ in }Z_n\}$, where $Z_n\supset B(w,n)$ and $Y_n\subseteq Z_n\setminus B(w,n)$, and obtain the same limits as in . This is immediate after observing that $\P_p[E|w\leftrightarrow Y_n\text{ in }Z_n]$ satisfies inequalities with the same $\xi$.
Quasi-multiplicativity for slabs
================================
In this seciton we prove that the assumption (A2) is fulfilled by slabs $\Z^2\times\{0,\ldots,k\}^{d-2}$ for any $d\geq 2$ and $k\geq 0$ and for any $\delta>0$ such that $p_c+\delta<1$, thus proving
\[thm:slabs\] The two limits in exist and coincide for $\Z^2\times\{0,\ldots,k\}^{d-2}$ ($d\geq 2$, $k\geq 0$).
Fix $d\geq 2$ and $k\geq 0$ and define $\slab = \Z^2\times\{0,\ldots,k\}^{d-2}$. For positive integers $m\leq n$, let $Q(n) = [-n,n]^2\times\{0,\ldots,k\}^{d-2}$ be the box of side length $2n$ in $\slab$ centered at $0$, $\partial Q(n) = Q(n)\setminus Q(n-1)$ the inner boundary of $Q(n)$, and $\an(m,n) = Q(n)\setminus Q(m-1)$ the annulus of side lengths $2m$ and $2n$. We will prove the following lemma.
\[l:main\] Let $d\geq 2$ and $k\geq 0$. Let $\delta>0$ such that $p_c + \delta<1$. There exists $c>0$ such that for any $p\in[p_c,p_c+\delta]$, integer $m>0$, any finite connected $Z\subset \slab$ such that $Z\supseteq \an(m,3m)$, and any $X\subset Z\cap Q(m)$ and $Y\subset Z\setminus Q(3m)$, $$\label{eq:main}
\P_p[X\leftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z] \geq c\cdot \P_p[X\leftrightarrow \partial Q(2m)\text{ in }Z]\cdot \P_p[Y\leftrightarrow \partial Q(2m)\text{ in }Z].$$
To see that Lemma \[l:main\] implies (A2), note that it suffices to prove for $m\geq m_0$ and sufficiently large $m_0$. One can choose $m_0 = m_0(d,k)$ large enough so that $A(0,m,4m)\supset \an(m, 3m)$. Thus, Lemma \[l:main\] implies (A2).
Instead of , it suffices to prove that there exists $c>0$ such that for any $m>0$, any finite connected $Z\subset \slab$ such that $Z\supseteq \an(2m, 3m)$, and any $X\subset Z\cap Q(2m)$ and $Y\subset Z\setminus Q(3m)$, $$\label{eq:main:proof}
\P_p[X\leftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z] \geq c\cdot \P_p[X\leftrightarrow \partial Q(3m)\text{ in }Z]\cdot \P_p[Y\leftrightarrow \partial Q(2m)\text{ in }Z].$$ Indeed, for $Z$ as in the statement of the lemma, by , $$\P_p[X\leftrightarrow \partial Q(3m)\text{ in }Z]\geq c\cdot \P_p[X\leftrightarrow \partial Q(2m)\text{ in }Z]\cdot \P_p[\partial Q(\frac43 m)\leftrightarrow \partial Q(3m)\text{ in }Z],$$ and $\P_p[\partial Q(\frac43 m)\leftrightarrow \partial Q(3m)\text{ in }Z] \geq \P_{p_c}[\partial Q(\frac43 m)\leftrightarrow \partial Q(3m)]\geq c>0$, as proved in [@BS15; @NTW15].
We proceed to prove . Let $E$ be the event that there exists an open circuit (nearest neighbor path with the same start and end points) around $Q(2m)$ contained in $\an(2m,3m)$. It is shown in [@NTW15] that $\P_p[E]\geq \P_{p_c}[E]>c>0$ for some $c>0$ independent of $m$. Thus, by the FKG inequality, $$\begin{gathered}
\P_p[X\leftrightarrow \partial Q(3m)\text{ in }Z,~Y\leftrightarrow \partial Q(2m)\text{ in }Z,~ E]\\
\geq c\cdot \P_p[X\leftrightarrow \partial Q(3m)\text{ in }Z]
\cdot \P_p[Y\leftrightarrow \partial Q(2m)\text{ in }Z].\end{gathered}$$ Consider an arbitrary deterministic ordering of all circuits in $\slab$, and for a configuration in $E$, let $\Gamma$ be the minimal (with respect to this ordering) open circuit around $Q(2m)$ contained in $\an(2m,3m)$. For $W\subset\slab$, let $$\overline W = \{z=(z_1,\ldots,z_d)\in\slab~:~(z_1,z_2,x_3,\ldots,x_d)\in W\text{ for some $x_3,\ldots,x_d$ }\}.$$ Note that $$\P_p[X\leftrightarrow \partial Q(3m)\text{ in }Z,~Y\leftrightarrow \partial Q(2m)\text{ in }Z,~ E]\leq
\P_p[X\leftrightarrow \overline\Gamma\text{ in }Z,~Y\leftrightarrow \overline\Gamma\text{ in }Z,~ E].$$ Thus, to prove , it suffices to show that for some $C<\infty$, $$\P_p[X\leftrightarrow \overline\Gamma\text{ in }Z,~Y\leftrightarrow \overline\Gamma\text{ in }Z,~ E]\leq C\cdot \P_p[X\leftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z].$$ This will be achieved using local modification arguments similar to those in [@NTW15]. In fact, for the above inequality to hold, it suffices to show that for some $C<\infty$, $$\label{eq:main:glue}
\P_p[X\leftrightarrow \overline\Gamma\text{ in }Z,~Y\leftrightarrow \overline\Gamma\text{ in }Z,~ E, X\nleftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z]\leq C\cdot \P_p[X\leftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z].$$ We write the event in the left hand side of as the union of three subevents satisfying additionally
- $X\nleftrightarrow \Gamma\text{ in }Z$, $Y\nleftrightarrow \Gamma\text{ in }Z$,
- $X\nleftrightarrow \Gamma\text{ in }Z$, $Y\leftrightarrow \Gamma\text{ in }Z$,
- $X\leftrightarrow \Gamma\text{ in }Z$, $Y\nleftrightarrow \Gamma\text{ in }Z$.
It suffices to prove that the probability of each of the three subevents can be bounded from above by $C\cdot \P_p[X\leftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z]$. The cases (b) and (c) can be handled similarly, thus we only consider (a) and (b).
#### Case (a):
We prove that for some $C<\infty$, $$\label{eq:main:glue:a}
\P_p\left[
\begin{array}{c}
X\leftrightarrow \overline\Gamma\text{ in }Z,~Y\leftrightarrow \overline\Gamma\text{ in }Z,~ E, X\nleftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z\\
X\nleftrightarrow \Gamma\text{ in }Z, Y\nleftrightarrow \Gamma\text{ in }Z
\end{array}
\right]\leq C\cdot \P_p[X\leftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z].$$ Denote by $E_a$ the event on the left hand side. It suffices to construct a map $f:E_a\to\{X\leftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z\}$ such that for some constant $D<\infty$, (1) for each $\omega\in E_a$, $\omega$ and $f(\omega)$ differ in at most $D$ edges, (2) at most $D$ $\omega$’s can be mapped to the same configuration, i.e., for each $\omega\in E_a$, $|\{\omega'\in E_a:f(\omega') = f(\omega)\}|\leq D$. If so, the desired inequality is satisfied with $C = \frac{D}{\min(p_c,1-p_c-\delta))^D}$.
Take a configuration $\omega\in E_a$. Let $U$ be the set of all points $u\in\overline\Gamma$ such that $u$ is connected to $X$ in $Z$ by an open self-avoiding path that from the first step on does not visit $\overline{\{u\}}$. For each $u\in U$, choose one such open self-avoiding path and denote it by $\pi_u$. Similarly, let $V$ be the set of all points $v\in\overline\Gamma$ such that $v$ is connected to $Y$ in $Z$ by an open self-avoiding path that from the first step on does not visit $\overline{\{v\}}$. For each $v\in V$, choose one such open self-avoiding path and denote it by $\pi_v$.
Assume first that we can choose $u\in U$ and $v\in V$ such that $\overline{\{u\}}=\overline{\{v\}}$. For such $\omega$’s, the configuration $f(\omega)$ is defined as follows. We
- close all the edges with an end-vertex in $\overline{\{u\}}$ except for the (unique) edge of $\pi_u$, the (unique) edge of $\pi_v$, and the edges belonging to $\Gamma$,
- open all the edges in $\overline{\{u\}}$ that belong to a shortest path $\rho$ (line segment if $d=3$) between $u$ and $\Gamma$ in $\overline{\{u\}}$,
- open all the edges in $\overline{\{u\}}$ that belong to a shortest path between $v$ and $\Gamma\cup\rho$ in $\overline{\{u\}}$.
Notice that $\omega$ and $f(\omega)$ differ in at most $2d\,(k+1)^{d-2}$ edges. Moreover, since $u$, $v$, and $\Gamma$ are all in different open clusters in $\omega$, after connecting them by simple open paths as in (b) and (c), no new open circuits are created. Thus, the set $\overline{\{u\}}$ can be uniquely reconstructed in $f(\omega)$ as the unique set of the form $\overline{\{z\}}$ where $X$ (and $Y$) is connected to $\Gamma$.
Assume next that $\overline U\cap \overline V = \emptyset$. Choose $u\in U$ and $v\in V$. Note that $\overline{\{u\}}$ is not connected to $Y$ in $Z$ and $\overline{\{v\}}$ is not connected to $X$ in $Z$. The configuration $f(\omega)$ is defined as follows. We
- close all the edges with an end-vertex in $\overline{\{u\}}\cup\overline{\{v\}}$ except for the edges of $\pi_u$, $\pi_v$, and $\Gamma$,
- open all the edges in $\overline{\{u\}}$ that belong to a shortest path between $u$ and $\Gamma$ in $\overline{\{u\}}$,
- open all the edges in $\overline{\{v\}}$ that belong to a shortest path between $v$ and $\Gamma$ in $\overline{\{v\}}$.
Notice that $\omega$ and $f(\omega)$ differ in at most $4d\,(k+1)^{d-2}$ edges. Step (a) of the construction does not alter the paths $\pi_u$ and $\pi_v$. Finally, since $u$, $v$, and $\Gamma$ are all in different open clusters in $\omega$, after connecting $u$, $v$, and $\Gamma$ by simple open paths as in (b) and (c), no new open circuits are created. Thus, the set $\overline{\{u\}}\cup\overline{\{v\}}$ can be uniquely reconstructed in $f(\omega)$ as the unique such set where $X$ and $Y$ are connected to $\Gamma$.
The constructed function $f$ satisfies the requirement (1) with $D = 4d\,(k+1)k^{d-2}$ and the requirement (2) with $D = 2^{4d\,(k+1)^{d-2}}$. The proof of is complete.
#### Case (b):
We prove that for some $C<\infty$, $$\label{eq:main:glue:b}
\P_p\left[
\begin{array}{c}
X\leftrightarrow \overline\Gamma\text{ in }Z,~Y\leftrightarrow \overline\Gamma\text{ in }Z,~ E, X\nleftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z\\
X\nleftrightarrow \Gamma\text{ in }Z, Y\leftrightarrow \Gamma\text{ in }Z
\end{array}
\right]\leq C\cdot \P_p[X\leftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z].$$ Denote by $E_b$ the event on the left hand side. As in Case (a), will follow if we construct a map $f:E_b\to\{X\leftrightarrow Y\text{ in }Z\}$ such that for some constant $D<\infty$, (1) for each $\omega\in E_b$, $\omega$ and $f(\omega)$ differ in at most $D$ edges, (2) at most $D$ $\omega$’s are mapped to the same configuration.
Take a configuration $\omega\in E_b$. Let $U$ be the set of all points $u\in\overline\Gamma$ such that $u$ is connected to $X$ in $Z$ by an open self-avoiding path that from the first step on does not visit $\overline{\{u\}}$. For each $u\in U$, choose one such open self-avoiding path and denote it by $\pi_u$.
We first assume that there exists $u\in U$ such that $Y$ is connected to $\Gamma$ in $Z\setminus\overline{\{u\}}$. For such $\omega$’s, we define $f(\omega)$ as follows. We
- close all the edges with an end-vertex in $\overline{\{u\}}$ except for the edges of $\pi_u$ and $\Gamma$,
- open all the edges in $\overline{\{u\}}$ that belong to a shortest path between $u$ and $\Gamma$ in $\overline{\{u\}}$.
Notice that $\omega$ and $f(\omega)$ differ in at most $2d\,(k+1)^{d-2}$ edges. $Y$ is connected to $\Gamma$ in $Z\setminus\overline{\{u\}}$ in the configuration $f(\omega)$. Finally, since $u$ and $\Gamma$ are in different open clusters in $\omega$, after connecting $u$ and $\Gamma$ by a simple open path as in (b), no new open circuits are created. Thus, the set $\overline{\{u\}}$ can be uniquely reconstructed in $f(\omega)$ as the unique such set where $X$ is connected to $\Gamma$.
Assume next that for any $u\in U$, $Y$ is not connected to $\Gamma$ in $Z\setminus\overline{\{u\}}$. Take $u\in U$. There exists $v\in \overline{\{u\}}$ such that $v$ is connected to $Y$ in $Z$ by an open self-avoiding path that from the first step on does not visit $\overline{\{v\}}$. Choose one such open self-avoiding path and denote it by $\pi_v$. For such $\omega$’s, we define $f(\omega)$ exactly as in the first part of Case (a). We
- close all the edges with an end-vertex in $\overline{\{u\}}$ except for the edges of $\pi_u$, $\pi_v$, and $\Gamma$,
- open all the edges in $\overline{\{u\}}$ that belong to a shortest path $\rho$ between $u$ and $\Gamma$ in $\overline{\{u\}}$,
- open all the edges in $\overline{\{u\}}$ that belong to a shortest path between $v$ and $\Gamma\cup\rho$ in $\overline{\{u\}}$.
Notice that unlike in Case (a), it is allowed here that $v\in \Gamma$, but this makes no difference for the construction. Indeed, after closing edges as in (a), $Y$ remains connected to $\Gamma$ only if $v\in\Gamma$. Thus, after modifying $\omega$ according to (a), either $u$, $v$, and $\Gamma$ are all in different open clusters or $v\in\Gamma$ and the clusters of $u$ and $\Gamma$ are different. In both cases, after connecting $u$, $v$, and $\Gamma$ by simple open paths as in (b) and (c), no new open circuits are created. Thus, the set $\overline{\{u\}}$ can be uniquely reconstructed in $f(\omega)$ as the unique set of the form $\overline{\{z\}}$ where $X$ (and $Y$) is connected to $\Gamma$.
The function $f$ satisfies requirements (1) and (2), and the proof of is complete.
Since the proof of Case (c) is essentially the same as the proof of Case (b), we omit it. Cases (a)-(c) imply . The proof of Lemma \[l:main\] is complete.
1. Theorem \[thm:slabs\] and Remark \[rem:JaraiIIC\] can be used to extend various results of Járai [@Jarai] to slabs. For instance, to prove that the local limit of the occupancy configurations around vertices in the bulk of a crossing cluster of large box are given by the IIC measures from Theorem \[thm:slabs\]. This will be detailed in [@Basu].
2. Using Lemma \[l:main\], one can show that the expected number of vertices of the IIC in $Q(n)$ is comparable to $n^2\P[0\leftrightarrow \partial Q(n)]$.
3. In [@DS11], the so-called multiple-armed IIC measures were introduced for planar lattices, which are supported on configurations with several disjoint infinite open clusters meeting in a neighborhood of the origin. These measures describe the local occupancy configurations around outlets of the invasion percolation [@DS11] and pivotals for open crossings of large boxes [@Basu]. It would be interesting to construct multiple-armed IIC measures on slabs, but at the moment it seems quite difficult.
[99]{}
M. Aizenman (1997) On the number of incipient spanning clusters. [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**485**]{}, 551–582.
D. Basu (2016) PhD thesis. In preparation.
D. Basu and A. Sapozhnikov (2015) Crossing probabilities for critical Bernoulli percolation on slabs. [*To appear in Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat.*]{} arXiv:1512.05178.
I. Benjamini and O. Schramm (1996) Percolation beyond $\Z^d$, many questions and a few answers. [*Electron. Comm. Probab.*]{} [**1**]{}, 71–82.
C. Borgs, J. T. Chayes, H. Kesten, and J. Spencer (1999) Uniform boundedness of critical crossing probabilities implies hyperscaling. [*Random Structures Algorithms*]{} [**15**]{}, 368–413.
A. Coniglio (1985) Shapes, surfaces and interfaces in percolation clusters. [*Proc Les Houches Conf on Physics of Finely Divided Matter*]{}, M. Daoud and N. Boccara (Editors), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 84–109.
J. T. Chayes and L. Chayes (1987) On the upper critical dimension of Bernoulli percolation. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**113(1)**]{}, 27–48.
M. Damron and A. Sapozhnikov (2011) Outlets of $2D$ invasion percolation and multiple-armed incipient infinite clusters. [*Probab. Th. Rel. Fields*]{} [**150**]{}, 257–294.
H. Duminil-Copin, V. Sidoravicius, and V. Tassion (2016) Absence of infinite cluster for critical Bernoulli percolation on slabs. [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} [**69(7)**]{}, 1397–1411.
O. Häggström and Y. Peres (1999) Monotonicity of uniqueness for percolation on Cayley graphs: all infinite clusters are born simultaneously. [*Probab. Th. Rel. Fields*]{} [**113**]{}, 273–285.
T. Hara (2008) Decay of correlations in nearest-neighbor self-avoiding walk, percolation, lattice trees and animals. [*Ann. Probab.*]{} [**36(2)**]{}, 530–593.
T. Hara and G. Slade (1990) Mean-field critical behaviour for percolation in high dimensions. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**128(2)**]{}, 333–391.
M. Heydenreich, R. van der Hofstad, and T. Hulshof (2014) High-dimensional incipient infinite clusters revisited. [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{}, [**155**]{}, 966–1025.
R. van der Hofstad and A. Jarai (2004) The incipient infinite cluster for high-dimensional unoriented percolation. [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{}, [**114(3)**]{}, 625–663.
A. Jarai (2003) Incipient infinite percolation clusters in $2D$. [*Ann. Probab.*]{}, [**31(1)**]{}, 444–485.
H. Kesten (1986) The incipient infinite cluster in two-dimensional percolation. [*Probab. Th. Rel. Fields*]{}, [**73**]{}, 369–394.
G. Kozma and A. Nachmias (2011) Arm exponents in high dimensional percolation. [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, [**24(2)**]{}, 375–409.
Ch. Newman, V. Tassion, and W. Wu (2015) Critical percolation and the minimal spanning tree in slabs. arXiv:1512.09107.
L. Russo (1978) A note on percolation. [*Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete*]{} [**43(1)**]{}, 39–48.
R. Schonmann (1999) Stability of infinite clusters in supercritical percolation. [*Probab. Th. Rel. Fields*]{} [**113(2)**]{}, 287–300.
P. D. Seymour and D. J. A. Welsh (1978) Percolation probabilities on the square lattice. [*Annals of Discrete Mathematics*]{} [**3**]{}, 227–245.
[^1]: Max-Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, Inselstrasse 22, 04103 Leipzig, Germany. email: [email protected]
[^2]: University of Leipzig, Department of Mathematics, Augustusplatz 10, 04109 Leipzig, Germany. email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Giovanni Montani
- Giovanni Palermo
- Nakia Carlevaro
title: |
Coexistence of magneto-rotational and Jeans instabilities in an\
axisymmetric nebula
---
[We analyze the magneto-rotational instability (MRI) effects on gravitational collapse and its influence on the instability critical scale.]{} [In particular, we study an axisymmetric nonstratified differentially rotating cloud, embedded in a small magnetic field, and we perform a local linear stability analysis, including the self gravity of the system.]{} [We demonstrate that the linear evolution of the perturbations is characterized by the emergence of an anisotropy degree of the perturbed mass densities. Starting with spherical growing overdensities, we see that they naturally acquire an anisotropy of order unity in their shape. Despite the linear character of our analysis, we infer that such a seed of anisotropy can rapidly grow in a nonlinear regime, leading to the formation of filament-like structures. However, we show how such an anisotropy is essentially an intrinsic feature of the Jean instability, and how MRI only plays a significant role in fixing the critical scale of the mode spectrum. We then provide a characterization of the present analysis in terms of the cosmological setting, in order to provide an outlook of how the present results could concern the formation of large-scale structures across the Universe.]{}
Introduction
============
One of the most intriguing features of magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD) consists of the generation of unstable behaviors from the coupling between wave propagation and plasma inhomogeneities [([@Bisk])]{}. A relevant example of such instability mechanisms corresponds to the so-called magneto-rotational instability (MRI), firstly discovered by E.P. Velikhov ([-@Ve59]) and applied to the astrophysical context by S. Chandrasekhar ([-@Ch60]); it results from the coupling of Alfvén waves with the differential rotation of the plasma.
It is easy to understand the interest that MRI has raised over the last five decades toward its astrophysical applications, especially since it was clarified [([@BH91])]{} (see also [@BH98] and [@Ba03]) that it constitutes the basic instability able to trigger the turbulence in stellar accretion disks. Indeed, the existence of MRI in accreting structures is crucial to justify the assumption of an effective visco-resistive plasma, which forms part of the basis of the original Shakura idea of accretion onto compact objects [([@Sh73; @SS73])]{}. Most of the studies on MRI have been locally developed, that is, they consider small wave lengths of the perturbations with respect to the typical variation scale of the background configuration. For a satisfactory discussion of MRI in the global approach, see [@Papa92]. The most important results concerning MRI come from the analysis of the background plasma profiles, according to the idea that vertical shear weakly couples to the perturbation dynamics. Nonetheless, for recent developments concerning MRI in stratified configurations, revising the original approach of [@Ba95], see [@MCP16] and [@CM17]. Finally, for studies of the morphology of MRI in the presence of dissipative effects, like viscosity and resistivity, we refer to the reviews by [@BH98], and [@Sh15] and to [@CMR17] for recent investigations.
In this paper, we apply MRI to a different context with respect to stellar accretion disks, to examine whether or not it could play a role in the structure formation across the Universe. Indeed, the plasma nature of the Universe before recombination and the existence of primordial magnetic fields [([@Ba07])]{} suggest that the cosmological perturbation dynamics, and therefore the structure formation, can be influenced by MHD effects. In particular, in the recombined-matter-dominated Universe, we can expect that differential rotation significantly enters the nonlinear gravitational collapse of overdensities across the Universe. In this respect, it is important to stress that the Universe remains ionized even after recombination for one part in one hundred thousand. Therefore, the emergence of MRI in the linear and nonlinear phases of the overdensity collapse is a reliable phenomenon for the early Universe, especially due to the tight coupling between ions and neutral hydrogen on many relevant cosmological scales in the era between the recombination and structure formation [([@LCM12])]{}. However, the cosmological implementation (provided in Sect. \[sec6\]) of the present results, obtained for a steady linearized MHD system, has to be regarded as a qualitative hint for further investigations which include the detailed role of the Universe expansion and the relativistic perturbation dynamics.
In [@SMC16], the role played by MRI in the linear stability of a plasma infinite filament is considered in order to investigate possible implications on the morphology of the filament in different regimes. For further studies on the interaction between self-gravitating and magnetic instabilities, see for instance [@FBDV04a; @FBDV04b; @FBDV04c]. Here, we consider the same type of problem, but we refer to a nebula of plasma treated as a differentially rotating nonstratified configuration, in order to evaluate how the corresponding Jeans scale [([@jeans])]{} is affected by MRI. The main issue of such an analysis is to demonstrate how, starting with an axisymmetric profile ([*i.e.,* ]{}a configuration of plasma in differential rotation within a weak magnetic field), the linear gravitational collapse is able to induce anisotropic features of the overdensity, up to some percent of the background density and of order unity for the perturbation itself. This linear and local investigation suggests that the extreme nonlinear regime of the collapse could be significantly affected by such initial anisotropies and the emergence of filament-like structures could be justified by the nonlinear evolution of such a linear initial condition. The coupling of the MRI with the Jean mechanism of self-gravitational collapse ([*i.e.,* ]{}the instability due to the presence of differential rotation in a weakly magnetized plasma) could, in principle, influence the process of fragmentation of the nebula since we show that the critical scale of instability is fixed both by gravitational and magneto-rotational effects. However, we clarify how the anisotropy feature of the observed linear growth rates is essentially due to an intrinsic property of the pure Jeans mechanism. Indeed, the largest growth-rate values correspond to small perturbation wave numbers, where MRI is almost suppressed. On the other hand, those wave numbers corresponding to a leading character of MRI exist is the region where the Jeans growth rates strongly decrease: such two instabilities turn out to coexist within the nebula instability profile. For a discussion of similar questions in the general relativistic sector, see [@GT06], where the evolution of small linear anisotropies is investigated in a specific case, demonstrating their enhancement by the gravitational collapse.
Basic equations
===============
Let us consider a self gravitating plasma axial structure (nebula) described in standard cylindrical coordinates $(r,\,\varphi,\,z)$, whose self-gravity potential is denoted by $\phi$. The nebula is taken in differential rotation with angular velocity $\Omega=\Omega(r)$, and it is embedded into a purely vertical magnetic field $\boldsymbol{B}_0=B_0\hat{\boldsymbol{e}}_z$. Since we are considering a weak dependence on the vertical direction of all the background quantities, they are taken as a function of $r$ only and the nebula stratification is, on this level, neglected.
The theory properly describing the physics governing such a system is therefore the ideal MHD, whose fundamental equations are the mass, momentum, and magnetic flux conservation laws $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial}_t\rho+\nabla\cdot(\rho\boldsymbol{v})=0\;,\label{eq:62}\\
\rho{\partial}_t\boldsymbol{v}+\rho(\boldsymbol{v}\cdot\nabla)\boldsymbol{v}+\nabla(p+B^{2}/8\pi)\qquad\qquad\quad{\nonumber}\\
-\rho\nabla\phi-(\boldsymbol{B}\cdot\nabla)\boldsymbol{B}/4\pi=0\;,\\
{\partial}_t\boldsymbol{B}-\nabla\wedge(\boldsymbol{v}\wedge\boldsymbol{B})=0\;,\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Here, $\rho$ denotes the mass density of the fluid, $p$ the hydrostatic pressure, while $\boldsymbol{v}$ and $\boldsymbol{B}$ ($B=|\boldsymbol{B}|$) are the velocity and magnetic field, respectively. In addition, we consider the Poisson equation describing the self-gravity of the nebula, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^{2}\phi-4\pi G\rho=0\;, \end{aligned}$$ with $G$ being the Newton constant and, finally, we specify the equation of state (EoS) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eos}
p-v_{s}^{2}\rho=0\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $v_s$ is the sound speed and we consider an isothermal relation between pressure and mass density ($v_s\simeq const.$).
Background equilibrium
----------------------
Let us now describe the fundamental equations governing the time-independent background equilibrium, characterized by a set of variables indicated via the subscript $0$, in order to distinguish from the dynamical perturbed quantities of the following section denoted by a subscript 1.
Assuming that the background magnetic field $\boldsymbol{B}_0$ is sufficiently small to have no effect on the steady equilibrium of the plasma, we can easily fix the equation governing its gravostatic configuration as $$\begin{aligned}
r\Omega^{2}(r)-({\partial}_r p_0)/\rho_{0}-{\partial}_r\phi_0=0\;,\\
({\partial}_r(r{\partial}_r\phi_{0}))/r-4\pi G\rho_{0}(r)=0\;,\\
{\partial}_r p_0-v_s^2{\partial}_r\rho_0=0\;.\label{eq:6}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we neglected the $z$ dependence of the problem, while all the $\varphi$ derivatives vanish because of axial symmetry. Actually, the $z$ dependence is assumed negligible here, bearing in mind that the perturbations will have a small wavelength, making it difficult to explore the vertical shear of the configuration. Nonetheless, the role of the vertical gradients can be, in principle, important in order to fix the background profile. In this case, the system above must include vertical gradients as well as the vertical force balance.
Linear perturbation theory
==========================
Let us now face the problem of characterizing the linear stability of the considered plasma configuration. In what follows, we consider a local approximation, that is, the typical perturbation length is considered much smaller than the length scale of the background variation. The background quantities and their radial derivatives are taken at a fiducial radius $r=\bar{r}$, and they are treated as constants in the considered perturbative problem. According to this approximation, the perturbation equations, associated to the system of [Eqs.(\[eq:62\])]{}-[(\[eq:eos\])]{}, are written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial}_t\rho_{1}+\rho_{0}(\nabla\cdot\boldsymbol{v}_{1})+\boldsymbol{v}_0\cdot\nabla\rho_{1}=0\;,\label{qe:ieoe1}\\
\rho_{0}({\partial}_t\boldsymbol{v}_1+(\boldsymbol{v}_0\cdot\nabla)\boldsymbol{v}_{1})+
\nabla(p_{1}+2\boldsymbol{B}_{0}\cdot\boldsymbol{B}_{1}/8\pi)\quad{\nonumber}\\
-\rho_{0}\nabla\phi_{1}-(\boldsymbol{B}_{0}\cdot\nabla)\boldsymbol{B}_{1}/4\pi=0\;,\\
{\partial}_t\boldsymbol{B}_{1}+\boldsymbol{B}_{0}(\nabla\cdot\boldsymbol{v}_{1})-
(\boldsymbol{B}_{0}\cdot\nabla)\boldsymbol{v}_{1}\qquad\qquad{\nonumber}\\
+(\boldsymbol{v}_{0}\cdot\nabla)\boldsymbol{B}_{1}=0\;,\\
\nabla^{2}\phi_{1}-4\pi G\rho_{1}=0\;,\\
p_{1}-v_{s}^{2}\rho_{1}=0\;,\label{qe:ieoe2}\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
Since the background does not depend on time, we search WKB solutions writing each axisymmetric perturbation quantity $A_1$ as $A_{1}(t,r,z)=\bar{a} e^{i (k_r r+k_z z-\omega t)}$ with $\bar{a}=const.$ and the wave vector as $\boldsymbol{k}=(k_r,\,0,\,k_z)$. In this way, the following natural replacements take place: $\nabla A_1= i\boldsymbol{k} A_1$ and ${\partial}_t A_1=-i\omega A_1$. The system of [Eqs.(\[qe:ieoe1\])]{}-[(\[qe:ieoe2\])]{} can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
-i\omega\rho_{1}/\rho_{0}+ik_{r}v_{1r}+ik_{z}v_{1z}=0\;,\\
-i\omega v_{1r}-2\Omega v_{1\phi}+ik_{r}p_{1}/\rho_{0}+ik_{r}\phi_{1}\qquad\quad\quad{\nonumber}\\
+ik_{r}v_{A}^{2}B_{1z}/B_{0}-ik_{z}v_{A}^{2}B_{1r}/B_{0}=0\;,\\
\kappa^{2}v_{1r}/2\Omega-i\omega v_{1\phi}-ik_{z}v_{A}^{2}B_{1\phi}/B_{0}=0\;,\\
-i\omega v_{1z}+ik_{z}p_{1}/\rho_{0}+ik_{z}\phi_{1}=0\;,\\
-i\omega B_{1r}-ik_{z}B_{0}v_{1r}=0\;,\\
-i\omega B_{1\phi}-B_{1r}{\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega-ik_{z}B_{0}v_{1\phi}=0\;,\\
-i\omega B_{1z}+ik_{r}B_{0}v_{1r}=0\;,\\
-k^{2}\phi_{1}-4\pi G\rho_{1}=0\;,\\
p_{1}-v_{s}^{2}\rho_{1}=0\;,\end{aligned}$$ where we introduced the standard definitions of the epicyclic frequency and Alfén velocity $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa^{2}=4\Omega^{2}+{\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^{2}\;,\qquad
v_{A}^{2}=B_{0}^{2}/4\pi\rho_0\;,\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
It is worth reiterating that the Rayleigh criterion [([@BH98])]{}, in the absence of differential rotation, states that the nebula is unstable if $\kappa^{2}<0$. Therefore, in order to select the role played by MRI in the stability of the system, in what follows we take positive epicyclic frequencies $\kappa^{2}>0$. The system above is linear algebraic and homogeneous in the perturbed quantities, and therefore it admits a nontrivial solution only if the corresponding determinant vanishes, therefore leading to the dispersion relation $$\begin{gathered}
\omega^{6}-\omega^{4}(\kappa^{2}+\omega_{0}^{2}+\omega_{A}^{2}+\omega_{Az}^{2})+\\ +\omega^{2}\big(\omega_{Az}^{2}(2\omega_{0}^{2}+\omega_{A}^{2}+{\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^{2})+
\kappa^{2}\omega_{0}^{2}\omega_{Az}^{2}/\omega_{A}^{2}\big)\\
-\omega_{0}^{2}\omega_{Az}^{2}\big(\omega_{Az}^{2}+({\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^{2})\omega_{Az}^{2}/\omega_{A}^{2}\big)=0\;.\label{eq:236}\end{gathered}$$ Here, to simplify the notation, we introduce the following frequencies: $\omega_{0}^{2}=v_{s}^{2}k^{2}-4\pi G\rho_{0}$ is the typical frequency appearing in the Jeans (self-gravitation) instability, $\omega_{A}^{2}=v_{A}^{2}k^{2}$ is the Alfvén frequency and $\omega_{Az}^{2}=v_{A}^{2}k_{z}^{2}$ represents the Alfvén parameter $(\boldsymbol{k}\cdot(v_A \hat{\boldsymbol{e}}_z))^{2}$, which modulates the magnetic tension.
We can now rewrite [Eq.(\[eq:236\])]{} as a function of the angle $\theta$ between $\boldsymbol{k}$ and $\boldsymbol{B}_0$. Therefore, we define $\chi=\omega_{Az}^{2}/\omega_{A}^{2}=k_{z}^{2}/k^{2}=\cos^{2}\theta$ and, substituting this expression in [Eq.(\[eq:236\])]{}, we finally get $$\begin{gathered}
\omega^{6}-\omega^{4}(\kappa^{2}+\omega_{0}^{2}+\omega_{A}^{2}(1+\chi))+\\
+\omega^{2}\big(\omega_{A}^{2}(2\omega_{0}^{2}+\omega_{A}^{2}+{\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^{2})+\kappa^{2}\omega_{0}^{2}\big)\chi\\
\qquad\qquad-\omega_{0}^{2}\omega_{A}^{2}\big(\omega_{A}^{2}+{\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^{2}\big)\chi^{2}=0\;,\label{eq:237}\end{gathered}$$ where, clearly, $0\leqslant \chi \leqslant 1$. We stress that, turning off gravity, [*i.e.,* ]{}$G\to0$, taking $v_{s}^{2}\to\infty$ (which is the limit toward the Boussinesq approximation [([@BH98])]{}) and fixing $\boldsymbol{k}=k_z \hat{\boldsymbol{e}}_z$, the expression above reduces to the dispersion formula for the MRI [([@BH91])]{}.
Discussion of the dispersion relation
=====================================
Before analyzing the solutions of the obtained dispersion relation in detail, we investigate some relevant simplified cases.
The limit $\chi=0$
------------------
We start by considering a perturbation $\boldsymbol{k}=k_r\hat{\boldsymbol{e}}_r$, implying $\chi=0$. The dispersion relation takes the following simplified form. $$\omega^{2}-(\kappa^{2}+\omega_{0}^{2}+\omega_{A}^{2})=0\;.$$ The instability condition $\omega^{2}<0$ gives $$k_r^{2}<\bar{k}_J^{2}\equiv\frac{4\pi G\rho_{0}-\kappa^{2}}{v_{s}^{2}+v_{A}^{2}}\label{eq:239}\;,$$ for which the associated Jeans length is $$\bar{\lambda}_{J}\equiv\frac{2\pi}{\bar{k}_J}=2\pi\sqrt{\frac{v_{s}^{2}+v_{A}^{2}}{4\pi G\rho_{0}-\kappa^{2}}}\label{eq:240}\;.$$ This solution is physically meaningful only if $\kappa^{2}<4\pi G\rho_{0}$: when this relation is satisfied, [Eq.(\[eq:240\])]{} provides the Jeans scale for a rotating, self-gravitating, and magnetized plasma in correspondence to a radial propagation of the perturbations (absence of magnetic tension). Furthermore, the limit $\kappa^{2}\to0$ and $v_{A}^{2}\to0$ reproduces the standard Jeans criterium.
From [Eq.(\[eq:240\])]{}, we see that the magnetic field contrasts the collapse, since the corresponding Jeans length is larger than the nonmagnetized one. The epicyclic frequency of the fluid contrasts the collapse too and can make the system stable for any perturbation if $\kappa^{2}\geqslant 4\pi G\rho_{0}$. This squared frequency is always intended to be positive, in order to satisfy the Rayleigh criterion. However, negative values for $\kappa^{2}$ can increase the instability of the system, inducing a collapse at smaller wavelengths.
Perturbative solution of the dispersion relation
------------------------------------------------
Since the aim of our analysis is to verify the role played by MRI in the stability of a self-gravitating medium, we consider [Eq.(\[eq:237\])]{} nearby a static gas cloud by turning on a small magnetic field and epicyclic frequency. More precisely, this means $\omega_{0}^{2}\gg\omega_{A}^{2}$ and $\omega_{0}^{2}\gg\kappa^{2}$. Moreover, we take $\chi\ll1$ in order to have small magnetic tension. The differential rotation parameter is taken at half magnitude between $\omega_{0}^{2}$ and the other frequencies to preserve its relevant role in the MRI instability, [*i.e.,* ]{}$\omega_{0}^{2}>{\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^{2}\gg\omega_{A}^{2},\,\kappa^{2}$.
Under these assumptions, keeping only the first-order perturbations, the dispersion formula can be rewritten as $$\omega^{4}-\omega^{2}\left[\kappa^{2}+\omega_{0}^{2}+\omega_{A}^{2}\left(1+\chi\right)\right]+\frac{\omega_{A}^{2}}{\omega_{0}^{2}}\,{\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^{2}=0\;.$$ Considering the solution with the $+$ sign, because it represents a modified Jeans frequency, we get $$\omega^{2}=\omega_{0}^{2}+\kappa^{2}+\omega_{A}^{2}\left(1+\chi\right)+
\frac{\omega_{A}^{2}}{\omega_{0}^{2}}\,{\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^{2}\;.$$ Given $\omega_{0}^{2}<0$ , the role of MRI naturally emerges. As magnetic tension and differential rotation are turned on, the root tends to be less negative if ${\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^{2}<0$, which is the condition for MRI. Therefore, the obtained instability mitigates the pure Jeans one. Instead, a positive differential rotation parameter makes the system even more unstable.
General case
------------
Let us now analyze the dispersion relation by plotting its numerical solutions in terms of the model parameters. In what follows, we expect to be able to recognize, in the profile of the growth rate $\gamma$ (the positive imaginary part of $\omega$) as a function of $k$, both the MRI and the Jeans behavior. Naming the unstable solutions $\omega_{J}^{2}$ and $\omega_{M}^{2}$ (since their behaviors match Jeans and MRI modes, respectively), we consider the hybrid root defined as $\omega_{M\!J}^{2}(k)=\textrm{min}[\omega_{J}^{2},\,\omega_{M}^{2}]$, where $MJ$ stands for magneto-Jeans. The critical wavelength of the system is therefore set as $\lambda_{M\!J}=\textrm{min}[\lambda_{J},\,\lambda_{M}]$.
![MJ growth rate (in $\Omega$ units) from [Eq.(\[eq:237\])]{} as a function of $k (v_s/\Omega)$ for different values of the wave vector angle fixing ${\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^{2}=-2.5\Omega^2$ (upper panel), and for different values of the differential rotation fixing $\chi=1$ (lower panel), as indicated in the plot. Integration parameters are: $v_A/v_s=0.3$ and $4\pi G\rho_0=3.5\Omega^2$. For $\chi=0,$ the curve reduces to the one associated to the standard Jeans instability, while for $\chi\neq0,$ a second peak arises. This effect is increased by differential rotation. The critical wavelength is discontinuous for $\chi=0$ and $\chi\neq0$ (where it remains constant changing the value of $\chi$).\[fig:1\]](_FIGA "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"}\
![MJ growth rate (in $\Omega$ units) from [Eq.(\[eq:237\])]{} as a function of $k (v_s/\Omega)$ for different values of the wave vector angle fixing ${\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^{2}=-2.5\Omega^2$ (upper panel), and for different values of the differential rotation fixing $\chi=1$ (lower panel), as indicated in the plot. Integration parameters are: $v_A/v_s=0.3$ and $4\pi G\rho_0=3.5\Omega^2$. For $\chi=0,$ the curve reduces to the one associated to the standard Jeans instability, while for $\chi\neq0,$ a second peak arises. This effect is increased by differential rotation. The critical wavelength is discontinuous for $\chi=0$ and $\chi\neq0$ (where it remains constant changing the value of $\chi$).\[fig:1\]](_FIGB "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
As can be inferred by the upper panel of [Fig.\[fig:1\]]{}, the collapse (the growth of the mass density) is significantly anisotropic since it depends on the ratio $\chi=k_z^2/k^2$. Anisotropy is also increased by differential rotation, as can be argued from the lower panel of the figure, which, moreover, pushes the critical wavelength to smaller scales (however, we note that ${\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^2$ must always be negative in order to have an MRI contribution [([@BH91])]{}). Moreover, as can be seen from the upper panel of [Fig.\[fig:1\]]{}, no dependence of instability critical scale on the value of $\chi$ emerges, except the discontinuity between $\chi=0$ and $\chi\neq0$.
In [Fig.\[fig:2\]]{}, the critical length $\lambda_{M\!J}$ is plotted as a function of the ratio $(v_A/v_s)^2$, associated to the change of the magnetic field strength amplitude.
![MJ critical length $\lambda_{M\!J}=\textrm{min}[\lambda_{J},\,\lambda_{M}]$ (as indicated in the plot) as a function of the ratio $(v_A/v_s)^2$. The parameters are set as: $4\pi G\rho_0=3.5\Omega^2$, $\chi=0.5$ and ${\partial}_{\ln r}\Omega^{2}=-1\Omega^2$. \[fig:2\]](_FIGC){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
We note that MRI is valid for weak magnetic field only, but it implies no matter transport, and, if coupled with self-gravity, it extends the gravitational collapse to smaller scales, as clarified in the figure.
It is worth noting that the upper panel of [Fig.\[fig:1\]]{} shows that, for a given $k$, the growth rate is larger for modes with $\chi=1$ (dotted line) than for modes with $\chi=0$ (solid line). Moreover, as clearly deduced from [Fig.\[fig:2\]]{}, at small values of $k$ (large scales), the dominant instability is the Jeans one, whereas for large $k$ (small scales), the dominant instability is associated to the MRI contribution. Below, we see how these considerations concern the analysis of the density-contrast evolution.
Time evolution of the density contrast
======================================
Let us now estimate the amount of the collapse anisotropy by studying the behavior of the density contrast defined as $\delta(\boldsymbol{r},t)=\rho_{1}/\rho_{0}$ (where $\boldsymbol{r}=(r\hat{\boldsymbol{e}}_r+z\hat{\boldsymbol{e}}_z)$ is the poloidal vector radius). We consider an initial overdense region of Gaussian form, [*i.e.,* ]{}$$\delta(\boldsymbol{r},0)=\delta_{0}e^{-\frac{r^{2}+z^{2}}{2\sigma}}\;,$$ whose Fourier transform is still Gaussian, $$\tilde{\delta}(\boldsymbol{k},0)=\tilde{\delta}_{0} e^{-\frac{k_{r}^{2}+k_{z}^{2}}{2\tilde{\sigma}}}\;;$$ above, $\sigma$ and $\tilde{\sigma}$ are the direct space and Fourier space variance, being reciprocal numbers ($\delta_{0}$ and $\tilde{\delta}_{0}$ are assigned constants).
In the $\boldsymbol{k}$-space, the single mode evolution is described by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wsjnsjun}
\tilde{\delta}(\boldsymbol{k},t)=\tilde{\delta}_{0}
e^{-\frac{k^{2}}{2\tilde{\sigma}}+i\boldsymbol{k}\cdot\boldsymbol{r}-i\omega_{M\!J}\,t}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{M\!J}=\omega_{M\!J}(\boldsymbol{k})$ is the MJ frequency derived in the previous section as a solution of the dispersion relation. Taking $\lambda>\lambda_{M\!J}$, $\omega_{M\!J}=i\gamma_{M\!J}$ and perturbations grow exponentially. Transforming back [Eq.(\[wsjnsjun\])]{} into the $\boldsymbol{r}$-space, we can obtain the density contrast as a function of position until $\delta\ll1$. In fact, when $\rho_1\simeq\rho_0$, the linear analysis is clearly no longer valid and simulations of the nonlinear problem are required.
Evolution of the overdensity
----------------------------
The wave packet describing the evolution of the overdense region is now evaluated for different values of $\boldsymbol{r}$. In this way, it is possible to investigate the dynamics of the collapse geometry by plotting the isolines of $\delta(\boldsymbol{r},t)$ on the $r$-$z$ plane at different times (the system is invariant under translation along $\varphi$). The anisotropic behavior of the overdensity growth rate is evident from its dependence on the angle $\chi,$ and therefore we see the distortion of the isolines as time goes by, according to [Fig.\[fig:3.23\]]{}. Here, the numerical integration of the packet is performed taking $\tilde{\delta}_{0}=0.1\times e^{-k^2/2}$.
![\[fig:3.23\] Discrete representation in the plane $(r,\,z)$ of the isolines $\delta=0.1$ at $t\,\Omega=0$ (inner region), $0.25,\,0.5,\,0.75,\,1,\,1.25,\,1.5$ (outer region).](_FIGD){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
When $t=0$, the isoline corresponds to a circle, but the shape is progressively altered as time increases, because the growth rate is larger along the direction of the background magnetic field. In fact, in Fig.\[fig:3.23\], the isoline $\delta=0.1$ stretches along the $z$ axis. Given a distance $d$, $\delta(r=d,z=0,t)<\delta(r=0,z=d,t)$, [*i.e.,* ]{}the blob is more dense on the $z$ axis and therefore it prevalently compresses in that direction. Furthermore, we note that the discontinuity in the growth rate derivative (see Fig.\[fig:1\]) has no visible effects on the density contrast, although this bend corresponds to a jump in the group velocity ${\partial}_k \omega_{M\!J}$.
The shape of the isolines does not change if we choose another value for $\tilde{\delta}_{0}$, since it simply changes a constant that multiplies the Fourier transformation. We observe that we cannot overcome $\tilde{\delta}_{0}\sim0.1$, otherwise we violate $\rho_{1}\ll\rho_{0}$ and the linear approximation is no longer valid.
Evaluation of the anisotropic growth
------------------------------------
Let us now construct a coefficient in order to evaluate the anisotropy of the growing instability: $$\alpha(t)=\frac{\delta(r=0,\,z=d,\,t)}{\delta(d,\,0,\,t)}\;,$$ where $d$ is a value of the distance from the center fixed with respect to the isoline $\delta=0.1$ on the $z$ axis and at a given time, namely $\delta(0,\,d,\,1.25)=0.1$. We can see that the quantity $\alpha$ can reach large values; for instance, at the chosen instant $t=1.25$, we get $\alpha(1.25)\simeq0.5$. It must be stressed that $\alpha$ measures the anisotropy of the density contrast only, but it allows us to evaluate the whole density anisotropy. In fact, we can define an anisotropy coefficient for the whole density as $$A(t)=1-\frac{\rho(d,\,0,\,t)}{\rho(0,\,d,\,t)}\;,$$ and therefore this coefficient reaches $1$ (and the anisotropy is of the order $100\%$) for $\rho(d,\,0,\,t)/\rho(0,\,d,\,t)\to0$; it can be rewritten as function of $\alpha$ as $$A(t)=1-\frac{1+\alpha\delta(0,\,d,\,t)}{1+\delta(0,\,d,\,t)}\;.$$ It is easy to evaluate that $A(1.25)\simeq5\%$, meaning that the onset collapse is just slightly anisotropic according to the considered linear regime ($\rho_1\ll\rho_0$).
It important to stress here that if we consider an initial perturbation where all modes are excited, the modes that grow faster are those with small $k$ values, since the corresponding growth rate is larger (see [Fig.\[fig:1\]]{}). Here the MRI is essentially irrelevant and therefore the anisotropy feature, [*i.e.,* ]{}the difference between the dashed line and dotted line in [Fig.\[fig:1\]]{}, is only due to the fact that the Jeans mechanism exhibits different growth rates for modes with different $\chi$ values. We therefore deduce that magnetic tension is unimportant for sufficiently large scales and we are obtaining an equivalent behavior of the overdensity to the one predicted by [Eq.(\[eq:237\])]{} in the limit $\omega_A\to0$ and $k\to0$. On the other hand, if we focus our attention on small scales, for which the Jeans instability is suppressed, then only the MRI is relevant, and, in this case, the growth rate is again anisotropic (clearly the MRI is strongly suppressed for $\chi\to0$). Nonetheless, this effect is essentially uncoupled from the Jeans instability and the gravitation and magneto-rotational regions of the unstable spectrum simply coexist within the differentially rotating nebula profile.
Phenomenological considerations {#sec6}
===============================
Our investigation on the co-existence of MRI and Jeans instability and the main conclusion we reach about the noninteraction of the two mechanisms, which however offer a scenario for the generation of anisotropic structures, can be applied in different physical contexts, corresponding to different scales and systems across the Universe. The most natural implementation of the present study is in those astrophysical systems, such as filaments in the interstellar medium and nebula-like structures, which possess a sufficiently high level of ionization and self-gravity to be interpreted via the instability features, predicted by the dispersion relation [(\[eq:237\])]{}.
Nonetheless, we aim to infer the validity of the present study on a cosmological level, in order to characterize the behavior of small Universe inhomogeneities in the evolution range between the hydrogen recombination ($z\simeq 1100$) and the formation of the most common structures at large scales ($z\sim 10$), where $z$ denotes the *red-shift*. However, in order to successfully address this characterization of [Eq.(\[eq:237\])]{}, we must consider some subtle questions concerning the primordial Universe: 1) the Universe background is expanding, [*i.e.,* ]{}it is nonstationary, and it is also homogeneous in space; 2) only a very weak part of the Universe baryonic component is ionized, about a one part in one hundred thousand; 3) the Universe also contains dark energy (about $70\%$ of its total energy density) and dark matter (about $25\%$ of its energy density).
We now consider each of these questions separately point by point, arguing how the present study is *de facto* applicable to the early Universe, providing qualitative but reliable information about the dynamics of its inhomogeneities:
1. The nonstationarity of the Universe is relevant for the physics of the early cosmology, including the behavior of linear perturbations, only for spatial scales comparable with the Hubble size ($L_H\simeq c H^{-1}(t)$, where $H(t)$ is the expansion rate and $c$ the speed of light). Such a scale roughly increases as $L_H\sim ct$, $t$ being the universal synchronous time, and it is well-known [([@KT90; @M2011])]{} that many cosmological scales, relevant for structure formation, become smaller than $L_H$ simply because they increase slower in time, according to the cosmic scale factor behavior $a(t)\sim t^{2/3}$. Therefore, when studying cosmological perturbations whose size is well below the Hubble length $L_H$, the effects of the expansion can be safely neglected and the background can be regarded as a steady one.
An important feature introduced by the expansion, with respect to the steady case here considered, consists of a power-law growth in time of the perturbation, against an exponential instability. However, as well-known in the nonmagnetized case [([@M2011; @Wein72])]{} and also validated in the presence of a magnetic field in [@LCM12] and [@PD12] (see also [@VTP05]), the concept of Jeans threshold scale can be defined in both cases (without or with expansion, respectively). Furthermore, it comes out that the value of the Jeans scale in the two cases differs for a numerical factor only. The presence of a non-stationary expansion therefore does not affect the physical content of our linear analysis, but it could affect the timescale of the considered processes.
However, our request of a cylindrical symmetry, implied by the presence of differential rotation (we assume the existence of a privileged direction), suggests that our analysis must essentially concern the stability of subregions inside primordial structures, [*i.e.,* ]{}the background must be considered to be density contrast close to the nonlinear regime, almost bounded and disconnected by the Hubble flux. In this respect, our study can be regarded as relevant for the iteration of the so-called Jeans mechanism for the Universe fragmentation, especially around $z\sim100$, where the density contrast can be greater than unity and the dark matter role is not relevant to the jet (see below point 3).
2. Although the Universe is weakly ionized after the recombination (actually the Universe expansion prevents perfect hydrogen recombination), we can nonetheless reliably argue that the behavior of the ionized component is closely linked to the neutral matter behavior, meaning that our analysis can be applied to the baryonic neutral Universe as well, for a wide range of cosmological scales.
Ions and neutral atoms actually interact via collisions, mediated by a drag coefficient $\gamma_{in}\sim 1.9\times 10^{-9} $cm$^3$s$^{-1}$. The relevance of this interaction process, commonly dubbed *ambipolar diffusion* (see, e.g., [@SS05; @SS08; @Sch09a; @Sch09b]), is properly characterized by the ambipolar Reynold number $R_{amb}$, defined as follows [([@LCM12])]{} $$R_{amb} \equiv L/L_{amb}\;,\qquad
L_{amb} \equiv v_A^2/v\gamma_{in}n_i\;,
\label{amb1}$$ where $n_i$ is the ion number density and $v$ and $L$ are a typical velocity and spatial scale of the considered system, respectively. In the present study, $v\sim v_s\gtrsim v_A$, since the MRI typically holds for high values of the plasma $\beta$ parameter.
It is well-known [([@MS56; @Sh83; @BJ04; @Li06])]{}, that when $R_{amb}\ll 1,$ the ions and neutral atoms are very weakly interacting and we deal with two distinct components in the system; when $R_{amb}\sim 1$, the two components are coupled and the ambipolar diffusion is relevant, being represented by a dissipative term in MHD (the single fluid representation holds, but a correction to ideal case must be taken into account); finally, for $R_{amb}\gg1$, that is, $L\gg L_{amb}$, the coupling becomes very strong and the two species are so tightly evolving that the ideal MHD representation can be applied for the whole system, in agreement with the present study.
It is possible to show (see Fig.1 in [@LCM12]) that at the Universe background density for $10<z<1100$, the Reynold number $R_{amb}$ remains much larger than unity for spatial scales containing a mass much greater than $10^6$ solar masses, [*i.e.,* ]{}for the most relevant cosmological scales. Since we intend to apply our analysis to the stability of overdense regions across the Universe, the situation is even slightly better, because $L_{amb}$ is correspondingly smaller. Therefore, we can safely assume to be in a parameter region where the ambipolar diffusion dissipation term is actually negligible, but ions and neutrals are tightly bound forming a single fluid.
In order to characterize the cosmological scales for which our analysis is predictive, in [Fig.\[fig:rcc\]]{} we plot, as function of the red-shift $(1+z),$
![\[fig:rcc\] Critical scale $L_c \Rightarrow R_{amb}=1$ as function of the redshift for $4\pi G\rho_0=3.5\Omega^2$. Marked region denotes scales implying $R_{amb}>1$.](_FIGE){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
the size associated to the minimal mass of the structure to deal with $R_{amb}>1$ (we define the scale $L_c$ which imply $R_{amb}=1$), which corresponds to the value $3.5$ of the ratio $y_g\equiv4\pi G\rho_0/\Omega^2$, used in the plots of this paper and reasonable for a cylindrical configuration (cf. with Fig.1 in [@LCM12]). The field intensity $B_{0}(z)$ behaves as $(1+z)^{2}$ and we set its present value as $B_0(z=0)=10^{-9}$G. Since we are considering our background to be an overdensity of the expanding Universe, we consider $\rho_0=3\rho_{crit}(1+z)^3$ ($\rho_{crit}$ being the Universe critical density): the factor $3$ causes the considered region to be almost disconnect from the Hubble flux. We remark that $L_c$ is defined by $L_c^3=M_c y_g/4\pi\rho_0$, where $M_c(z)$ denotes the critical mass contained within the scale $L_{amb}$ above which the ambipolar diffusion can be safely neglected. Figure \[fig:rcc\] clearly shows that the most relevant cosmological scales for structure formation are in the region where ideal MHD can be used to treat plasma coupled to neutral baryon matter.
3. Despite the fact that dark energy is considered today to form about $70\%$ of the present Universe, there is strong evidence [([@PR03])]{} that it is surely subdominant, or *de facto* negligible in any respect, for the Universe evolution at $z\gtrsim 1$ . Therefore it does not concern the cosmological implementation for the dispersion relation [(\[eq:237\])]{}. The situation is very different for dark matter, which forms approximately $80\%$ of the total matter in the present Universe. Dark matter interacts with baryonic, neutral, and ionized matter, respectively, only through the gravitational interaction: its inhomogeneities are greater by a factor of about $20$ than the baryonic perturbations, and therefore they constitute the gravitational skeleton of the structure formation [([@KT90; @M2011])]{}. However, since the baryon to photon ratio is very small (and almost constant in time) in the background Universe (its value is $\sim 6.1\times 10^{-10}$), the baryons remain tightly coupled to photons, feeling the radiation pressure well after the hydrogen recombination; up to $z\sim 100$ [([@LCM12; @KT90])]{}. As a consequence, the neutral baryons are prevented from falling into the dark matter gravitational potential by the radiation pressure and therefore they are actually decoupled by the dark matter, but strongly coupled to the ionized and photon components of the Universe.
In this situation, we are clearly neglecting here the dynamics of dark matter perturbations, but we expect to account for the presence of this component by including its contribution in the Universe mass density we introduced in the Jeans length scale [(\[eq:240\])]{}. Furthermore, we observe that, even when the radiation pressure is suppressed by the Universe expansion ($z<100$), the setting down of baryonic matter in the gravitational potential of dark matter requires a finite time, and therefore the decoupling of the two components remains valid roughly up to $z\gtrsim10$.
More specifically, it is worth noting that the decoupling between photons and baryons depends on the considered scale, since only structures larger than the photon mean free path can really be coupled to the radiation component: at the recombination age, this scale corresponds to a mass of $\sim 10^{11}$ solar masses. From the point of view of the equation of state, the change regarding the baryon fluid pressure can be interpreted (see [@Wein72]) as the passage of the polytropic index from $4/3$ (baryon density behaves as the inverse of the volume, [*i.e.,* ]{}like $a^{-3}$, $a$ being the cosmic scale factor, while the radiation pressure goes as $a^{-4}$), to the value $5/3$, typical of a nonrelativistic fluid. However, to get a quantitative estimate of how the pressure decreases after the recombination and an idea of why it becomes negligible only after $z\sim 100$, a kinetic evaluation of the sound speed velocity is necessary (see formula [@LCM12]). Before recombination (for a scale greater than the photon mean free path), we can write the following expression for the sound speed: $$v_s^{2} = \frac{c^2}{3}\frac{k_B T_b}{m_p c^2 + 1.5 \times 10^9}\;1.5\times 10^9\;,
\label{reaa1}$$ where $m_b$ and $T_b$ denote the baryon mass and temperature, respectively ($k_B$ being the Boltzmann constant). As long as the temperature of the baryon, coinciding with the photon one, remains sufficiently large, this value is close to that of an ultra-relativistic fluid, that is, $v_s = c/\sqrt{3}$. After the recombination, the squared sound speed velocity reads $$v_s^2=\frac{5}{3}\frac{k_BT_b}{m_b}\;,
\label{reaa2}$$ which is a typical nonrelativistic value, some order of magnitude smaller than the estimate [Eq.(\[reaa1\])]{}. The crucial point is that, up to $z\sim 100$, the baryon and photon temperatures remain essentially equal, while for $z<100,$ baryons rapidly cool as $a^{-2}$ (instead as $a^{-1}$). Only after this time are baryons free particles, and they start to fall in the potential well of the dark matter. For $z>100$, the residual pressure associated with [Eq.(\[reaa2\])]{} is responsible for acoustic oscillations of the baryon density and the Jeans scale selects which perturbations increase or oscillate. For $z<100$, the sound velocity drastically decreases and the density by which the Jeans scale is calculated increases because the dark matter contribution must be included. As a result, the Jeans threshold scale significantly diminishes, while some perturbations enter the nonlinear dynamical regime.
Even considering the well-posed points above, the implementation of the present investigation of the anisotropic MRI-Jeans instability in a cosmological setting remains valid only on a rather qualitative level. Nonetheless, the obtained results encourage more careful analytical and numerical (maybe N-body) studies to clarify whether or not the formation of filament-like structures across the Universe can be explained with the intrinsic anisotropy of differentially rotating and small magnetized primordial sites.
In this respect, it is worth noting that the presence of the magnetic field introduces a privileged direction in space, which defines an intrinsic anisotropy of the perturbation dynamics, [*i.e.,* ]{}the angle between the background magnetic field and the perturbation wavenumber enters the dispersion relation. We have already outlined such a property in the case of a homogeneous (cosmological) background; see [@LCM12] and [@PD12]. Clearly, the direction of propagation selects different contributions due to perturbed magnetic pressure and tension, respectively. In particular, the perturbed magnetic pressure depends on the angle mentioned above (it depends directly on the angle between $\boldsymbol{B}_0$ and $\boldsymbol{B}_1$, but the latter is orthogonal to the wavenumber because it has vanishing divergence) and this makes the response due to the magnetic field contrasting the gravitational force intrinsically anisotropic: perturbations propagating along the background magnetic field only provide tension, and, in that direction, the thermostatic pressure alone prevents gravitational collapse (we can speak of pure acoustic oscillations when stable modes are concerned). However, perturbed magnetic pressure has an intrinsic anisotropy and a positive or negative sign: it can support and contrast the ordinary pressure, altering the value of the Jeans scale considered here (for stable modes, we can speak of fast and slow magneto-acoustic oscillations, respectively).
Nonetheless, it is clear that, in the parameter region where MRI is suppressed in favor of the Jeans mode, the anisotropy due to the magnetic field essentially vanishes and the resulting anisotropic growth of the perturbations is due to the intrinsic anisotropy of the background profile, [*i.e.,* ]{}a privileged direction exists because a differential rotation of the system is taken along a given axis. In this respect, our background is not really a homogeneous one and we suggest that it must be cosmologically interpreted as a rotating primordial overdensity, on which we are studying the character of the Jeans instability. As already mentioned, the nonsteady behavior of the cosmological background is a minor feature here, because the considered overdensity can be close to the nonlinear regime, almost disconnected from the Universe expansion, which is removed by the internal bound energy, or negligible on a sufficiently small spatial sub-scale.
We conclude by observing that the aim of this section is only to set up the conceptual framework of a more rigorous and expectedly numerical analysis based on a real cosmological background, and discussing in some detail the linear dynamics of the coupled plasma and baryonic fluids. Since the magnetic field takes a very small value, as dictated by the cosmic microwave background radiation constraint $B_0\lesssim10^{-9}$G, and its energy decays like a radiation component, we could, in first approximation, reliably neglect its influence on the background metric of the expanding Universe (however, for an overdense region, the values taken by $B_0$ can be significantly larger; see [@VTP05]). Therefore, an interesting upgrade of our study in combination with a realistic cosmological setting could be ensured by the dynamics of a two-fluid system (plasma and neutral baryons), moving on a Tolmann-Bondi nonstationary and radially symmetric background [([@M2011])]{}. The presence of a magnetic field and ambipolar coupling would make this problem a subtle numerical study (maybe analytical under suitable simplifications) of general relativistic MHD. Nonetheless, we are confident that the qualitative scenario inferred here, together with the order of magnitude of our estimates, will survive in such a refinement of the problem. Clearly, when implementing the present scenario within an appropriate cosmological setting, it would be relevant to provide a precise characterization of the role played, after recombination, by the radiation pressure profile in the stability of the different cosmological scales.
Conclusions
===========
We have analyzed the local stability of a self-gravitating and differentially rotating magnetized cloud in order to outline how the MHD effects influence the value of the Jeans length in this structure. In other words, we consider an axisymmetric and weakly magnetized system, in which the vertical shear is assumed to be small enough to neglect its stratification. This scheme is the basic paradigm with which the role played by MRI on the growth of gravitational instability is studied and it allows to properly estimate the contributions from magnetic pressure and tension in fixing the precise value of the Jeans critical length.
After a schematic characterization of the background system, we have written down the linear perturbation dynamics and determined the dispersion relation associated to the local linear evolution of the system. We have analyzed specific regimes and then we have outlined the dependence of the dispersion relation on the direction of the perturbation propagation with respect to that of the magnetic field background. We have subsequently studied such anisotropy properties of the dispersion relation concerning the evolution of a spherical overdense region. We have shown that the shape of the perturbation is deeply deformed during its evolution and that it becomes intrinsically anisotropic (up to order of unity), although the anisotropy of the density contrast cannot exceed a few percent, according to the considered linear regime. However, we have clarified how such anisotropy is essentially an intrinsic effect of the Jeans instability since the largest spatial scales, at which it appears to dominate, grow faster in time with respect to the smaller scales where MRI is relevant.
The idea of the Jeans mechanism for the structure fragmentation consists in the decreasing value of the Jeans length as the collapse proceeds and the structure average density increases. The obtained results suggest that such a mechanism is influenced by differential rotation and by the magnetic field too: as the fragmentation of the original background structure evolves, we can infer that the anisotropy degree increasingly affects the substructure shape, generating a filament-like class of subsystems.
The scenario traced above cannot be used to make generalizations regarding structure formation across the primordial Universe. Nonetheless the common presence of both differential rotation and weak magnetic fields in accreting cosmological structures leads us to infer that the generation of filaments from spherical unstable profiles could concern specific cosmological sites or even subclasses of structures (especially if connected in a nonlinear phase with hot dark matter gravitational skeletons) favoring anisotropic collapses.
[19]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
Balbus, S. 1995, ApJ, 453, 380
Balbus, S. 2003, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 41, 555
Balbus, S. & Hawley, J. 1991, ApJ, 376, 214
Balbus, S. & Hawley, J. 1998, Rev. Mod. Phys., 70, 1
Banerjee, R. & Jedamzik, K. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 123003
Barrow, J., Maartens, R., & Tsagas, C. 2007, Phys. Rept., 449, 131
Biskamp, D. 1993, *Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics* (Cambridge Uni. Press)
Carlevaro, N., Montani, G., & Renzi, F. 2017, Europhys. Lett., 117, 49001
Chandrasekhar, S. 1960, Proc. of the National Academy of Science, 46, 253
Cianfrani, F. & Montani, G. 2017, Phys. Lett. B, 769, 328
Fromang, S., Balbus, S.A. & De Villiers, J.-P. 2004a, ApJ, 616, 357
Fromang, S., Balbus, S.A., Terquem, C. & De Villiers, J.-P. 2004b, ApJ, 616, 364
Fromang, S., De Villiers, J-P & Balbus, S.A. 2004c, Astrophys. Space Sci., 292, 439
Germani, C. & Tsagas, C. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 064010
Jeans, J. 1902, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc, 199A, 49
Kolb, E.W. & Turner, M.S. 1990, *The Early Universe* (Addison-Wesley)
Lattanzi, M., Carlevaro, N. & Montani, G. 2012, Phys. Lett. B, 718, 255
Li, P.S., McKee, C.F. & Klein, R.I. 2006 Astrophys. J., 653, 1280
Mestel, L. & Spitzer, L. 1956, Mont. Not. RAS, 116, 503
Montani, G., Battisti, M.V., Benini, R. & Imponente, G. 2011, *Primordial Cosmology* (World Scientific)
Montani, G., Cianfrani, F., & Pugliese, D. 2016, ApJ, 827, 24
Papaloizou, J. & Szuszkiewicz, E. 1992, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 66, 223
Peebles, P.J.E. & Ratra, B. 2003, Rev. Mod. Phys., 75, 559
Pugliese, D., Carlevaro, N., Lattanzi, M., Montani, G., & Benini, R. 2012, Physica D, 241, 721
Sadhukhan, S., Mondal, S., & Chakraborty, S. 2016, Mont. Not. RAS, 459, 3059
Schleicher, D.R.G., Galli, D., Glover, S.C.O., et al. 2009a, ApJ, 703, 1096
Schleicher, D.R.G., Banerjee, R. & Klessen R.S. 2009b, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 043510
Sethi, S.K. & Subramanian, K. 2005, Mon. Not. RAS, 356, 778
Sethi, S.K., Biman, B.N. & Subramanian, K. 2008, Mon. Not. RAS, 387, 1589
Shakura, N. 1973, Sov. Astro., 16, 756
Shakura, N. & Postnov, K. 2015, Mont. Not. RAS, 448, 3697
Shakura, N. & Sunyaev, R. 1973, A$\&$A, 24, 337
Shu, F.H. 1983, ApJ, 273, 202
Velikhov, E. 1959, Sov. Phys. JETP, 36, 995
Vlahos, L., Tsagas, C., Papadopoulos, D. 2005, ApJ, 629, L9
Weinberg S. 1972, [*Gravitation and Cosmology*]{} (John Wiley & Sons)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
0.8cm
[The Glueball Superpotential for $ G_2 $]{}
4ex 1.0cm
Osamu Saito\
1em [*High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK)*]{}\
-2ex [*Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan*]{}\
5ex =3.5ex
[**Abstract**]{}
2ex We perform a perturbative computation of the glueball superpotential for ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric $G_2$ gauge theory with one adjoint matter multiplet. We find that the computation simplifies because the bosonic momentum integral cancels with the fermionic momentum integral. The effective glueball superpotential allows us to gain an insight into non-perturbative aspect of the supersymmetric gauge theory.
November 2007
Introduction
============
The non-perturbative aspects of supersymmetric gauge theories have been investigated for a long time [@Seiberg:1994rs; @Seiberg:1994aj; @Seiberg:1994pq]. Recently, Dijkgraaf and Vafa have pointed out that we can gain insight into non-perturbative gauge theoretic phenomena from a perturbative perspective[@Dijkgraaf:2002dh]: The relevant physical quantity is the effective superpotential as a function of the glueball superfield $S$, which is believed to behave as an elementary field in the IR.
In [@Dijkgraaf:2002xd], the perturbative computation of the glueball superpotential was performed for $U(N)$ gauge theory with one adjoint matter. The analysis was purely field-theoretic and diagrammatic. It was shown that the computation dramatically simplifies: only the [*planar* ]{} diagrams contribute and furthermore the evaluation reduces to zero-dimensional field theory, i.e, a matrix model because of supersymmetry (for a review see [@Argurio:2003ym]).
Since the advent of [@Dijkgraaf:2002xd], various attempts have been done to extend the diagrammatic analysis of [@Dijkgraaf:2002xd]. For example, multi-trace interactions and baryonic interactions were investigated in [@Balasubramanian:2002tm] and in [@Argurio:2002hk], respectively. The $U(N)$ gauged model with spontaneously broken ${\cal N}=2$ supersymmetry was discussed in [@Itoyama:2007rr]. Other classical gauge groups were studied in [@Ita:2002kx] and [@Kraus:2003jf]. For $SO(N)/Sp(N)$ with an adjoint matter, Feynman diagrams are associated to orientable and non-orientable Riemann surfaces.
In this paper, we consider $G_2$ gauge theory with an adjoint matter. $G_2$ is different from classical gauge groups in that it has an invariant three-tensor $f_{ijk}$. We derive Feynman rules and show that new types of diagrams appear. Then we compute the effective glueball superpotential.
The paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we give a brief review of the perturbative computation of the glueball superpotential for classical gauge groups (in particular, $U(N)$ and $SO(N)$). In section 3 we investigate $G_2$ gauge group. Section 4 is devoted to conclusions and discussion. In appendix we summarize the properties of an invariant tensor $f_{ijk}$.
Perturbative computation of glueball superpotentials
====================================================
In this section we show, following [@Dijkgraaf:2002xd], how to compute the glueball superpotential. Let $\Phi$ be a massive chiral superfield and belongs to some representation of the gauge group. The starting point is the following ${\cal N}=1$ four dimensional action $$S_{{\bf SYM}}(\Phi,\bar{\Phi})=\int d^4 x d^4 \theta \bar{\Phi}e^{V}\Phi +\int d^4 x d^2 \theta W(\Phi)+h.c,$$ where $W(\Phi)$ is the gauge invariant superpotential. We use the conventions given in [@Gates:1983nr]. The gauge field strength ${\cal W}_{\alpha}(=i\bar{D}^2e^{-V}D_{\alpha}e^{V})$ is treated as background. The glueball superfield is defined by $$S=\frac{1}{32\pi^2}tr({\cal W}^{\alpha}{\cal W}_{\alpha}).$$ We are looking for the perturbative part of the effective superpotential of this system$\int d^2 \theta W^{pert.}_{eff}(S)$ as a function of the external glueball superfield $S$.
In [@Dijkgraaf:2002xd], it is shown that for our purpose the relevant action can be written as $$S_{{\bf SYM}}(\Phi)=\int d^4 x d^2 \theta \left( -\frac{1}{\bar{m}}\Phi(\Box-i{\cal W}^{\alpha}D_{\alpha})\Phi+W_{\bf tree}
(\Phi) \right).
\label{action}$$ In this derivation the anti-chiral superpotential is set to $$\bar{W}(\bar{\Phi})=\frac{1}{2}\bar{m}\bar{\Phi}^2$$ and the anti-chiral superfield $\bar{\Phi}$ is integrated out. Since the holomorphic quantity is independent of $\bar{m}$, we can set $\bar{m}=1$. The expression (\[action\]) is valid for any gauge groups. We discuss $U(N)$ theory in section 2.1 and $SO(N)$ in section 2.2.
$U(N)$ gauge theory with an adjoint matter
------------------------------------------
Let us consider $U(N)$ gauge theory interacting with a matter field $\Phi$ in the adjoint representation[@Dijkgraaf:2002xd]. In this case we see a dramatic simplification. To be specific we consider the following cubic superpotential $$W_{tree}(\Phi)=\frac{m}{2}tr(\Phi^2)+\frac{g}{6}tr(\Phi^3).
\label{cubic_superpotential}$$
The action (\[action\]) and the mass term of the superpotential (\[cubic\_superpotential\]) lead to $$\langle \Phi \Phi \rangle = \frac{1}{p^2+m+{\cal W}^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha}}
\label{propagator_U_N}$$ for the momentum space propagator. $p$ denotes the four-dimensional bosonic and $\pi$ denotes the fermionic momentum. Since we set $\bar{m}=1$, the expression (\[propagator\_U\_N\]) is not manifestly dimensionally correct. Feynman diagrams corresponding to the propagator and cubic interaction can be represented as Fig.\[Feynman\_U\_N\].
![The propagator and the cubic vertex in terms of ’t Hooft double line notation[]{data-label="Feynman_U_N"}](Feynman_U_N.eps)
We use the ’t Hooft double line notation to keep track of the gauge index structure.
In order to compute the purely holomorphic part of the full partition function $Z^{\prime}$: $$Z^{\prime}=\int {\cal D}\Phi e^{-S_{\bf SYM}(\Phi)},$$ we have to evaluate vacuum diagrams such as Fig.\[vacuum\_diagram\_U\_N\].
![The vacuum diagrams of $U(N)$ gauge theory[]{data-label="vacuum_diagram_U_N"}](vacuum_diagram_U_N.eps)
In double line notation we associate each ribbon Feynman diagram to a two-dimensional surface(or Riemann surface). This is done by filling in every index loop with a disk. For example diagram $(a)$ and $(b)$ are associated to $S^2$ while $(c)$ is associated to a torus $T^2$. In the case of $U(N)$ gauge theory with an adjoint matter, we obtain [*orientable*]{} and closed surfaces.
One of the remarkable fact is that only $S^2$ graphs (or planar graphs) contribute to the glueball superpotential. To show this we begin by investigating the propagator (\[propagator\_U\_N\]) in detail. We introduce a Schwinger parameter $s$ and expand the exponential with respect to the fermionic momentum: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{p^2+m+[{\cal W}^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em}\cdot \hspace{0.3em}]}&=& \int_0^{\infty} ds
e^{-s\left(p^2+m+[ {\cal W}^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em}\cdot\hspace{0.3em} ]\right)} \nonumber \\
&\hspace{-8em}=& \hspace{-5em}\int_0^{\infty}e^{-s\left(p^2+m\right)}
\left( 1-s[{\cal W}^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em}\cdot\hspace{0.3em}]
+\frac{s^2}{2}\left( [{\cal W}^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em}\cdot\hspace{0.3em} ]
[{\cal W}^{\beta}\pi_{\beta},\hspace{0.3em} \cdot\hspace{0.3em}]\right) \right)\hspace{2em}.
\label{pro}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\pi_{\alpha}$ is a Grassmann two-component spinor, the expansion stops at the second order. Since the fields are in the adjoint representation of $U(N)$, the action of ${\cal W}$ is through commutators. The propagators (\[pro\]) can be represented as Fig.\[insertion\_U\_N\]. We can insert at most two $W^{\alpha}$ in each propagator. One important aspect of the propagator is the fact that the superfield ${\cal W}_{\alpha}$ is correlated with the fermionic momentum: ${\cal W}$ always appears with $\pi$.
![The propagator with insertions of the gauge field strength ${\cal W}^{\alpha}$. The dots denote the insertions of ${\cal W}^{\alpha}$[]{data-label="insertion_U_N"}](insertion_U_N.eps)
Let $P$ be the number of propagators, $V$ be the number of vertices and $I$ be the number of index loops (for example, $P=3$, $V=2$ and $I=3$ for the diagram $(a)$). Euler’s theorem tells us that $$V-P+I=\chi,
\label{Euler}$$ where $\chi$ is the Euler number. The Feynman diagram also has some number $L$ of momentum loops. Using the relation $L=P-V+1$, the above equation (\[Euler\]) can be written as $$I-L=\chi -1.
\label{Euler_2}$$ In a diagram with $L$ loops we have to integrate over $2L$ Grassmannian momenta $\pi_{\alpha}$. Since these momenta necessarily appear in bilinears together with the background gauge field ${\cal W}^{\alpha}$, a diagram with $L$ loops will contribute precisely a factor of $({\cal W})^{2L}$ (with various possible gauge and spinor index contractions) to the effective superpotential. Since we are computing the superpotential for $S \sim tr(WW)$, $({\cal W})^{2L}$ must be arranged as follows $$tr(WW)tr(WW)\cdots tr(WW).$$ This requires that the number of trace be greater than or equal to the momentum loop. Since the number of traces coincides with the number of index loops, the following relation must be satisfied $$I \geq L.$$ Using the eq.(\[Euler\_2\]), we get the following constraint on the topology of graphs $$\chi \geq 1.$$ This means that in the case of the matter field in the adjoint of $U(N)$, we are concerned with $S^2$ graphs ($\chi =2$), that is planar graphs. Non-planar diagrams do not contribute to the glueball superpotential. It is worth noting that we do not have to take large $N$ limit to project out the planar diagrams. Planarity is an exact consequence of supersymmetry.
The planar diagrams at two-loop orders are diagram$(a)$ and $(b)$ depicted in Fig. \[vacuum\_diagram\_U\_N\]. Let us compute the “stop sign” diagram $(a)$. The amplitude is as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2 !}\cdot 3 \cdot \left(\frac{g}{6}\right)^2 \int ds_1 ds_2 ds_3
\frac{d^4 p_1}{(2\pi )^4} \frac{d^4 p_2}{(2\pi )^4} d^2 \pi_1^2 d^2 \pi_2^2
e^{-s_1(p_1^2+m+[{\cal W}^{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em} \cdot \hspace{0.3em}] \pi_{1\alpha})} \nonumber \\
\times e^{-s_2(p_2^2+m+[{\cal W}^{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em} \cdot \hspace{0.3em}] \pi_{2\alpha})}
e^{-s_3((-p_1-p_2)^2+m+[{\cal W}^{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em} \cdot \hspace{0.3em}] (-\pi_{1\alpha}-\pi_{2\alpha}))}.\end{aligned}$$ The bosonic integral is straightforward $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{boson} &=& \int \frac{d^4 p_1}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4 p_2}{(2\pi )^4} e^{-s_1p_1^2-s_2p_2^2-s_3(p_1+p_2)^2}\nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{(4\pi )^4}\frac{1}{(s_1s_2+s_2s_3+s_3s_1)^2}.
\label{bosonic_integral}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the computation of the fermionic integral: $$Z_{fermion}=\int d^2 \pi_1 d^2 \pi_2 e^{-s_1 [{\cal W}^{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em}\cdot \hspace{0.3em}]\pi_{1\alpha}}
e^{-s_2 [{\cal W}^{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em}\cdot \hspace{0.3em}]\pi_{2\alpha}}
e^{-s_3 [{\cal W}^{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em}\cdot \hspace{0.3em}](-\pi_{1\alpha}-\pi_{2\alpha})}$$ is more involved. In order to saturate the $\pi$ integral, four ${\cal W}$ have to be inserted at some point of the three index loops. We put two ${\cal W}$ on two index loops and leave the third loop without insertion(Fig.\[insertion\_U\_N\_vacuum\]) .
![The “stop sign” diagrams with ${\cal W}$ insertions. We fixed the outer index loop to be free.[]{data-label="insertion_U_N_vacuum"}](insertion_U_N_vacuum.eps)
Summing up the all contributions we obtain $$Z_{fermion}=3NS^2(4\pi )^4(s_1 s_2 +s_2 s_3+s_3 s_1)^2,$$ where the factor of $3$ counts the number of ways to pick one free (no ${\cal W}$ insertion) index loop out of 3 index loops. $N$ comes from the trace over the free index loop: $tr(1)=N$. Comparing with the result of the bosonic integral (\[bosonic\_integral\]), we observe the striking fact that the $s_i$ dependent part of the numerator and the denominator exactly cancel: $$Z_{boson}Z_{fermion}=3 N S^2.$$ The result is independent of the Schwinger parameters $s_i$. Now the integral over $s_1, s_2$ and $s_3$ becomes trivial $$\int ds_1 ds_2 ds_3 e^{-m(s_1+s_2+s_3)}=\frac{1}{m^3}.$$ The final result for the stop sign diagram is thus $$\frac{1}{24}\frac{g^2}{m^3}3NS^2.$$
In general the amplitude corresponding to a planar diagram $\gamma$ can be written as $$A^{\gamma}_{planar}=c_{\gamma}\int \prod_{i=1}^P ds_i e^{-s_i m}Z_{boson}Z_{fermion},$$ where $c_{\gamma}$ denotes the numerical factor. It is shown that the product of the bosonic momentum integral $Z_{boson}$ and the fermionic momentum integral $Z_{fermion}$ is independent of the Schwinger parameters $s_i$ and given by $$Z_{boson}Z_{fermion}=NIS^L. \hspace{2em}(I=L+1)
\label{Z_U_N}$$ The integral over the Schwinger parameters are easily carried out $$\int \prod_{i=1}^P d s_i e^{-s_i m}=\frac{1}{m^P}.$$ Thus, all that is left from the propagators is a contribution of $\frac{1}{m}$. This factor can be reproduced by a mass term in the zero dimensional action $\frac{m}{2}tr(\Phi ^2)$. In this way the computation of glueball superpotential reduces to the evaluation of a zero dimensional field theory, i.e, matrix theory.
It was shown in [@Dijkgraaf:2002xd; @Cachazo:2002ry] that the perturbative part of the effective superpotential $W_{eff}(S)$ of $U(N)$ gauge theory is related to the free energy of the matrix model whose potential equal to the tree level superpotential: $$W^{pert.}_{eff}(S)=N\frac{\partial {\cal F}_0(S)}{\partial S},$$ where ${\cal F}_0$ is the planar contribution to the free energy and the glueball-field $S$ is identified with the ’t Hooft coupling $gN$ of the matrix model.
We have investigated the perturbative part of the glueball superpotential so far. The full effective superpotential also includes the Veneziano-Yankielowicz term: $$W_{eff}(S)=W_{VY}(S)+W^{pert.}_{eff}(S).$$ $W_{VY}$ is given by ([@Veneziano:1982ah]) $$W_{VY} (S)=-h S\left(\log \left(\frac{S}{\Lambda}\right) -1 \right),$$ where $h$ is the dual Coxeter number of the gauge group ($h =N$ for $U(N)$) and $\Lambda$ is the scale of the gauge theory. $W_{VY}$ is the pure gauge part of the effective superpotential and is included “by hand” in our approach.
$SO(N)$ gauge theory with an adjoint matter
-------------------------------------------
The $SO(N)$ gauge theory with an adjoint matter was discussed in [@Ita:2002kx]. The adjoint fields of $SO(N)$ are antisymmetric $N \times N$ matrices: $$\Phi_{mn}=-\Phi_{nm}$$ and their free propagator in momentum space is proportional to the projector $P_{klmn}=\frac{1}{2}(\delta_{km}\delta_{ln}-\delta_{lm}\delta_{kn})$ [@Ita:2002kx; @Kraus:2003jf] $$\langle \Phi_{kl}\Phi_{mn}\rangle =\left( \frac{P}{p^2+m+[{\cal W}^{\alpha},\hspace{0.3 em}\cdot \hspace{0.3em}]
\pi_{\alpha}}\right)_{klmn}
= \left( \int_0^{\infty} ds e^{-s (p^2 +m+[{\cal W}^{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em}\cdot \hspace{0.3em}]\pi_{\alpha})}
\right)_{klmn}.$$ For $SO(N)$ there are two-types of propagators: one is represented by parallel lines and the other is by crossed lines (Fig.\[propagator\_SU\_N\]).
![The free propagator of $\Phi$ in terms of ’t Hooft double line notation.[]{data-label="propagator_SU_N"}](propagator_SO_N.eps)
The crossed lines with ${\cal W}$ insertions are represented in Fig.\[insertion\_SO\_N\].
![The twisted propagators with ${\cal W}$ insertions. The dots denote the ${\cal W}$ insertions.[]{data-label="insertion_SO_N"}](insertion_SO_N.eps)
As a consequence of the crossed lines, vacuum diagrams contain not only orientable Riemann surfaces but also non-orientable surfaces. As discussed above, diagrams with $\chi \geq 1$ contribute to the glueball superpotential. Since $RP^2$ graphs meet the requirement $\chi \geq 1$, they have non-vanishing contribution to the glueball superpotential.
It was shown in [@Ita:2002kx] that for the $RP_2$ graph the product of the bosonic integral and the fermionic integral becomes $$Z_{boson}Z_{fermion}=-4 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^P S^L.
\label{Z_SO_N}$$ As in the case of $S^2$ graphs, the Schwinger parameters cancel between bosons and fermions. This means that the computation of the glueball superpotential reduces to the evaluation of the zero-dimensional field theory.
Using the above fact, Ita [*et al*]{} computed the glueball superpotential for the quartic interaction: $$W_{tree}(\Phi) = \frac{m}{2}tr(\Phi^2 ) +2g \ tr (\Phi^4)$$ and they obtained the following result $$W^{pert.}_{eff}(S)= (N-2)[3S^2\left(\frac{g}{m^2}\right) +36 S^3 \left( \frac{g}{m^2}\right)^2+\cdots ].$$
$G_2$ gauge theory with an adjoint matter
=========================================
In this section we extend the analysis to $G_2$ gauge theory with an adjoint matter. $G_2$ differs from other Lie groups in that it has invariant three-rank tensor $f_{ijk}$, where $i,j$ and $k$ run from $1$ to $7$ [@Cvitanovic:1976am]. We summarize the properties of $f_{ijk}$ in appendix.
The adjoint fields satisfy the following relations $$\Phi_{mn}=-\Phi_{nm}, \quad f_{ijk}\Phi_{jk}=0.$$ Their free propagator $\langle \Phi_{ij}\Phi_{kl}\rangle$ is proportional to the projector $$P_{ijkl}=\frac{1}{2}(\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}-\delta_{il}\delta_{jk})-\frac{1}{6}f_{ijm}f_{mkl}.
\label{projector}$$ This projector is of course idempotent: $P=P^2$. The rule for multiplying four-index objects is $$(AB)_{ijkl}=\sum_{mn}A_{ijmn}B_{mnkl}.$$ The presence of the three sorts of terms in the projector (\[projector\]) means that in double line notation we have three types of propagators, displayed in Fig.\[propagator\_G\_2\].
![The three types of propagators.[]{data-label="propagator_G_2"}](propagator_G_2.eps)
The propagator in momentum space becomes $$\langle \Phi_{ij}\Phi_{kl}\rangle =\left(\frac{P}{p^2+m+[{\cal W}^{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em}\cdot \hspace{0.3em}]\pi_{\alpha}}
\right)_{ijkl} = \left( \int_0^{\infty} ds e^{-s(p^2+m+[{\cal W}^{\alpha}, \hspace{0.3em}\cdot \hspace{0.3em}]\pi_{\alpha}
)}P\right)_{ijkl}$$ By expanding the fermionic part, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left( e^{-s[ W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em}\cdot\hspace{0.3em} ]}P\right)_{ijkl}
&=& P_{ijkl}-s\left([W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em}\cdot\hspace{0.3em} ]P\right)_{ijkl}
+\frac{s^2}{2}\left( [W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em}\cdot\hspace{0.3em} ]
[W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha},\hspace{0.3em} \cdot\hspace{0.3em}] P\right)_{ijkl}
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&=& \frac{1}{2}\left( \delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}-\delta_{il}\delta_{jk}\right)-\frac{1}{6}f_{ijm}f_{mkl} \nonumber \\
&& +s \left( -\frac{1}{2}(W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha})_{ik}\delta_{lj}+\frac{1}{2}\delta_{ik}(W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha})_{lj}
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{1.7em}+\frac{1}{2}(W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha})_{il}\delta_{kj}-\frac{1}{2}\delta_{il}(W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha})_{kj}\nonumber \\
&& \left. \hspace{1.7em}+\frac{1}{6}f_{ijka}(W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha})_{ab}f_{bkl}\right) \nonumber \\
&& +\frac{s^2}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2}(W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha}W^{\beta}\pi_{\beta})_{ik} \delta_{lj}
-(W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha})_{ik}(W^{\beta}\pi_{\beta})_{lj}
+\frac{1}{2}\delta_{ik}(W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha}W^{\beta}\pi_{\beta})_{lj} \right. \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{2.1em} -\frac{1}{2}(W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha}W^{\beta}\pi_{\beta})_{il}\delta_{kj}
+(W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha})_{il}(W^{\beta}\pi_{\beta})_{kj}
-\frac{1}{2}\delta_{il}(W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha}W^{\beta}\pi_{\beta})_{kj}\nonumber \\
&&\left. \hspace{2.1em}-\frac{1}{6}f_{ija}(W^{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha}W^{\beta}\pi_{\beta})_{ab}f_{bkl}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We show the propagators including the three-tensor $f$ with ${\cal W}$ insertions in Fig. \[insertion\_G\_2\].
![The propagators with ${\cal W}$ insertions[]{data-label="insertion_G_2"}](insertion_G_2.eps)
Since the new type of propagator appears, the number of the diagrams contributing the glueball superpotential increases. For the quartic superpotential: $$W_{tree}(\Phi) = \frac{m}{2}tr (\Phi^2) +2g \ tr(\Phi^4),$$ we have to evaluate the diagrams sketched as in Fig.\[two\_loop\_G\_2\] at two-loop order.
![The ribbon Feynman diagrams contributing the glueball superpotential at two-loop level.[]{data-label="two_loop_G_2"}](two_loop_G_2.eps)
As in the case of $U(N)$ and $SO(N)$, we find that the product of the bosonic integral and the fermionic integral is independent of the Schwinger parameters[^1] $$Z_{boson}Z_{fermion} =(const.)S^L.
\label{Z_G_2}$$ This means that the computation reduces to the evaluation of a zero-dimensional field theory. Although the cancellation of the Schwinger parameters simplifies the calculation, the numerical factors of eq.(\[Z\_G\_2\]) seem to obey no obvious rule (see eq.(\[Z\_U\_N\]) for $U(N)$ and eq.(\[Z\_SO\_N\]) for $SO(N)$). The evaluation of the numerical factor must be done diagram by diagram.
We obtain the following result: $$W_{eff}(S)=4S\left( 1-\log\left( \frac{S}{\Lambda^3}\right) \right) +8\frac{g}{m^2}S^2+\frac{176}{3}\frac{g^2}{m^4}S^3+\cdots .
\label{final_result}$$ The Veneziano-Yankielowicz term is included “by hand”($h=4$ for $G_2$).
Finally we extremize $W(S)$ with respect to the $S$: $\frac{d W}{d S}=0$. The glueball $S$ acquire vacuum expectation values (glueball condensation): $$\langle S \rangle =\Lambda^3+4 \frac{g}{m^2}\Lambda^6 + 68\frac{g^2}{m^4}\Lambda^9 +\cdots,
\label{gaugino_condensation}$$ spontaneously, breaking the chiral symmetries of the low energy effective gauge theory. Substituting eq.(\[gaugino\_condensation\]) into eq.(\[final\_result\]), in other words, integrating out $S$, we obtain $$W_{eff}=4\Lambda^3+8\frac{g}{m^2} \Lambda^6 +\frac{272}{3}\frac{g^2}{m^4}\Lambda^9 +\cdots.
\label{eff}$$ The first terms of eq.(\[gaugino\_condensation\]) and eq.(\[eff\]) are coming from pure gauge sector. On the other hand, the $\Lambda^6$ terms and $\Lambda^9$ terms are coming from a matter field and depend on $W_{tree}(\Phi)$. Thus we obtain the non-perturbative correction to the gaugino condensation and effective Lagrangian. ($\Lambda^6$ terms and $\Lambda^9$ terms are the non-perturbative correction due to a fractional instanton of charge $\frac{1}{2}$ and $\frac{3}{4}$ respectively.) In this way, minimizing the effective superpotential turns a perturbative effect into the non-perturbative correction. It seems to be difficult or (nearly) impossible to obtain the eq.(\[gaugino\_condensation\]) and eq.(\[eff\]) by traditional means.
Conclusions and Discussion
==========================
In this paper, following the diagrammatic approach of [@Dijkgraaf:2002xd], we performed the perturbative computation of the glueball superpotential for $G_2$ gauge theory with an adjoint matter. The computation simplified because of the cancellation between the bosonic momentum integral and the fermionic integral and reduced to the evaluation of zero-dimensional field theory. We evaluated $W(S)$ up to three-loop order. And then, by extremizing the glueball superpotential with respect to $S$, we gained the non-perturbative information about the gauge theory.
Finally, we discuss an ambiguity at higher orders. In [@Kraus:2003jf], Kraus and Shigemori calculated the glueball superpotential for $Sp(N)$ with an antisymmetric matter and found a discrepancy between the perturbative glueball superpotential results and standard supersymmetric gauge theory results. The discrepancy showed up at order $h$, the dual Coxeter number. The reason is that $S^h$ is classically zero and the perturbative computation beyond this order makes no sense. The classical relation $S^h =0$ was proven for $U(N)$ in [@Cachazo:2002ry], for $SO(N)/Sp(N)$ in [@Witten:2003ye], and for $G_2$ in [@Etingof:2003dd]. In the case of $G_2$ gauge theory, the perturbative computation is valid up to three loops. We evaluated the glueball superpotential up to this order. The resolution of the ambiguity at higher order is discussed in [@Aganagic:2003xq].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to thank Yoshihisa Kitazawa for useful discussions.
Appendix $G_2$ invariant three-tensor $f_{ijk}$ {#appendix-g_2-invariant-three-tensor-f_ijk .unnumbered}
===============================================
$G_2$ has invariant three-tensor $f_{ijk}$ ($i,j,k$ run from 1 to 7)[@Cvitanovic:1976am; @Pesando:1995bq; @Giddings:1995ns]. The following identities are satisfied. $$f_{iln}f_{jkn}+f_{jln}f_{ikn}=2\delta_{ij}\delta_{lk}-\delta_{il}\delta_{jk}-\delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}$$ $$f_{iln}f_{jln}=6\delta_{ij}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
f_{ijm}f_{mkn}f_{nlp}&=& + \delta_{ik}f_{jlp}+\delta_{pk}f_{ijl}+\delta_{ip}f_{jkl}+\delta_{jl}f_{ikp}\nonumber \\
&&-\delta_{jk}f_{ilp}-\delta_{lk}f_{ijp}-\delta_{il}f_{jkp}-\delta_{jp}f_{ikl}\end{aligned}$$ $$f_{ijm}f_{mkn}f_{nli}=3f_{jkl}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
f_{aib}f_{bjc}f_{ckd}f_{dla}=5\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}-4\delta_{ik}\delta_{jk}+5\delta_{il}\delta_{jk}\end{aligned}$$ Since $f_{ijk}$ is an invariant tensor, the following identity is satisfied[@Cvitanovic:1976am] $$(T^a)_{im}f_{mjk}+(T^a)_{jm} f_{imk}+(T^a)_{km}f_{ijm}=0,$$ where $T^a (a=1,\cdots , 14)$ is the generator of $G_2$. By multiplying $W^{a\alpha}$, we obtain $$(W^{\alpha})_{im}f_{mjk}+(W^{\alpha})_{jm}f_{imk}+(W^{\alpha})_{km}f_{ijm}=0.$$
[99]{} N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Electric - magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**426**]{}, 19 (1994) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**430**]{}, 485 (1994)\] \[arXiv:hep-th/9407087\]. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in N=2 supersymmetric QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B [**431**]{}, 484 (1994) \[arXiv:hep-th/9408099\]. N. Seiberg, Nucl. Phys. B [**435**]{}, 129 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9411149\]. R. Dijkgraaf and C. Vafa, “A perturbative window into non-perturbative physics,” arXiv:hep-th/0208048. R. Dijkgraaf, M. T. Grisaru, C. S. Lam, C. Vafa and D. Zanon, “Perturbative computation of glueball superpotentials,” Phys. Lett. B [**573**]{}, 138 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0211017\]. R. Argurio, G. Ferretti and R. Heise, “An introduction to supersymmetric gauge theories and matrix models,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**19**]{}, 2015 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0311066\]. V. Balasubramanian, J. de Boer, B. Feng, Y. H. He, M. x. Huang, V. Jejjala and A. Naqvi, “Multi-trace superpotentials vs. matrix models,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**242**]{}, 361 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0212082\]. R. Argurio, V. L. Campos, G. Ferretti and R. Heise, “Baryonic corrections to superpotentials from perturbation theory,” Phys. Lett. B [**553**]{}, 332 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0211249\]. H. Ita, H. Nieder and Y. Oz, “Perturbative computation of glueball superpotentials for SO(N) and USp(N),” JHEP [**0301**]{}, 018 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0211261\]. P. Kraus and M. Shigemori, “On the matter of the Dijkgraaf-Vafa conjecture,” JHEP [**0304**]{}, 052 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0303104\]. H. Itoyama and K. Maruyoshi, Phys. Lett. B [**650**]{}, 298 (2007) \[arXiv:0704.1060 \[hep-th\]\]. S. J. Gates, M. T. Grisaru, M. Rocek and W. Siegel, “Superspace, or one thousand and one lessons in supersymmetry,” Front. Phys. [**58**]{}, 1 (1983) \[arXiv:hep-th/0108200\]. F. Cachazo, M. R. Douglas, N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Chiral rings and anomalies in supersymmetric gauge theory,” JHEP [**0212**]{}, 071 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0211170\]. G. Veneziano and S. Yankielowicz, “An Effective Lagrangian For The Pure N=1 Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory,” Phys. Lett. B [**113**]{}, 231 (1982). P. Cvitanovic, “Group Theory For Feynman Diagrams In Nonabelian Gauge Theories: Exceptional Groups,” Phys. Rev. D [**14**]{}, 1536 (1976). E. Witten, “Chiral ring of Sp(N) and SO(N) supersymmetric gauge theory in four dimensions,” arXiv:hep-th/0302194. P. Etingof and V. Kac, “On the Cachazo-Douglas-Seiberg-Witten conjecture for simple Lie algebras,” arXiv:math/0305175. M. Aganagic, K. Intriligator, C. Vafa and N. P. Warner, “The glueball superpotential,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**7**]{}, 1045 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0304271\]. I. Pesando, “Exact results for the supersymmetric G(2) gauge theories,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**10**]{}, 1871 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9506139\]. S. B. Giddings and J. M. Pierre, “Some Exact Results In Supersymmetric Theories Based On Exceptional Groups,” Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 6065 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9506196\].
[^1]: At three-loop order, in addition to the glueball $S^3$, other gauge invariant quantities such as $ f_{ijk}f_{lmn}
{\cal W}^{\alpha}_{ia}({\cal W}_{\alpha})_{al}{\cal W}^{\beta}_{jb}({\cal W}_{\beta})_{bm}{\cal W}^{\gamma}_{kc}
({\cal W}_{\gamma})_{cn}$ appear. Since we are looking for the glueball superpotential, we neglect other gauge invariant quantities.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Devanshu Arya
- Stevan Rudinac
- Marcel Worring
bibliography:
- 'arxiv\_version.bib'
title: 'HyperLearn: A Distributed Approach for Representation Learning in Datasets With Many Modalities'
---
<ccs2012> <concept> <concept\_id>10010147.10010257.10010293.10010319</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computing methodologies Learning latent representations</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10010147.10010178.10010219</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computing methodologies Distributed artificial intelligence</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>300</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10010147.10010257.10010258.10010262</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computing methodologies Multi-task learning</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>300</concept\_significance> </concept> </ccs2012>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the properties of 12 ultra-massive passively evolving early type galaxies (ETGs) at $z_{\rm phot}>1.4$ in the COSMOS 2 deg$^2$ field. These 12 ETGs were selected as [$pBzK$s]{}, have accurate $1.4\lesssim z_{phot} \lesssim 1.7$, high Sérsic index profiles typical of ellipticals, no detection at 24$\mu$m, resulting in a complete ETG sample at $M*>2.5\times10^{11}M_\odot$ (Chabrier IMF). Contrary to previous claims, the half light radii estimated in very high S/N imaging data from HST+ACS are found to be large for most of the sample, consistent with local ellipticals. If the high redshift ETGs with $M*<2.5\times 10^{11}M_{\odot}$ are really small in size and compact as reported in previous studies, our result may suggest a “downsizing" scenario, whereby the most massive ETGs reach their final structure earlier and faster than lower mass ones. However, simulating galaxies with morphological properties fixed to those of local ETGs with the same stellar mass show that the few compact galaxies that we still recover in our sample can be understood in term of fluctuations due to noise preventing the recovery of the extended low surface brightness halos in the light profile. Such halos, typical of Sérsic profiles, extending even up to 40 kpc, are indeed seen in our sample.'
author:
- |
C. Mancini$^{1}$[^1],E. Daddi$^{2}$, A. Renzini$^{1}$, F. Salmi$^{2}$, H. J. McCracken$^{3}$, A. Cimatti$^{4}$, M. Onodera$^{2}$, M. Salvato$^{5}$, A. M. Koekemoer$^{6}$, H. Aussel$^{2}$, E. Le Floc’h $^{2,7}$, C. Willott$^{8}$\
$^{1}$Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (INAF-OAPD), Vicolo dell’Osservatorio 5, I-35122, Padova Italy\
$^{2}$CEA-Saclay,DSM/DAPNIA/Service d’Astrophysique, 91191 Gif-Sur Yvette Cedex, France\
$^{3}$Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, UMR7095, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 98 bis Boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris, France\
$^{4}$Dipartimento di Astronomia, Università di Bologna, via Ranzani 1, I-40127 Bologna, Italy\
$^{5}$California Institute of Technology, 105-24 Robinson, 1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena CA 91125, USA\
$^{6}$Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA\
$^{7}$Institute for Astronomy, Univ. of Hawaii, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA\
$^{8}$Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council, 5071 West Saanich Rd, Victoria, BC V9E 2E7, Canada
bibliography:
- 'CM\_v1.bib'
title: 'High-redshift elliptical galaxies: are they (all) really compact?'
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies:evolution – galaxies:formation –galaxies: high redshift – galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD.
Introduction
============
Understanding the formation processes of galactic spheroids, i.e., bulges and early-type galaxies (ETG), remains a central theme in the context of galaxy formation and evolution. The discovery of a widespread population of passively evolving ETGs at $z>1.4$ proved that quenching of star formation in massive galaxies is well under way by $z\sim 2$ [@2004Natur.430..181G; @2004Natur.430..184C].
Further studies of high redshift ETGs then revealed an unexpected property of a sizable fraction of them: many such ETGs appear to have much smaller effective radii ($\re$, by factors $\sim 2$ to $\sim 4$) with respect to ETGs of comparable stellar mass ($M*$) in the local Universe (Daddi et al. 2005, D05), a result then confirmed by several other studies . ETGs with similar stellar densities appear to be extremely rare in the local Universe [@2009ApJ...692L.118T], although it has been argued that such compact high redshift ETGs have survived as the cores of present-day massive spheroids [@2009arXiv0903.2479H].
It has also been argued that the $\re -M*$ relation for ETGs would keep evolving also from $z\sim 1$ all the way to $z\sim 0$, with a steady increase of $\re$ for given $M*$ [@2008ApJ...688...48V; @2009arXiv0901.1318B].
The formation of very compact ETGs at high redshift may not be a problem: submillimetre galaxies appear to have comparable masses (largely in gas form) and radii, hence may likely be precursors to compact ETGs , turning into them upon expulsion of their residual gas. However, no generally accepted explanation has yet been established on how such compact ETGs would evolve into their present descendants, i.e., how they can inflate to reach 2–4 times larger effective radii.
ETG-ETG (dry) merging soon appeared to be a plausible mechanism [e.g., @2006ApJ...648L..21K], but most such events would result in an increase of both mass and radius such to move galaxies parallel to the local $R_{\rm e}-M*$ relation, rather than towards it (Cimatti et al. 2008; Saracco et al. 2009). Moreover, major dry merging events may be too rare anyway, as the vast majority of high-$z$ ETGs do not appear to have close ETG companions of similar brightness (Cimatti et al. 2008). Having excluded major mergers, accretion of many satellites (i.e., minor dry mergers) were then considered, either adding an extended envelope to the compact core (Cimatti et al. 2008), or expanding such core by gravitationally heating [@2007ApJ...658..710N]. It has also been suggested that the expansion of high-$z$ ETGs would be the result of AGN feedback driving the rapid expulsion of the residual gas [@2008ApJ...689L.101F], but such expansion must take place in at most a few dynamical times ($\sim 10^8$ yr), hence only very few objects could be caught as already passive and still compact.
On the other hand, the possibility that the apparent small radii may not be real was not completely excluded. This could be either the effect of part of the light coming from a centrally concentrated source (e.g., an AGN or central starburst), or to some systematic bias not having been taken in full account (D05). Recently, @2009AJ....137.3942L have argued for the presence of a radial age gradient in local ETGs, that would result in an apparent decrease of $\re$ with increasing redshift, as the younger, more centrally concentrated population differentially brightens w.r.t. the older and broader stellar component. However, there appears to be no strong colour gradients in the few cases in which both optical and near-IR HST imaging is available for high-$z$ ETGs [e.g. @2007ApJ...671..285T], or within different ACS bands (D05).
In this letter we present the results of two-dimensional (2D) surface brightness profile fitting of a complete sample of 12 extremely massive ETGs ($M*>2.5\times 10^{11}M_{\odot}$) at $z\gtrsim
1.4$, using the HST+ACS/WFC images of the COSMOS 2 deg$^2$ field [@2007ApJS..172..196K]. Selection of high-z ETGs over such a large area allows us to pick the most massive/luminous high-$z$ ETGs, and tackle the size issue with the highest S/N ratio.
Data, sample selection, and SED fitting
=======================================
A sample of extremely massive ETGs was extracted from the catalogue of $K$-selected galaxies in the 2 deg$^2$ COSMOS field (McCracken et al. 2009). From this catalogue we extracted all the objects with $\ks({\rm Vega})<17.7$, whose corresponding $BzK$ plot is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]. From this sample we then selected the brightest galaxies satisfying the passive BzK galaxy criterion of @2004ApJ...600L.127D, for which the $\ks({\rm Vega})<17.7$ limit roughly corresponds to $M*> 2.5\times 10^{11}\msun$ at $z\sim1.5$ for a Chabrier IMF. This resulted in a sample of 22 sources, having retained only galaxies with IRAC 3.6 $\mu$m detections with separations $<0''.6$ from the $K$-band positions, a criterion required to avoid objects affected by blending in the IRAC and MIPS images [see, e.g. @2007ApJ...670..156D]. We notice that 4 star-forming $BzK$ galaxies ([$sBzK$]{}) are found to $K<17.7$, after excluding likely AGNs among [$sBzK$s]{}, i.e., the blue squares with $(z-K)<1.6$ in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]. The colours of these 4 objects are close to the [$pBzK$]{} boundary and in principle some genuine ETG could have been scattered there just by photometric errors noise. However, we find that all 4 objects are well detected at $24~\mu$m.
![The $BzK$ two-colour diagram for all objects with $\ks<17.7$ (Vega system) in the COSMOS field. The 12 bona-fide passive ETGs are shown as red circles. Blue squares with $(z-K)<1.6$ are most likely AGN dominated galaxies, having point-like morphology and/or X-ray emission. The remaining blue squares with redder $(z-K)$ colours show [$sBzK$]{} galaxies and [$pBzK$]{} contaminants rejected for being star-forming. The blue solid line and the red dots in the bottom show the expected colours for the stars , overlapping with the locus of real star sequences.[]{data-label="fig:fig1"}](f1.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Since these 22 [$pBzK$]{}-selected objects could include heavily dust-reddened star-forming galaxies at $z<1.4$, we carefully checked the properties of the sample to solidly identify the bona-fide ETGs and discard possible contaminants. We requested all of the following criteria for retaining ETG candidates:
i\) non detection at 24 $\mu$m in the [*Spitzer*]{}+MIPS data [@2007ApJS..172...86S]. We used the most recent deep catalogue by Aussel & Le Floc’h, reaching 5$\sigma$ completeness levels down to 80$\mu$Jy (Le Floc’h et al. 2009, submitted to ApJ). This corresponds to a limit of Star Formation Rate (SFR) $<50 M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ for $z\sim1.5$, using the models of Chary & Elbaz (2001);
ii\) elliptical like compact morphology, based on a visual inspection of the ACS $I$–band images (Fig. \[fig:fig2\]);
iii\) multicolour SEDs best fitted with old, passively evolving populations with no dust reddening as showing in Fig. \[fig:fig3\]. SEDs were constructed using COSMOS photometry in the $B$-, $i$-, $z$-, $J$, $Ks$-band data consistently with McCracken et al (2009), expanded to include photometry in the first 3 IRAC bands (from Ilbert, Salvato, & S-COSMOS collaboration, @2009ApJ...690.1236I.
We found that 12 of the 22 [$pBzK$]{} galaxies do satisfy all these criteria and are retained as our sample of bona-fide $z\gtrsim1.4$ ETGs. The remaining 10 galaxies that were discarded are found to fail multiple criteria in most cases: they tend to be 24$\mu$m detected (6/10), have irregular (or point like, unresolved) morphologies in the ACS imaging (7/10), are best fitted by star forming galaxy templates with large amounts of reddening (7/10), or show evidence for strong AGN contamination of the optical/near-IR light (3/10) as indicated by the ‘power law’ shape of the SED and X-ray and/or radio detection. These criteria are very efficient in selecting truly passively evolving ETGs, as confirmed by their spectroscopic identification in the HUDF by D05.
{width="\columnwidth"}{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}{width="\columnwidth"}
Photometric redshifts and stellar masses were derived from the SEDs using the [[*Hyperz*]{}]{} code , and fitting photometric data with simple stellar populations (SSP) as well as with composite populations described by $\tau$-models (SFR$\propto e^{-t/\tau}$, with $\tau=$ from 0.1 Gyr to $\infty$), and using the population models of @2005MNRAS.362..799M. This parametrisation of the star formation history may be inappropriate for actively star forming galaxies (especially at high redshifts), because it assumes that all galaxies are caught at their minimum SFR. However, for passively evolving galaxies this assumption may not affect appreciably the redshift and mass determinations, as their SFR is indeed $\sim0$.
The 10 galaxies that we discarded as dusty contaminants are found to be at $z_{\rm phot}<1.4$. All 12 bona-fide ETGs have photometric redshifts in the range of $1.4<z_{\rm phot}<1.7$, are fitted by SSP models [@2005MNRAS.362..799M] older than $\sim 1$ Gyr (i.e., with strong 4000Å/Balmer breaks), and have stellar masses in the range $2.5\times 10^{11}<M*<4\times
10^{11}M_\odot$, adopting the @2003PASP..115..763C IMF, as reported in Table \[tab:tab1\]. Following D05 and Maraston et al. (2006) we expect that photometric redshifts of ETGs computed in this way should be accurate to within $\Delta z\lesssim0.1$.
Surface brightness profile fitting and simulations
==================================================
We used GALFIT [@2002AJ....124..266P] to fit 2D @1968adga.book.....S profiles to the $I$-band (F814W filter) ACS images of the 12 ETGs. The median integration over the COSMOS field is 2028 s, the pixel-scale is $\sim
0\farcs05$, and the FWHM of the PSF is $\sim0\farcs097$. GALFIT was run on sky-subtracted images, obtained by the [[*SExtractor*]{}]{}software . Thus, the sky was fixed to a null value in the GALFIT procedure, and the galaxy Sérsic index ($n$), effective radius (), and total magnitude ($m_{814}$) were left as free parameters. Other free parameters in the fit are the object position ($x_{\rm c}$, $y_{\rm c}$), the position angle (PA) of the major axis $a$, and the axis ratio ($b/a$) between minor and major axis. On the other hand, leaving both $n$ and the sky background as free parameters in GALFIT may lead to unreliable results for galaxies with intrinsically high values of $n$ (see the GALFIT home page[^2]). For each galaxy the adopted PSF was obtained from the closest suitable bright unsaturated star. We verified that swapping PSF by using different stars in the COSMOS field or synthetic PSFs, built by means of the Tiny Tim[^3] gives virtually identical results. When galaxy isophotes partially overlap with bright close neighbours, we fitted galaxy and neighbours simultaneously (this was the case for objects \#136738, \#157677, \#200390, \#254025). For smaller and fainter neighbours we used masked regions. Weight maps were used accounting for shot noise and sky noise.
{width="\textwidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:fig2\] we show the galaxy ACS I-band images, the corresponding GALFIT best fit model, and the residuals for each object. The best-fit parameters $m_{814}$, the Sérsic index $n$ (which measures the light central concentration), and the half light radius $\re$ (i.e. circularised radius of the ellipse containing half of the total luminosity of the best-fitting Sérsic profile) are reported in Table \[tab:tab1\]. As shown in Fig. \[fig:fig4\] and Table 1, only 3 of the 12 objects have very small effective radii for their mass ($0.25<\re <0.48$ arcsec, i.e., $\sim 2$ to $\sim 4$ kpc at $z\sim 1.5$). This qualifies them as ‘compact’, compared to the local ellipticals, whereas the remaining 9 objects appear to be consistent with local ETGs, although the effective radii of some of the objects with the largest size (e.g., \#136738, \#535544, \#157677) have also very large intrinsic uncertainties. For all the objects but one we found $n>3$, as expected for typical ETGs. The exception is object \#307881, one of the smallest in the sample, which may consist of a bulge plus an exponential disk. On the contrary, the highest Sérsic index ($n=7.29\pm 0.58$) is found for object \#136738. A large $n$ generally indicates an highly centrally concentrated light profile, compatible with such massive elliptical galaxy. However, for this object the presence of some structure at the centre of the residual image (Fig. \[fig:fig2\]) suggests that a central unresolved point-source (probably an AGN) may have contributed to increase the $n$ value. Thus, we fitted object \#136738 by adding a central point-source, finding =1.22 arcs ($\sim$ 10 kpc at $z=1.6$), $n\sim4$ and $m_{814}$=22.28 for the Sérsic component, and a magnitude of $m_{814}$=25.88 for the point source component. We conclude that the possible presence of a point-source would decrease by almost a factor of 2 the resulting $n$ value, but it would not dramatically affect the large ($\geq 10$ kpc) found for this object, still consistent with the size of similarly massive local ETGs.
Fig. \[fig:fig4\] shows that our 12 ETGs span a large range in size, although they have very similar masses. A large scatter in the size distribution was also found in other studies for less massive galaxies. Note that the 3 smallest objects in our sample, with $\re\lesssim 4$ kpc, are among the faintest in the full sample of 12 ETGs, and are all fainter than $m_{814}=22.9$. This leads us to wonder if the 3 small galaxies are really small as we have measured, or if their apparent small $\re$ is due to an observational bias. Thus, what we would like to clarify is whether the recovered distribution of $n$ and $\re$ for our $z>1.4$ ETG sample, including the 3 apparently small galaxies, could still be consistent with the local distribution of these structural parameters.
In order to answer this question we have constructed a simulated set of galaxies all having $\re=7$ kpc and $n=6$, which are the typical values for local ETGs with stellar masses as large as those estimated for the 12 ETG objects at $z>1.4$ [@2003MNRAS.343..978S; @1993MNRAS.265.1013C]. The GALFIT package was used to generate synthetic galaxies with the chosen light profile and having total fluxes similar to those of our ETG sample. The simulated galaxies were placed in empty sky regions of the COSMOS ACS image, close to our real galaxies (within $\sim 1$ arcmin), resulting in similar values of background noise. The noise and PSF images were constructed as for the real observed galaxies, and we tested that the results were not substantially altered if we used different PSF stars for creating and fitting the simulated galaxies.
In the two panels of Fig. \[fig:fig7\] the local average $\re-M*$ and $n-\re$ relations and their 1 $\sigma$ dispersion are compared with $\re$, $n$, and masses of our 12 ETGs, along with those obtained for 24 simulated objects, assuming different input luminosities, namely $m_{814,\rm in}$=22, 23, 23.5, and positions on the frame.
It is worth emphasising that all the 24 simulated galaxies have the same intrinsic effective radius and Sérsic index (i.e., we are neglecting here intrinsic size and $n$ scatter), and yet their output $R_{\rm e,out}$ and $n_{\rm out}$ well reproduce the large scatter in $\re$ and $n$ observed for our real sample. The spread in size for the simulated galaxies is a result of the spread in luminosity and of the different local background noise realisations, with a tendency to underestimate the size by up to a factor $\sim 3$ for the faintest objects, with $m_{814,\rm in}=23-23.5$. This suggests that the apparent compactness of the 3 smallest objects (that are also among the faintest ones) may be just a consequence of their lower S/N ratio, but intrinsically they could not be exceptionally small in size compared to local ETGs of the same mass. Thus, within our sample of 12 very high mass ETGs at $<z_{\rm phot}>\sim 1.6$ we do not find convincing evidence for the [*small size syndrome*]{} affecting other samples of high-$z$ ETGs. We conclude that the sample of 12 ETGs at $z>1.4$ shows a distribution of sizes that is fully consistent with those of local $z=0$ ETGs of the same mass.
![Mass vs size for ETGs at $z\geq1.4$, compared with the local relation (solid line) and its 1 $\sigma$ dispersion (dashed lines). The figure is adapted from Figure 15 of by adding our 12 ETGs, shown as red large filled pentagons. The open symbols represent a compilation of the literature results for passive galaxies: big open circles are from (GMASS-CDFS); open triangles from @2007MNRAS.374..614L and @2006ApJ...650...18T; open square are the HUDF passive-BzK of Daddi et al. (2005) and Maraston et al. (2006); open diamonds show the sample of van Dokkum et al. (2008) after a mass-rescaling of a factor $\sim 1.4$, to Maraston et al. (2005) models, for homogeneity with the other galaxies in the figure. The small open circles are from @2007ApJ...656...66Z (FIRES-HDFS), @2007ApJ...671..285T (FIRES- MS1054), @2008ApJ...682..303M, and @2004Natur.430..184C (K20 survey).[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](f4.ps){width="\columnwidth"}
\#ID RA(J200) Dec(J200) m$_{814}$ (arcs) (kpc) n z$_{ph}$ log(M\*) age A$_V$ $K_s$
-------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ---------- ------ ------- -------
93409 10:01:27.0044 01:39:53.1198 22.73$\pm$0.08 0.78$\pm$0.11 6.70$\pm$0.92 4.26$\pm$0.34 1.52 11.45 2.40 0.08 17.68
112083 09:59:11.4551 01:42:25.2173 22.93$\pm$0.05 0.44$\pm$0.04 3.73$\pm$0.32 3.33$\pm$ 0.21 1.61 11.63 2.75 0.00 17.51
125656 10:00:22.9577 01:44:16.8353 22.53$\pm$0.07 0.73$\pm$0.09 6.26$\pm$0.81 4.37$\pm$ 0.35 1.43 11.48 2.75 0.08 17.66
136738 09:59:47.0280 01:45:52.2360 21.98$\pm$0.11 2.02$\pm$0.45 17.27$\pm$3.84 7.29$\pm$ 0.58 1.59 11.64 2.40 0.00 17.35
157677 10:01:34.2920 01:48:32.0022 22.51$\pm$0.20 3.20$\pm$1.06 27.36$\pm$9.03 4.46$\pm$ 0.62 1.70 11.58 2.50 0.00 17.64
200390 10:01:01.9974 01:54:32.4251 23.43$\pm$0.11 0.68$\pm$0.14 5.81$\pm$1.24 4.57$\pm$ 0.60 1.61 11.47 2.00 0.08 17.68
217431 10:02:39.5288 01:56:59.1162 21.85$\pm$0.12 2.22$\pm$0.47 18.92$\pm$3.98 4.81$\pm$ 0.44 1.61 11.57 2.40 0.00 17.56
254025 10:02:28.4912 02:02:13.6899 22.50$\pm$0.06 0.68$\pm$0.07 5.79$\pm$0.61 4.14$\pm$ 0.26 1.71 11.64 2.10 0.08 17.54
307881 10:02:35.6396 02:09:14.3640 22.95$\pm$0.04 0.37$\pm$0.02 3.16$\pm$0.20 1.92$\pm$ 0.12 1.52 11.53 2.50 0.08 17.59
399354 10:02:49.4055 02:21:47.4012 22.98$\pm$0.14 0.75$\pm$0.20 6.39$\pm$1.60 4.57$\pm$ 0.64 1.70 11.59 2.30 0.08 17.63
472257 10:01:06.0754 02:31:35.1966 23.04$\pm$0.04 0.25$\pm$0.02 2.13$\pm$0.14 3.63$\pm$ 0.23 1.52 11.46 2.40 0.00 17.69
535544 10:00:00.6592 02:40:29.6220 22.29$\pm$0.09 1.06$\pm$0.16 9.03$\pm$1.39 4.76$\pm$ 0.35 1.41 11.41 2.30 0.16 17.54
From left to right: [**\#ID**]{}: identification number in the catalogue of McCracken et al (2009); [**RA(J2000)**]{} and [**Dec(J2000)**]{}: coordinates from WIRCAM/$K$-band data set; [**m$_{814}$**]{}: ACS F814W $I$–band magnitude; [****]{}: effective radius in arcseconds and kpc; [**n**]{}: Sérsic index; [**z$_{ph}$**]{}: photometric redshifts, [**log(M\*)**]{}: galaxy stellar masses in M$_{\odot}$ units; mean stellar [**age**]{} in Gyrs; [**A$_V$**]{} reddening parameter; [**$K_s$**]{}: $K$-band WIRCAM+CHFT magnitude in Vega system).
![In the top panel the stellar mass-size relation for our final sample of 12 ETGs (big open diamonds) is compared with the results obtained for 24 simulated objects (filled red symbols), all characterised by input Sérsic parameters of n$_{\rm in}$=6, $R_{\rm e,in}\sim 7$ kpc and magnitude m$_{814,\rm in}$=22 (red triangles), 23 (red diamonds), or 23.5 (red squares). The bottom panel shows the Sérsic index (n) - effective radius ($\re$) relation. The symbols are the same of the top panel. In both of the diagrams the local M\*–$\re$ and n–$\re$ relations with their 1 $\sigma$ dispersions, from @2003MNRAS.343..978S and @1993MNRAS.265.1013C, respectively, are represented as red solid and dashed lines. The black filled circle shows the input n and $\re$ values common to all the 24 simulated objects. Note the large scatter in measured effective radius and Sérsic index for the simulated objects, well reproducing the scatter observed for the real galaxies.[]{data-label="fig:fig7"}](f5.eps){width="1.1\columnwidth"}
![Simulated galaxies. $R_{\rm e,out}/R_{\rm e,in}$ (kpc) as a function of input magnitude ($m_{814,\rm in}$=20.5, 21, 22, 23, 23.5), for a fixed large value of effective radius, i.e. $R_{\rm e,in} \sim0.8$ arcsec, corresponding to $R_{\rm e,in}\sim 7$ kpc at $z\sim 1.5$, and different values of input Sérsic index, as labelled in the diagram. Worth noticing that the $R_{\rm e,out}$ estimate decreases with decreasing luminosity and increasing Sérsic index of the source.[]{data-label="fig:fig6"}](f6.ps "fig:"){width="1.0\columnwidth"}\
In order to understand these results and place them in the contest of previous findings we run a more general suite of simulations. We built 1200 synthetic galaxies with a much wider range of parameters: $\re$=0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, and 3.2 arcsec (corresponding to $\sim 2-30$ kpc at $z\sim 1.5$); $n$=2, 4, 6, and 8, and $m_{814}$=20.5, 21, 22, 23, and 23.5. In particular, since the ACS/F814W magnitudes of the galaxies in our sample are in the range $m_{814}\sim 22-23.5$, this allowed us to explore the size-estimate dependence on the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) over a range of S/N$\simeq 50-200$ (here as well as below we refer to the galaxy S/N as measured within a $1''$ diameter aperture).
![ [*Left:*]{} the ACS I-band image of \#136738 (see also Fig. \[fig:fig2\]), the most massive and $K$-band brightest ETG in our sample. We have masked the central bright core and convolved the image with a FWHM$=0\farcs5$ Gaussian kernel in order to enhance low surface brightness details. A very extended low surface brightness halo is clearly detected, surrounding the galaxy. [*Right:*]{} the original ACS I-band image without smoothing. []{data-label="fig:halo"}](f7.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
These simulations show that the size estimates is affected by a combination of three factors: i) the S/N of the galaxy image, ii) the intrinsic galaxy size (), and iii) the profile shape ($n$). The effects of these three factors are discussed below:
i\) As expected, the brighter the simulated objects, i.e. the higher the S/N, the better the accuracy in the recovered parameters. As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:fig6\], the fainter the input magnitude, the smaller the recovered effective radius, i.e., the stronger the underestimate of the size.
ii\) For simulated galaxies with parameters and S/N similar to those of our 12 real ETGs ($m_{814}\simeq 22-23.5$), the mean difference between the input and output effective radii turns out to be $<\Delta\re/\re>=<(R_{\rm e,in}-R_{\rm e,out})/R_{\rm
e,in}>\simeq 0.15$, with a dispersion of $\sigma(\Delta\re/\re)\sim0.46$, with most of this systematic offset and large dispersion being due to the largest simulated objects. For $R_{\rm e,in}<0''.8$ the average offset is very close to zero, with a small scatter. Beyond $R_{\rm e,in}=0\farcs8$ we found that the output $\re$ underestimates the input radius and the scatter increases.
iii\) The size estimates depend on the capability of recovering the Sérsic index, since the best fit parameters are correlated via the $n-\re$ and $n-M*$ relations [@1993MNRAS.265.1013C; @1994MNRAS.271..523D]. Thus, for input $n>4$ the output $n$ values tend to be underestimated up by a factor of $\sim 1.5$, and mostly for galaxies with the lowest S/N. Hence, this underestimate of $n$ is accompanied by a size underestimate, as illustrated in Fig \[fig:fig6\]. The recovered effective radius decreases with increasing $n$ index (and decreasing luminosity). Similar trends are generally found for simulated galaxies with $R_{\rm e,in}\gtrsim
3.5$ kpc.
These experiments confirm that for objects with large effective radius and Sérsic index, as ETGs with masses of $>2.5\times
10^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$ are expected to be, with the typical S/N of our 12 ETGs (i.e. S/N$\leq50-100$) one could still substantially underestimate $n$ and $\re$. This may be due to the fact that the halos in high Sérsic-index profiles are very extended and therefore have very low surface brightness, so that they can be easily missed in the noise at high redshift given that the surface brightness scales as $(1+z)^4$.
A remarkable exemplification of this situation is shown in Fig. \[fig:halo\] for the galaxy \#136738, the most massive and K-band brightest ETG in our sample. A giant low-surface brightness halo is clearly detected, extending over some 4$''$ in diameter around the galaxy (about 34 proper kpc at $z=1.5$), at a typical level of the order of 26 mag arcsec$^{-2}$. Given the faintness of this structure, it would be obviously very easy to miss in the noise similar halos at a lower S/N ratio.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
Over the 2 square degrees COSMOS field, we have identified and studied the 12 $K$-band brightest and most massive ($M>2.5\times10^{11}M_\odot$) ETGs at $z\gtrsim 1.4$. Out of them, 9 follow the same size-mass relation of local ellipticals, and 3 appear to have smaller effective radii. However, our simulations show that their effective radius may have been underestimated by a factor of 2–3 because of their lower S/N. Hence, for the whole sample we find no compelling evidence of departures from the local size-mass relation.
Most previous studies of high-$z$ ETGs were restricted to much smaller areas, hence they may have missed the brightest/largest ETGs similar to those reported here, as their surface number density is very low, i.e., $\sim 6.3\pm1.8$ deg$^{-2}$ to the limiting magnitude of the present sample. Using the redshift range $1.4<z<1.8$ to estimate the cosmological volume, this corresponds to a space density of $1.4\pm0.4\times10^{-6}$ Mpc$^{-3}$. This is roughly 10% of the space density of local ETGs selected with $M>2.5\times
10^{11}M_\odot$. It is not clear if the different results of the present work compared to previous studies of high-$z$ ETGs are due to the galaxies in our sample being much more massive than those in most previous works. Combining the results of our 12 massive ETGs with the literature results –so to span a wide range of masses (2 dex)– we note that the departure of ETGs at $1.4\leq z \leq 2$ from the $z=0$ size-mass relation seems to be differential with mass, with $\re(z=0)/\re(z)$ being on average close to 1 for the most massive systems, and $\sim 2-4$ for lower masses. This is reminiscent of the general downsizing scenario, whereby massive ETGs formed their stars and assembled their mass more rapidly and at higher redshifts compared to the less massive ones. Thus, the present results may extend the downsizing effect to the internal structure of ETGs, with the most massive ETGs reaching their internal and dynamical structure earlier and faster than lower mass ETGs at the same redshift.
However, we also argue that bias in the galaxy profile fitting could significantly affect the size measurements, as low-surface brightness halos could remain undetected in high redshift ellipticals if observed with low S/N ratios (e.g., Fig. \[fig:halo\]). Based on redshifted mock images of local systems, @2009arXiv0903.2479H also concluded that there is a tendency to underestimate the galaxy size which is more pronounced in the most massive galaxies, due to their large $\re$ and $n$. This is in agreement with the results of our simulations. They also stressed that elliptical galaxy profiles are not perfectly “Sérsic”, which would contribute to the size underestimate at high redshift.
Thanks to the exceptional brightness of our 12 ETGs, their S/N ratios in the single-orbit COSMOS $I$-band images are among the highest reached by HST+ACS imaging of high-$z$ ETGs, and are comparable to those obtained by @2005ApJ...626..680D for [$pBzK$s]{} in the extremely deep HUDF images. On average, their S/N ratio is also $\sim3$ times higher than that of galaxies in the GMASS study, which used GOODS-S $z$-band data . Hence, it is possible that also in these studies the effect of the noise has led to underestimate the size of some object by a factor of 2 or 3. used simulated objects to check the reliability of their derived effective radii, and estimated an average scatter on the galaxy size measurements of $\sim 20\%$, with no strong bias. This suggests that a size underestimate is unlikely to account for the small size obtained for the bulk of the GMASS high-$z$ ETGs. Still, the parameter space ($n$, $\re$, S/N) explored in the simulations of may not fully include that occupied by the real GMASS galaxies, hence we cannot exclude that also in this study the size of some of the intrinsically largest galaxies may have been underestimated by more than a 20%.
On the other hand, some studies using $H$-band (F160W) NICMOS-2 imaging [e.g. @2007MNRAS.374..614L; @2008ApJ...677L...5V] have also reached high S/N ratios, thanks to them sampling longer rest-frame wavelengths where the flux of ETGs is much stronger than in the near-UV. Using the NICMOS Exposure Time Calculator (ETC), we estimated that the S/N ratios of galaxies in @2007MNRAS.374..614L and @2008ApJ...677L...5V were on average quite comparable, or sometimes even slightly higher than the ones obtained for our COSMOS ETG sample. The masses of ETGs in the former study (open triangles in Fig. \[fig:fig4\]) are similar to those of our galaxies, and yet the derived effective radii are up to 3 times smaller than those of local ellipticals with similar masses. Based on simulations, the authors argued that their typical image resolution and S/N led to underestimate by $\sim 25\%$ the effective radii of galaxies with an intrinsic $n=4$ and radii in the range of $\sim 1-4$ kpc, and took into account this result in their galaxy size estimate. However, they did not verify the robustness of their fitting procedure in recovering the light profiles of galaxies with $\re>4$ kpc and $n>4$, typical of such extremely massive ETGs ($M>2.5\times10^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$), which we found instead to be affected by a substantial bias.
Similarly, @2008ApJ...677L...5V found their ETGs $\sim$5 times smaller compared to local ETGs of similar mass. However, their stellar masses were estimated using the stellar population models of @2003MNRAS.344.1000B that do not include stars in their TP-AGB phase, and therefore stellar masses of ETGs at $z\gtrsim 1.4$ might have been overestimated by a factor $\sim 1.5-2$ [@2006ApJ...652...85M], while the TP-AGB effect is negligible for local ETGs. In the size-mass diagram, this mass re-scaling would reduce by $\sim 3$ times the average offset in size with respect to the local relation (as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig4\]). Moreover, allowing for a systematic underestimate of the size of the galaxies with lower S/N, similar to the one found by Longhetti et al. (2007) for lower-redshift ETGs in NIC2 images, we conclude that some galaxy in the study of @2008ApJ...677L...5V may actually follow the local size-mass relation.
@2009MNRAS.392..718S collected 32 high-redshift ETGs with archival NICMOS data, among which 13 have given size comparable to the local galaxies and the others are more than 1$\sigma$ smaller compared to the local relation. Also in this case, based on the above arguments, we cannot exclude that the size of the galaxies with lower S/N and lower resolution (those observed only with NICMOS-3) may have been underestimated. However, the authors suggested an age-dependent evolution, with the [*young ETGs (mean stellar age $< 2$ Gyr) being more similar to their local counterparts, and the [*old ETGs*]{} being denser. Our results cannot confirm such claim, as our best-fit ages are all confined within a very narrow range (see Table \[tab:tab1\]).*]{}
A potentially powerful test of the reliability of the size estimates of high-$z$ ETGs consists in measuring their velocity dispersion $\sigma_{\star}$, which would allow us to check for the consistency of the three quantities entering the virial relation: $M_{\rm
dyn}\simeq5\times\re\sigma_{\star}^2/G$, with the constraint of the stellar mass being less than the dynamical mass. Due to the limits of the present-day telescopes, the low S/N of the available spectra of ETGs at $z>1.4$ allowed only a few attempts in this direction, most of which based on the analysis of average stacked spectra of several objects [@2009ApJ...696L..43C; @2009arXiv0906.3648C]. Both these attempts are based on the GMASS sample of spectra , and within the errors found agreement between stellar and dynamical masses. However, @2009arXiv0906.3648C found a trend to underestimate the virial masses ($M_{\rm
dyn}$) on average by $\sim 30$%, that may be ascribed to a size underestimate by a similar quantity. Thanks to a $>7$ S/N ratio of their spectra, Cappellari et al. also measured the $\sigma_{\star}$ from the individual spectra of two of the galaxies with the largest size in the GMASS sample (whose sizes are consistent with those of local ETGs). The resulting agreement with the masses and sizes previously estimated by Cimatti et al. (2008) confirmed that these two objects are truly similar to local ETGs, as most of the ETGs in our sample. Most recently, @2009arXiv0906.2778V analysed the near-IR spectrum of an ETG at $z=2.2$ finding a very high velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{\star}\sim 510$ km/s), consistent with the small size measured for this object, which then suggests a strong structural/dynamical evolution from $z\sim 2$ to 0 for similarly massive ETGs. Yet, the relatively low S/N of the near-IR spectrum implies a fairly large uncertainty in the measured $\sigma_{\star}$. Recently some among us were able to obtain a good S/N near-IR spectrum of one of our 12 ETGs (object \# 254025) with the MOIRCS spectrograph at the SUBARU telescope, and a measurement of $\sigma_{\star}$ will be attempted (M. Onodera et al. in preparation).
We conclude that the fraction of high-redshift ETGs which are genuinely undersized with respect to local ETGs is still poorly known. Several massive ETGs at high redshift (certainly the majority in our sample) are as large as their local counterparts, and therefore recipes aimed at inflating putative small ETGs should avoid to create oversize ETGs at low redshifts out of those having already reached their final size at $z\gtrsim 1.4$. We also hint at a possible downsizing effect not only on stellar ages and mass assembly, but also on the structural properties of these galaxies, with the most massive ETGs being in all respects the first to reach their final configuration.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We wish to thank Swara Ravindranath and Paolo Cassata for useful discussions. This work has been supported by grants ASI/COFIS/WP3110+WP3400 I/026/07/0. CM, ED, FS, HJMCC, and MO acknowledge funding support of French ANR under contracts ANR-07-BLAN-0228 and ANR-08-JCJC-0008, and CM thanks CEA Saclay for hospitality and funding at the beginning of this work.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
[^2]: http://users.ociw.edu/peng/work/galfit/TFAQ.html\#sensitivity
[^3]: http://www.stsci.edu/software/tinytim software package [v. 6.3 @2004KristandHook]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Wojciech Kami[ń]{}ski'
bibliography:
- 'LQC.bib'
title: The volume operator in loop quantum cosmology
---
Introduction
============
In this note we will show that one should be careful with computing expectation values of apparently innocent observables in LQC [@Bojowald2005; @Ashtekar2011; @Bojowald2001; @Ashtekar2006b; @Ashtekar2003; @Ashtekar2006; @Ashtekar2006a] (as for example the volume operator $V$ that is of utmost importance) because they might be ill-defined in the evolved states. The obvious and reasonable remedy is to restrict to bounded observables like some functions of $V$, although in many cases functions like $\ln V$ are good enough. This is already a standard procedure for models with positive cosmological constant [@Pawlowski2016]. In this case the volume diverges already at the semiclassical level and it is physically well understood [@Pawlowski2012; @Kaminski2009b].
We will deal with various LQC models (including APS [@Ashtekar2006b], sLQC [@Ashtekar2007], MMO [@Martin-Benito2009] and sMMO [@MenaMarugan2011]) and the WDW model ($k=0$ without cosmological constant). There is no such issue for the models with negative cosmological constant, because every eigenstate of the Hamiltonian belongs to the domain of the volume operator. The same is true for APS $k=1$ model [@Ashtekar2007a] and we do not expect this phenomena to occure there. This issue is unrelated to the known non-selfadjointness of the models with positive cosmological constant [@Kaminski2009a]. As the recently introduced models [@Dapor2018; @Yang2009; @Garcia2019] exhibits similarity to both these cases [@Assanioussi2018], it is not clear what is the fate of our result in this modified setup.
The problem with finding suitable states in the volume domain was already mentioned in [@Martin-Benito2019]. Indeed, for both WDW and these LQC models we will prove that there are basically no states such that expectation value of the volume is finite under the evolution (see section \[intro-sec\] for notation).
\[thm\] The only vector $\phi\in{\mathcal H}_{{{WDW}}}$ that satisfies $$\exists t\not=0 \text{ such that both } \phi,\ e^{it\sqrt{Q}_{{{WDW}}}}\phi\in D(V_{{{WDW}}}^{\frac{1}{2}})$$ is the zero vector $\phi=0$. Similarly if vector $\phi\in{\mathcal H}_{{{LQC}}}$ satisfies $$\exists t\not=0 \text{ such that both } \phi,\ e^{it\sqrt{Q_{{{LQC}}}}_+}\phi\in D(V_{{{LQC}}}^{\frac{1}{2}})$$ then $\phi$ is a null eigenvector of $Q_{{LQC}}$, $Q_{{LQC}}\phi=0$.
Let us notice that there are no null eigenvectors for both APS and sLQC thus in this case the only such vector is the zero vector again. As the minimal assumptions on the state for expectation of the volume to be well-defined is exactly $\psi\in D(V^{\frac{1}{2}})$ we see that evolution of the volume is not well-defined (the volume become immediately infinity).
We will show (on example of WDW model) that the reason for this behaviour is some tail in the volume spectrum that is produced during evolution from low energy spectrum of the state. For the Gaussian state peaked at energy $p_0$ it is $$\rho(v)=\frac{C\sqrt{\sigma}t^2 e^{-2\sigma p_0^2}}{v\ln^4v}+O\left(\frac{1}{v\ln^5v}\right)$$ This tail is in some sense small in the classical limit due to the factor $e^{-2\sigma p_0^2}$, but it is also nonintegrable if one computes expectation value of the volume.
The occurence of the term is rooted in the square root in the definition of the Hamiltonian. In some models like sLQC the Hamiltonian can be written as $|A|$ where $A$ is a difference operator. If the initial state is peaked at the positive frequencies solutions then the difference between state evolved with the real Hamiltonian and the Hamiltonian without absolute value is small (it vanishes in the semiclassical limit). However as volume operator is unbounded it can still be infinite even on something extremely small. Evolution with the Hamiltonian without absolute value exhibits no problems (that is known in sLQC model). This is also the reason why we expect that the issue is absent in models with dust time like [@Husain2012], but it might be present in [@Pawlowski2014].
On the other hand, in numerical simulations one always deals with finite precision computations and finite integration domains. In order for the tail to be visible the range of volume integration need to be of order $e^{2\sigma p_0^2}$ that is far beyond the reach for assumed spreads $\sigma$ and mean value $p_0$ of the energy.
Models {#intro-sec}
======
Let us consider a following constraint [@Ashtekar2003; @Ashtekar2006] $$p_\phi^2-Q=0,$$ where the operator $Q$ commutes with $p_\phi$ and $\phi$ operators (it acts on geometric variable Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}^{geom}$). The initial physical Hilbert space ${{\mathcal H}}^{tot}$ consists of two copies of the geometric kinematical Hilbert space projected into nonnegative part of spectrum of $Q$[^1]. $${{\mathcal H}}^{tot}={{\mathcal H}}\oplus {{\mathcal H}},\quad {{\mathcal H}}=P_{\lambda\geq 0}(Q)({{\mathcal H}}^{geom}).$$ In the models under consideration $Q\geq 0$ thus ${{\mathcal H}}={{\mathcal H}}^{geom}$. There are two sectors of the solutions $$p_\phi=\pm \sqrt{Q}_+,$$ where $\sqrt{Q}_+=\sqrt{|Q|}P_{\lambda\geq 0}(Q)$. The relational observables (geometric observables at the given value of $\phi$) preserve this two sectors[^2]. In LQC one restricts physical Hilbert space to positive energy solutions and then the physical Hamiltonian is given by $\sqrt{Q}_+$ due to superselection rule [@Ashtekar2007].
Wheeler-DeWitt model
--------------------
We consider version of WDW operator on ${{\mathbb R}}_+$. The standard approach[^3] is $${{\mathcal H}}_{{WDW}}=L^2\left({{\mathbb R}}_+, \frac{dv}{v}\right),\quad Q_{{WDW}}=-\left(v\partial_v\right)^2.$$ The volume operator $V_{{WDW}}$ is the multiplication operator by $v$.
Loop quantum cosmology
----------------------
We will now describe standard LQC. Our description (where we skip again constants) covers APS and sLQC models directly (MMO and sMMO need to be rewritten in the $B(v)$ scalar product). We consider here only sector $\epsilon=0$ with parity assumption, but we expect that our method can be extend beyond that. The Hilbert space is[^4] $${{\mathcal H}}_{{LQC}}=\{\phi\colon {{\mathbb Z}}_+\rightarrow {{\mathbb C}},\ \|\phi\|<\infty\},\quad \|\phi\|^2=\sum_{v\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+} B(v)|\phi(v)|^2$$ and the operator $Q_{{LQC}}$ is defined by $$Q_{{LQC}}\phi(v)=-B(v)^{-1}\left(C^+(v)\phi(v+1)+C^0(v)\phi(v)+C^-(v)\phi(v-1)\right),$$ where we assumed $\phi(v)=0$ for $v\leq 0$. The functions $B$, $C^\pm$ and $C^0$ admits an expansion in inverse powers of $v$ and they are assumed to satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
B(v)&=\frac{1}{v}+O\left(\frac{1}{v^2}\right),\\
C^\pm(v)&=\alpha \left(v\pm \frac{1}{2}\right)+\beta+\frac{k^\pm}{v}+O\left(\frac{1}{v^2}\right),\\
C^0(v)&=-2\alpha v-2\beta+\frac{k^0}{v}+O\left(\frac{1}{v^2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where we assume:
1. $C^-(v)=C^+(v-1)\in{{\mathbb R}}$ and $C^0(v)\in{{\mathbb R}}$ and that $C^\pm(v)\not=0$,
2. $B(v)\not=0$,
3. $\alpha>0$ and $\beta\in{{\mathbb R}}$,
4. $k^++k^-+k^0=0$ (without this assumption the eigenfunction approaches WDW eigenfunctions with modified energy).
The operators that can be written for $v$ positive in the form $$B(v)^{-1}(h-h^*)A(v)(h-h^*),$$ where $h$ is a shift by $\frac{1}{2}$ and $$A(v)=\alpha v+\beta -\frac{k^0}{2v}+O\left(\frac{1}{v^2}\right)$$ satisfy the assumptions. This is the case of both APS and sLQC. Our assumptions are however satisfied also by MMO and sMMO prescriptions (see [@MenaMarugan2011][^5]).
The volume operator $V_{{LQC}}$ is multiplication operator by $v$.
Domain of the volume operator
=============================
We will base proof of the theorem on the following observation. Let us define
Let ${{\mathcal D}}_\gamma$ denote the space of holomorphic functions $$f\colon \{z\in {{\mathbb C}}\colon \Im z\in(-\gamma,0)\}\rightarrow {{\mathbb C}},$$ such that there exists a measureable function $\tilde{f}\colon {{\mathbb R}}\rightarrow {{\mathbb C}}$ that for any $g\in C^\infty_0({{\mathbb R}}\setminus \{0\})$ $$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0_+} \int dp\ g(p)f(p-i\epsilon)=\int dp\ g(p)\tilde{f}(p).$$
In fact the last equality defines $\tilde{f}(p)$ as a distributional boundary value limit for $p\not=0$.
\[thm-ex\] Let us assume that there exist two functions $$f_0, f_t\in {{\mathcal D}}_\epsilon$$ such that (almost everywhere on ${{\mathbb R}}\setminus\{0\}$) the boundary values satisfy $$\tilde{f}_t(p)=e^{it|p|}\tilde{f}_0(p),$$ then $f_t=f_0=0$.
The proof is based on the following
\[lm-zero\] Let $\tilde{f}$ be a distributional boundary limit of a holomorphic function $f\in {{\mathcal D}}_\epsilon$. If on some interval $I\subset {{\mathbb R}}\setminus \{0\}$, $\tilde{f}=0$ then $f=0$ everywhere.
Let us consider an extension of the function to the positive imaginary strip by $$f(p+iq)=\overline{f(p-iq)}$$ There exists also a distributional boundary value from the positive imaginary side. Moreover on $I$ both boundary values are equal. By the edge of the wedge theorem [@Rudin-edge] the function extends analytically through $I$. The extended function is zero because it is zero on an interval.
We can now prove theorem:
Suppose that $f_0$ is nontrivial. We know that boundary value function $\tilde{f}_0$ is not identically zero both for $p>0$ and $p<0$ (see lemma \[lm-zero\]). Let us now consider a holomorphic (in the strip) functions $$g_t(z)=f_t(z)-e^{izt}f_0(z).$$ For $p>0$ its boundary value is $\tilde{f}_t(p)-e^{ipt}\tilde{f}_0(p)=0$ thus $g_t=0$. Let us now compute its boundary value for $p<0$ $$\tilde{f}_t(p)-e^{ipt}\tilde{f}_0(p)=\left(e^{-ipt}-e^{ipt}\right)\tilde{f}_0(p).$$ However it needs to be zero almost everywhere. We obtain $\tilde{f}_0(p)=0$ for $p<0$ as $t\not=0$. This contradicts what we stated at the beginning and thus $f_0=0$. Similarly $f_t=0$ as the boundary value vanishes.
Volume operator in WDW theory
-----------------------------
We can rescale the functions by $v^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and then $$Q_{{WDW}}=\left(\frac{i}{2}(v\partial_v+\partial_v v)\right)^2,\quad {{\mathcal H}}=L^2({{\mathbb R}}_+, dv)$$ and the operator $V_{{WDW}}=v$.
We now consider evolution given by $H_{{WDW}}=\sqrt{Q_{{WDW}}}$. Let us change variables $x=\ln v$ and then (using again rescaling of the function to obtain standard scalar product) $$H_{{WDW}}=|p|=|i\partial_x|,\quad V_{{WDW}}=e^x.$$ The domain of the self-adjoint operator $V_{{WDW}}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ are all $L^2({{\mathbb R}})$ functions $f$ that satisfy $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx\ e^{x} |f|^2<\infty.$$
Let us state some property:
\[lm:dom\] Let $\phi(x)\in D(e^{\gamma x})$ for some $\gamma>0$ then $\hat{\phi}(p)\in L^2({{\mathbb R}})$ is a boundary value (in distributional sense) of a holomorphic function defined in $\{z\colon \Im z\in(-\gamma,0)\}$.
Let us notice that the functions $$\xi_z(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{e^{izx}}{e^{\gamma x}+1}$$ belong to $L^2({{\mathbb R}})$ for $\Im z\in (-\gamma,0)$ and they depend holomorphically on $z$. We define (as $(e^{\gamma x}+1)\phi\in L^2({{\mathbb R}})$) $$f(z)=\langle \xi_{-\overline{z}}, (e^{\gamma x}+1)\phi\rangle,$$ thus $f(z)$ is analytic for $\Im z\in(-\gamma,0)$.
Let us notice that for any $g\in C^\infty_0({{\mathbb R}})$ we have (in $L^2$ norm by the dominant convergence theorem) $$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0_+} \int dp\ \overline{g(p)}\xi_{-p-i\epsilon}(x)=\frac{1}{e^{\gamma x}+1}\tilde{g}(x),$$ where $\tilde{g}(x)$ is the inverse Fourier transform of $\overline{g}$ thus $$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0_+}\int dp\ g(p)f(p-i\epsilon)=\langle \tilde{g},\phi\rangle=\langle \bar{g},\hat{\phi}\rangle=\int dp\ g(p)\hat{\phi}(p).$$ Thus the boundary value of $f$ is $\hat{\phi}$.
Let us notice that lemma \[lm:dom\] shows that if $\phi$ belongs to $D(V_{{WDW}}^{\frac{1}{2}})$ then $\hat{\phi}\in {{\mathcal D}}_{1/2}$. By theorem \[thm-ex\] there exists no state in the domain of $D(V_{{WDW}}^{\frac{1}{2}})$ that stays in the domain under the evolution of WDW theory.
Volume operator in LQC
----------------------
Let us introduce a notation
We write $f_p(v)=O_p(v^{\gamma(p)})$ if there exists a continuous $C(p)>0$ for $p\in \left\{z\in {{\mathbb C}}\colon z\not=0,\ |\Im z|<\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\alpha}\right\}$ such that $$|f_p(v)|\leq C(p) v^{\gamma(p)},\quad v\in {{\mathbb Z}}_+.$$
Let us denote a solution to the difference equation (for all $v>0$) $$(Q_{{LQC}}-p^2)\phi_p=0,\quad \phi_p(1)=1,$$ where $\phi_p\colon {{\mathbb Z}}_+\rightarrow {{\mathbb C}}$.
We will now state the important properties of this functions that we will prove later
1. $\phi_p(v)$ is analytic in $p$ for every $v\geq 1$.
2. $\phi_p(v)=O_p\left(v^{\frac{|\Im p|}{\sqrt{\alpha}}}\right)$,
3. For any $g\in C^\infty_0({{\mathbb R}}\setminus \{0\})$ we define $$\label{eq:hilb}
\phi(v)=\int_{{\mathbb R}}dp g(p)\phi_p(v),$$ then $\phi\in {{\mathcal H}}_{{LQC}}$ and for any $t\in {{\mathbb R}}$ $$\label{eq:u}
e^{it\sqrt{Q_{{LQC}}}_+}\int_{{\mathbb R}}dp g(p)\phi_p=\int_{{\mathbb R}}dp e^{it|p|}g(p)\phi_p.$$
4. Vectors of the form $$\int_{{\mathbb R}}dp g(p)\phi_p\in P_{\lambda>0}(Q_{{LQC}}){{\mathcal H}}_{{LQC}}$$ for $g\in C^\infty_0({{\mathbb R}}\setminus \{0\})$ and they are dense in $P_{\lambda>0}(Q_{{LQC}}){{\mathcal H}}_{{LQC}}$.
The last two properties tell us also that $\phi_p$ for $p\in{{\mathbb R}}_+$ is the eigenfunction expansion and the positive part of the spectrum is absolutely continous and it is the whole ${{\mathbb R}}_+$.
Let us now take $\psi\in D(V_{{LQC}}^\frac{1}{2})$. Let us notice that $$f_\psi(p)=\sum_{v\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+} B(v)\phi_p(v)\overline{\psi(v)}$$ is locally uniformly absolutely summable for any $p\in \left\{z\in {{\mathbb C}}\colon z\not=0,\ |\Im z|<\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\alpha}\right\}$ because $v^{-\frac{1}{2}}\phi_p(v)\in {{\mathcal H}}_{{LQC}}$ and thus $$\sum_{v\in{{\mathbb Z}}_+} B(v)\phi_p(v)\overline{\psi(v)}=
\left\langle V_{{LQC}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\psi, V_{{LQC}}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\phi_p\right\rangle$$ and it is holomorphic in this domain.
Let us now suppose that $$\psi_t=e^{-it\sqrt{Q_{{LQC}}}_+}\psi\in D(V_{{LQC}}^\frac{1}{2}),$$ thus $f_{\psi_t}\in {{\mathcal D}}_{\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\alpha}}$ and moreover these functions just extends analytically through the real axis.
From the properties stated above and absolute summability we see that for any $g\in C^\infty_0({{\mathbb R}}\setminus \{0\})$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{{\mathbb R}}dp\ g(p)f_{\psi_t}(p)=\left\langle \psi_t,\int_{{\mathbb R}}dp\ g(p)\phi_p\right\rangle=\left\langle e^{-it\sqrt{Q_{{LQC}}}_+} \psi,\int_{{\mathbb R}}dp\ g(p)\phi_p\right\rangle=\\
&=\left\langle \psi,e^{it\sqrt{Q_{{LQC}}}_+} \int_{{\mathbb R}}dp\ g(p)\phi_p\right\rangle=\int_{{\mathbb R}}dp\ g(p)e^{it|p|}f_{\psi_t}(p).\end{aligned}$$ Thus as distributional limit is equal to pointwise limit $$f_{\psi_t}(p)=f_{\psi}(p)e^{it|p|}$$ for $p\in{{\mathbb R}}\setminus\{0\}$. From theorem \[thm-ex\] we obtain $f_{\psi}=0$ and thus $\psi$ is orthogonal to $P_{\lambda>0}(Q_{{LQC}}){{\mathcal H}}_{{LQC}}$ and the only such possible vector in the physical Hilbert space is a null vector of $Q_{{LQC}}$.
Derivation of the properties of $\phi_p$
----------------------------------------
In this section we will show the desired properties of functions $\phi_p$. We will use method of the transfer matrix (see [@Teschl] and for earlier application to LQC [@Kaminski2010a]).
There exists two functions $\psi_p^\pm(v)$ for $p\in\{z\in {{\mathbb C}}\colon z\not=0,\ |\Im z|<\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\alpha}\}$ such that
1. They satisfy $$Q_{{LQC}}\psi_p^\pm(v)=p^2\psi_p^\pm(v),\quad v\not=1.$$
2. We have $$\label{eq:asym}
\psi_p^\pm(v)=v^{\pm i \frac{p}{\sqrt{\alpha}}}\left(1+r_\pm^p(v)\right),$$ where $r_\pm^p(v)=O_p\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)$ and $r_\pm^p(v+1)-r_\pm^p(v)=O_p\left(\frac{1}{v^2}\right)$.
3. For every $v$, $\psi_p^\pm(v)$ is a holomorphic function.
Let us introduce ($N$ will be specified later) $$d_p^N(v)=1+\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{b_n(p)}{v^n}.$$ We will determine coefficients $b_n$ such that (it will be also $O_p\left(v^{-N-1}\right)$) $$\label{eq:vv}
C^+(v)d_p^N(v+1)d_p^N(v)+(B(v)p^2+C^0(v)) d_p^N(v)+C^-(v)=O\left(\frac{1}{v^{N+1}}\right).$$ Let us notice that the terms with $v$ and $1$ in the expansion in $v^{-1}$ vanish identically. The coefficient at the term with $v^{-1}$ of the equation is equal to $$\alpha b_1^2+k^++k^0+k^-+p^2=0,$$ thus with the assumption $k^++k^0+k^-=0$ we get two solutions $$b_1^\pm=\pm i\frac{p}{\sqrt{\alpha}}.$$ The term with $v^{-n}$ has the form $$\alpha\left(1-n+2b_1^\pm\right)b_n^\pm+ F_n(\{b_k^\pm\colon k<n\})=0.$$ where $F_n$ is a polynomial. As $1-n\pm i\frac{2p}{\sqrt{\alpha}}\not=0$ for $|\Im p|<\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\alpha}$ we can determine the coefficients recursively.
Let us introduce a transfer matrix $$C_v^p={\left(\begin{array}{cc} -\frac{B(v)p^2+C^0(v)}{C^+(v)} & -\frac{C^-(v)}{C^+(v)}\\ 1 & 0 \end{array}\right)}$$ and auxiliary functions $$\tilde{\phi}_p^{N\pm}(v)=\prod_{w=w_0}^v d_{p}^{N\pm}(w),\quad
V_v^p={\left(\begin{array}{cc} \tilde{\phi}_p^{N+}(v) &\tilde{\phi}_p^{N-}(v)\\ \tilde{\phi}_p^{N+}(v-1) &\tilde{\phi}_p^{N-}(v-1) \end{array}\right)},$$ where $w_0$ is chosen such that the $d_{p}^{N\pm}(w)\not=0$ and $d_{p}^{N+}(w)\not=d_{p}^{N-}(w)$ for $w\geq w_0$ (such $w_0$ is chosen locally in $p$). Let us notice that $$V_v^p=\underbrace{{\left(\begin{array}{cc} d_{p}^{N,+}(v)& d_{p}^{N-}(v)\\ 1 & 1 \end{array}\right)}}_{=M_p^N(v)}{\left(\begin{array}{cc} \tilde{\phi}_p^{N+}(v-1) &0\\ 0 &\tilde{\phi}_p^{N-}(v-1) \end{array}\right)}$$ and the simple computation shows that ($\det M_p^N(v)=2i\frac{p}{\sqrt{\alpha}v}+O_p(v^{-2})$) $$\|M_p^N(v)^{-1}\||=O_p(v).$$ Let us now notice that $$\ln \tilde{\phi}_p^{N\pm}(v)=\sum_{w=w_0}^v \ln d_{N,p}^\pm(w)=\sum_{w=w_0}^v \pm i\frac{p}{\sqrt{\alpha}v}+ O_p\left(\frac{1}{v^2}\right)=\pm i \frac{p}{\sqrt{\alpha}}\ln v+\operatorname{const}+ O_p(v^{-1}),$$ thus $|\tilde{\phi}_p^\pm(v)|=O_p(v^{\frac{|\Im p|}{\sqrt{\alpha}}})$ and $\tilde{\phi}_p^\pm(v)=Cv^{\pm i \frac{p}{\sqrt{\alpha}}}\left(1+\tilde{r}^\pm(v)\right)$ and $C$ depends analytically on $p$. The error terms satisfy $\tilde{r}^\pm(v)=O_p(v^{-1})$ and $\tilde{r}^\pm(v+1)-\tilde{r}^\pm(v)=O_p(v^{-2})$.
This allows us to estimate $$\|(V_v^p)^{-1}\|=O_p(v^{1+\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}|\Im p|}),\quad \|V_v^p\|=O_p(v^{\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}|\Im p|}).$$ Moreover from property of $d_{N,p}^\pm$ $$\|C_v^pV_v^p-V_{v+1}^p\|\leq O_p(v^{-N-2})\|V_{v-1}^p\|=O_p(v^{-N-2+\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}|\Im p|})$$ and finally $$\|(V_{v+1}^p)^{-1}C_v^pV_v^p-{\mathbb I}\|= O_p(v^{-N-1+2\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}|\Im p|}).$$ For sufficiently large $N$ it is summable and that means that there exists an invertible limit (it depends analytically on $p$) $$M_p=\prod_{w=w_0}^\infty (V_{w+1}^p)^{-1}C_w^pV_w^p=\lim_{v\rightarrow \infty} (V_{v+1}^p)^{-1}\left( \prod _{w=w_0}^\infty C_w^p\right)\ V_{w_0}^p$$ and it is fastly convergent (like $O_p(v^{-N+2\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}|\Im p|})$). Let us notice that this means $$\prod _{w=w_0}^v C_w^pV_{w_0}^{p}M_p^{-1}=V_{v+1}^p\left({\mathbb I}+O_p(v^{-N+2\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}|\Im p|})\right)=
V_{v+1}^p+O_p(v^{-N+3\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}|\Im p|}).$$ The first row of the lefthand side of the equation are solutions (for $v\geq w_0$) from (after normalization). The properties of $r_\pm^p(v)$ follows from expansion of $\tilde{\phi}_p^\pm(v)$. The solutions depends holomorphically on $p$ and moreover as they are uniquely determined by their asymptotic behaviour (error term in asymptotic expansion of the bigger solution is smaller then the second solution).
From the definition of $\phi_p$ we know that $\phi_p(v)$ is a polynomial in $p^2$ thus it is analytic. Let us now notice that we can write $$\phi_p=\alpha^+(p)\psi^+_p+\alpha^-(p)\psi^-_p,$$ where $\alpha^\pm$ are holomorphic. As $|\psi^\pm_p|= O_p\left(v^{\pm\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}\Im p}\right)$ we have also $\phi_p=O_p(v^{\alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}|\Im p|})$.
Let us introduce wronskian for two solutions $\phi$, $\psi$ $$w(\phi,\psi)=C^+(v)(\phi(v+1)\psi(v)-\phi(v)\psi(v+1)).$$ It is independent of $v$. We can compute $$\begin{aligned}
&w(\psi^+_p,\psi^-_p)=\lim_{v\rightarrow \infty} C^+(v)(\psi_p^+(v+1)\psi_p^-(v)-\psi_p^+(v)\psi_p^-(v+1))=\\
&=\lim_{v\rightarrow \infty} \alpha v((1+v^{-1})^{ip}(1+r_+^p(v+1))(1+r_-^p(v))-\\
&-(1+v^{-1})^{-ip}(1+r_+^p(v))(1+r_-^p(v+1)))
=2ip\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ The terms with $r_\pm^p$ cancel.
Let us denote the resolvent kernel for $p^2\notin {{\mathbb R}}$ $$K_p(w,v)=\left(\frac{1}{Q_{{LQC}}-p^2}\delta_v\right)(w),$$ where $\delta_v$ is the basis vector.
The standard formula for the kernel of the resolvent [@Teschl] is given by (for $\pm \Im p>0$) $$K_{p}^\pm(w,v)=\frac{1}{w(\psi^\mp_p,\phi_p)}\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\psi^\mp_p(w)\phi_p(v) & v<w\\
\phi_p(w)\psi_p^\mp(v) & v\geq w
\end{array}\right..$$ For any $\tilde{g}\in C_0^\infty({{\mathbb R}}_+)$ we have $$\tilde{g}(Q_{{LQC}})\delta_v=
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0_+} \int_0^\infty dx\ \tilde{g}(x)\frac{1}{2\pi i}\left(\frac{1}{Q_{{LQC}}-x-i\epsilon}-\frac{1}{Q_{{LQC}}-x+i\epsilon}\right)\delta_v.$$ Taking the pointwise limit we get $$\left(\tilde{g}(Q_{{LQC}})\delta_v\right)(w)=
\int_0^\infty dx\ \tilde{g}(x)\frac{1}{2\pi i}\left(K_{\sqrt{x}}^+(w,v)-K_{\sqrt{x}}^-(w,v)\right).$$ Let us notice that for $p\in{{\mathbb R}}$ from reality of $\phi_p$ and large $v$ behaviour of $\psi^\pm_p$ we have $\alpha^+(p)=\overline{\alpha^-(p)}$ and thus they are nonzero for $p\not=0$. For $p\not=0$ $$w(\psi^\mp_p,\phi_p)=\mp \alpha_p^\pm 2ip\alpha.$$ We get $$K_{p}^+(w,v)-K_{p}^-(w,v)=\frac{i}{2p\alpha|\alpha^+_p|^2}\phi_p(v)\phi_p(w)$$ and thus $$\left(\tilde{g}(Q_{{LQC}})\delta_v\right)(w)=\int_0^\infty dp\ \tilde{g}(p^2)\frac{1}{2\pi\alpha|\alpha^+_p|^2}\phi_p(v)\phi_p(w).$$ Let us now take a function (let us notice that $\phi_p(1)=1$) $$\tilde{g}(x)=2\pi\alpha|\alpha^+_{\sqrt{x}}|^2(g(\sqrt{x})+g(-\sqrt{x})),$$ then $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty dp g(p)\phi_p=\tilde{g}(Q_{{LQC}})\delta_1\in{{\mathcal H}}_{{LQC}}.$$ Moreover as $$e^{it\sqrt{Q_{{LQC}}}_+}\tilde{g}(Q_{{LQC}})\delta_1=\left(e^{it\sqrt{|x|}}\tilde{g}\right)(Q_{{LQC}})\delta_1,$$ we have also property .
Vectors of the form $\tilde{g}(Q_{{LQC}})\delta_v$ where $\tilde{g}\in C_0^\infty({{\mathbb R}}_+)$ are dense in $P_{\lambda>0}(Q_{{LQC}}){{\mathcal H}}_{{LQC}}$. They can be written in the form . This shows the last property.
Example in WDW theory
=====================
We will now explain this puzzling behaviour on the example of the Gaussian state in WDW theory. Let us consider a Gaussian state in momentum representation (as it is usually done in LQC as the momentum eigestates are also eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian) $$\hat{\psi}(p)=Ce^{-\sigma (p-p_0)^2+ix_0p},$$ where $C=\left(\frac{2\sigma}{\pi}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}$ is a normalization constant and we assume $p_0>0$. Let us notice that $\psi\in D(V_{{WDW}})$ as it is also a Gaussian. Let us now consider evolved state $$\hat{\psi}_t(p)=Ce^{-\sigma (p-p_0)^2+i(x_0p+t|p|)}.$$ We introduce also a state evolved by a hamiltonian “without absolute value” $$\hat{\chi}_t(p)=Ce^{-\sigma (p-p_0)^2+i(x_0p+tp)}.$$ Its Fourier transform is a gaussian too. Let us now notice that $$\hat{\psi}_t(p)-\hat{\chi}_t(p)=-2i \sin (tp)Ce^{-\sigma (p-p_0)^2+ix_0p}\Theta(-p).$$ We have the following fact
Let $f(p)$ be a function on the real line satisfying for $N\in {\mathbb Z}_+$
1. For all $0\leq n\leq N$ $$f^{(n)}(p)\in L^1({{\mathbb R}})\text{ and } C_n=\int_{-\infty}^\infty |f^{(n)}(p)|dp,\quad \lim_{p\rightarrow\pm\infty} f^{(n)}(p)=0,$$
2. $f$ is smooth everywhere except $0$ and the limits $$d_{n,\pm}=\lim_{x\rightarrow 0_\pm}f^{(n)}(p)$$ exist for $0\leq n\leq N$,
then the Fourier transform satisfies $$\hat{f}(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \frac{i^{n-1}\Delta_n}{x^{n+1}}+r_{N}(x),\quad \Delta_{n}=d_{n,+}-d_{n,-},$$ where $r_N(x)=o(x^{-N})$ (behaviour at $\pm\infty$) and $|r_N(x)|\leq \frac{C_N}{\sqrt{2\pi}} x^{-N}$.
Let us consider functions ($|f^{(n)}(p)|$ are integrable) $$F_\pm^n(x)=\frac{i^n}{x^n}\int_0^\infty dp\ f^{(n)}(\pm p)e^{\pm ipx}.$$ Let us notice that $|F_+^n(x)|+|F_-^n(x)|\leq C_n x^{-n}$. By Lebegue Riemann lemma the integrals are vanishing for large $x$ thus also $$F_\pm^n(x)=o(x^{-n}).$$ We can integrate by parts to get $$F_\pm^n(x)=\pm\frac{i^{n+1}}{x^{n+1}}d_{n,\pm}+F_\pm^{n+1}(x),$$ and summing $$F_\pm^0(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \frac{i^{n+1}}{x^{n+1}}d_{n,\pm}+F_\pm^{N}(x).$$ Finally $$\hat{f}(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}( F_+^0(x)+F_-^0(x))=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}
\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} \frac{i^{n+1}(d_{n,+}-d_{n,-})}{x^{n+1}}+r_{N}(x),$$ where $r_{N}(x)=o(x^{-N})$ and $|r_N(x)|\leq \frac{C_N}{\sqrt{2\pi}} x^{-N}$.
The function $\hat{\psi}_t-\hat{\chi}_t$ satisfies the assumptions of the lemma with $$\label{eq-Delta}
\Delta_0=0,\quad \Delta_1 =2itCe^{-\sigma p_0^2+ip_0x_0},\quad
\Delta_2=O(p_0e^{-\sigma p_0^2})$$ and as $\int_x^\infty dx\ x^{n}e^{-x^2}=O(x^{n-1}e^{-x^2})$ we have $$C_2=O\left(p_0e^{-\sigma p_0^2}\right),$$ thus $$\psi_t-\chi_t=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{-\Delta_1}{x^2}+r(x),$$ where $r(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{-i\Delta_2}{x^3}+o(x^{-3})=O(x^{-3})$ and moreover it is of order $p_0e^{-\sigma p_0^2}$. The function $$e^{x}\left|\frac{\Delta_1}{x^2}+O(x^{-3})\right|^2$$ is not integrable at $+\infty$ thus as $\chi_t$ is a gaussian we obtain $\psi_t\notin D(V_{{WDW}}^{\frac{1}{2}})$.
Spectral density of the volume in WDW model
-------------------------------------------
Let us now analyze $\psi_t(v)$ where $v=e^x$. Let us rewrite an asymptotic expansion in terms of $v$ variable (using change of measure $v^{-\frac{1}{2}}$) $$\psi_t(v)=\frac{\Delta_1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sqrt{v}\ln^2v}+O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{v}\ln^3v}\right)$$ The density $\rho(v)=|\psi_t(v)|^2$ is $$\rho(v)=\frac{|\Delta_1|^2}{2\pi v\ln^4v}+O\left(\frac{1}{v\ln^5v}\right)$$ Let us notice that $$|\Delta_1|^2=4t^2\sqrt{\frac{2\sigma}{\pi}} e^{-2\sigma p_0^2}$$ and it is small for semiclassically peaked states. The error term consists of the part that is slowly decaying with $v$ (it is nonintegrable if multiplied by $v$), but it is semiclassically small (it is of order $p_0^2e^{-2\sigma p_0^2}$) and the part that is not semiclassically small but it is fastly decaying with $v$. Thus although the state might be still peaked at semiclassical values (if we choose right dispersion and take the suitable limit) we see that there is a tail that is a source of the problem. As long as we take a function of $V$ that is integrable with this tail (for example any bounded function or $\ln V$ or $\ln^2 V$) we can regain semiclassical behaviour in the limit.
Summary
=======
We showed that the expectation value of the volume $\langle V_{{LQC}}\rangle_t$ is not well defined in standard LQC theory ($k=0$ and $\Lambda=0$ coupled to the massless scalar field). It is extremely nonclassical behavior, however problems can be avoided if one restricts to the bounded operators like $\operatorname{arctg} V$, that is already a standard practise for LQC with positive comological constant [@Pawlowski2016] (we conjecture that in the case of $\Lambda=0$ the expectation value of $\ln V$ is already well behaved). The reason for this puzzling behaviour (as shown on example of WDW model) is the contribution from low energy part of the spectrum that produces a nonintegrable tail. This long tail is however extremely small (beyond reach of numerical simulations and so it went unnoticed). Moreover, it disappears in the semiclassical limit. We do not know to what extent our result apply also to the models proposed by [@Dapor2018; @Yang2009]. Let us also mention that our example shows that the restrictions derived using moments approach [@Bojowald2007; @Bojowald2012] can be avoided in some models.
Quantum cosmology allows us to gain insight into quantum gravity. With this point of view we would like to propose a solution to the aforementioned issue that is applicable in general loop quantum gravity [@Ashtekar-Lewandowski; @thiemann]. Considering only bounded operators is the most obvious one. If one nevertheless wants to consider unbounded operators one can argue that avoidance of nonanalytic operations (like a square root) would also lead to better behaved theory. However, there are many nonanalytic operations in the current constructions of the LQG hamiltonians as well as the volume operator.
On the other hand within the framework of group averaging (with ordering prescription of geometric observables mixing sectors) there is no reason to restrict to the sector of the positive energy solutions. Our result may also indicates that such restriction is not justified. We can conjecture that removing this restriction will solve the issue.
0.2cm **Acknowledgements:** We thank Tomasz Paw[ł]{}owski and Jerzy Lewandowski for useful discussions.
[^1]: The question if one should include null vectors $P_0(Q_{{LQC}})$ is disputable.
[^2]: If we obtain observables by group averaging technique then there exist orderings that preserves and ordering that mixes sectors [@Kaminski2009b].
[^3]: We are working in the ”natural” units (for example $4v_0=1$) and we skip constants. They are unimportant for the issue addressed in this paper and can be easily restored.
[^4]: Inclusion of $v=0$ does not alter our result.
[^5]: Operator $\Theta$ in [@MenaMarugan2011] differs from $Q_{{LQC}}$ due to another scalar product.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper examines the existence and region of convergence of Fourier transform of the functions of bicomplex variables with the help of projection on its idempotent components as auxiliary complex planes. Several basic properties of this bicomplex version of Fourier transform are examined.'
author:
- |
A Banerjee$^{1}$[^1], S K Datta $^{2}$[^2], Md. A Hoque $^{3}$[^3]\
$^{1}$Department of Mathematics, Krishnath College, Berhampore, Murshidabad 742101, India\
$^{2}$ Department of Mathematics, University of Kalyani, Nadia 741235, India\
$^{3}$Gobargara High Madrasa (H.S.),Hariharpara, Murshidabad 742166, India\
title: Fourier transform for functions of bicomplex variables
---
Keywords: ***Bicomplex numbers, Fourier transform***
Introduction
============
The theory of bicomplex numbers is a matter of active research for quite a long time since the seminal work of Segre [@segre] in search of a special algebra. The algebra of bicomplex numbers are widely used in the literature as it becomes a viable commutative alternative [@spam1; @spam2] to the non-commutative skew field of quaternions introduced by Hamilton [@ham] (both are four-dimensional and generalization of complex numbers). The commutativity in the former is gained at the cost of the fact that the ring of these numbers contains zero-divisors and so can not form a field [@price]. However the novelty of commutativity of bicomplex numbers is that the later can be recognized as the complex numbers with complex coefficients as it’s immediate effect and so there are deep similarities between the properties of complex and bicomplex numbers [@ol]. Many recent developments have aimed to achieve different algebraic [@shp1; @shp2; @dim; @goyal] and geometric [@ya1; @ya2; @cha] properties of bicomplex numbers, the analysis of bicomplex functions [@Ga; @Moro; @Ry; @Sri; @ronn] and its applications on different branches of physics (such as quantum physics,High energy physics, Bifurcation and chaos etc) [@Xu; @Krsh; @qntm1; @roch1; @roch2; @Mart] to name a few.\
In two recent developments [@kk; @ban] efforts have been done to extend the Laplace transform and its inverse transform in the bicomplex variables from their complex counterpart. In their procedure the idempotent representation of the bicomplex variables plays a vital role. Actually these idempotent components are complex valued and the bicomplex counterpart simply is their combination with idempotent hyperbolic numbers. The Laplace transform of these idempotent complex variables within their regions of convergence are taken and then the bicomplex version of that transform can be obtained directly by combination of them with idempotent hyperbolic numbers. The region of convergence in the later case will be the union of the respective regions of those idempotent complex variables. Bicomplex version of the inversion of Laplace transform is achieved by employing the residual procedure on both the complex planes in connection to idempotent representation.\
In the same spirit we take up the study for existence of Fourier transform and the region of convergence in bicomplex variables. The Fourier transform [@chand; @kaiser] is actually a reversible operation employed to transform signals between the spatial (or time) domain and the frequency domain. Most often in the literature $f$ is a real valued function and its Fourier transform $\hat{f}$ is complex valued where a complex number describes both the amplitude and phase of a corresponding frequency component.\
In this paper one of our concern is to extend the Fourier transform in bicomplex variables from its complex version that can capable of transferring signals from real-valued $(t)$ domain to bicomplex frequency $(\omega)$ domain. The later should have two idempotent complex frequency components $\omega_1 \mbox{ and }\omega_2 $.\
The organization of our paper is as follows:\
Section 2 introduces a brief preliminaries of bicomplex numbers. In section 3 we present the existence and region of convergence of bicomplex version of Fourier transform. Some of its basic properties are extended from complex Fourier transform and finally section 4 contains the conclusion.
Bicomplex numbers
=================
We start with an unconventional interpretation of the set of complex numbers $\mathbb{C}$ in which its members are found by duplication of the elements of the set of real numbers $\mathbb{R}$ in association with a non-real unit $i$, such that $i^2 =-1$ in the form $$\label{dc}
\mathbb{C}=\{z=x+iy:x,y\in\mathbb{R}\}.$$
Now if we repeat our duplication process once on the members of $\mathbb{C}$, for neatness we first denote the imaginary unit $i$ of (\[dc\]) by $i_1$ resulting $$\mathbb{C}(i_1)=\{z=x+i_1 y:x,y\in\mathbb{R}\}.\nonumber$$ If $i_2$ be a new imaginary unit associated with duplication, having the properties $${i_2}^2 =-1 ;\quad i_1 i_2 = i_2 i_1 ; \quad ai_2 = i_2 a,\forall a \in \mathbb{R}\nonumber$$ we can extend $\mathbb{C}(i_1)$ onto the set of bicomplex numbers $$\label{db}
\mathbb{C}_2 = \{\omega=z_1 +i_2 z_2:z_1 ,z_2 \in \mathbb{C}(i_1)\}$$ where an additional structure of commutative multiplication is imbedded.\
Going back to the real variables, for $z_1 = x_1 +i_1 x_2$ and $z_2 =x_3 +i_1 x_4$, the bicomplex numbers admits of an alternative representation of the form $$\omega = x_1 + i_1 x_2 +i_2 x_3 +i_1 i_2 x_4 \nonumber$$ which is the linear combination of four units: one real unit $1$, two imaginary units $i_1 ,i_2$ and one non-real hyperbolic unit $i_1 i_2 (=i_2 i_1)$ for which $(i_1 i_2)^2 =1$. In particular if $x_2 =x_3 =0$ one may identify bicomplex numbers with the hyperbolic numbers.\
However looking onto the algebraic structure of $\mathbb{C}_2$ we can observe that it becomes a commutative ring with unit and $\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C}(i_1)$ are two subrings embedded within it as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{R} & \equiv & \{z_1 +i_2 z_2 :z_2 =0, z_1 \in \mathbb{R}\}\subset \mathbb{C}_2\nonumber \\
\mathbb{C}(i_1) & \equiv & \{z_1 +i_2 z_2 :z_2 =0, z_1 \in \mathbb{C}(i_1)\}\subset \mathbb{C}_2 .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Interestingly, we may indeed identify the set of complex numbers $\mathbb{C}$ with duplication of reals associated with imaginary unit $i_2$, i.e. $$\mathbb{C}(i_2)=\{z=x+i_2 y:x,y\in\mathbb{R}\}\nonumber$$ as another possible subring imbedding onto $\mathbb{C}_2$. Both $\mathbb{C}(i_1) \mbox{ and } \mathbb{C}(i_2)$ are isomorphic to $\mathbb{C}$ but are essentially different.\
Furthermore for two arbitrary bicomplex numbers $\omega= z_1 +i_2 z_2$ and $\omega'=z'_1+i_2 z'_2$; $z_1,z_2,z'_1,z'_2\in \mathbb{C}(i_1)$ the scalar addition is defined by $$\omega+\omega'=(z_1 +z'_1)+i_2 (z_2 +z'_2)$$ and the scalar multiplication is governed by $$\omega . \omega'=(z_1 z'_1 -z_2 z'_2)+i_2 (z_2 z'_1 +z_1 z'_2).$$
Idempotent representation
-------------------------
We now introduce two bicomplex numbers $$\label{idcmp}
e_1 =\frac{1+i_1 i_2}{2},\quad e_2 =\frac{1-i_1 i_2}{2}$$ those satisfy $$e_1 +e_2 =1,\quad e_1 . e_2 =e_2 . e_1 =0,\quad {e_1}^2 =e_1 .e_1 =e_1 ,\quad {e_2}^2 =e_2 .e_2 =e_2.\nonumber$$ The second requirement indicates that $e_1 ,e_2$ are orthogonal while the last two signal them as idempotent. They offer us a unique decomposition of $\mathbb{C}_2$ in the following form:\
for any $\omega = z_1 +i_2 z_2 \in \mathbb{C}_2$; $$\label{decomp}
z_1 +i_2 z_2 = (z_1 -i_1 z_2 )e_1 + (z_1 +i_1 z_2 )e_2$$ resulting a pair of mutually complementary projections $$\begin{aligned}
&& \mathcal{P}_1 : (z_1 +i_2 z_2 ) \in \mathbb{C}_2 \mapsto (z_1 -i_1 z_2 )\in \mathbb{C}(i_1)\nonumber\\
&& \mathcal{P}_2 : (z_1 +i_2 z_2 ) \in \mathbb{C}_2 \mapsto (z_1 +i_1 z_2 )\in \mathbb{C}(i_1).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
One may at once verify that ${\mathcal{P}_1 }^2 =\mathcal{P}_1 ,{\mathcal{P}_2 }^2 =\mathcal{P}_2 , \mathcal{P}_1 e_1 +\mathcal{P}_2 e_2 = I$ and for any $\omega_1 ,\omega_2 \in \mathbb{C}_2$; $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_k (\omega_1 +\omega_2 ) &=& \mathcal{P}_k (\omega_1 )+\mathcal{P}_k (\omega_2 )\nonumber\\
\mathcal{P}_k (\omega_1 \omega_2 ) &=& \mathcal{P}_k (\omega_1 )\mathcal{P}_k (\omega_2 ),\quad k=1,2.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
At this stage, we now mention the auxiliary complex spaces of the space of bicomplex numbers which are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_1 =\{\mathcal{P}_1 (\omega):\omega \in \mathbb{C}_2 \}\nonumber \\
\mathcal{A}_2 =\{\mathcal{P}_2 (\omega):\omega \in \mathbb{C}_2 \}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
Bicomplex functions
-------------------
We start with a bicomplex-valued function $f:\Omega \subset \mathbb{C}_2 \mapsto \mathbb{C}_2$. The derivative of $f$ at a point $\omega_0 \in \Omega$ is defined by $$f'(\omega_0 )={\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}}\frac{f(\omega_0 +h)-f(\omega_0 )}{h}\nonumber$$ provided the limit exists and the domain $\Omega$ is so chosen that $h=h_0 + i_1 h_1 + i_2 h_2 + i_1 i_2 h_3 $ is invertible. (It is direct to prove that $h$ is not invertible only for $h_0 = -h_3 ,h_1 =h_2 \mbox{ or }h_0 = h_3 ,h_1 =-h_2 $).\
If the bicomplex derivative of $f$ exists at each point of it’s domain $\Omega$ then, in similar to complex functions, $f$ will be a bicomplex holomorphic function in $\Omega$. Indeed if $f$ can be expressed as $$f(\omega)=g_1 (z_1 ,z_2 )+i_2 g_2 (z_1 ,z_2 ), \quad \omega = (z_1 +i_2 z_2) \in \Omega \nonumber$$ then $f$ will be holomorphic if and only if $g_1 ,g_2$ are both complex holomorphic in $z_1 ,z_2$ [@ronn] and $$\frac{\partial g_1 }{\partial z_1}= \frac{\partial g_2 }{\partial z_2},\quad \frac{\partial g_1 }{\partial z_2}=-\frac{\partial g_2 }{\partial z_1}.\nonumber$$ Moreover $f'(\omega)=\frac{\partial g_1}{\partial z_2}+i_2 \frac{\partial g_2}{\partial z_1}$ and it is invertible only when $\det\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\partial g_1}{\partial z_1} & \frac{\partial
g_1}{\partial z_2}\\
\frac{\partial
g_2}{\partial z_1} & \frac{\partial g_2}{\partial z_2}\\
\end{array}
\right)\neq 0$.\
In the following we take up the idempotent representation of bicomplex numbers which is crucial in a deeper understanding of the analysis of holomorphic functions. Any bicomplex holomorphic function $f:\Omega \subset \mathbb{C}_2 \mapsto \mathbb{C}_2$ involving unique idempotent decomposition into two complex- valued functions [@ronn] reads as $$f(\omega)=f_1 (\omega_1 )e_1 + f_2 (\omega_2 )e_2 ,\quad \omega = (\omega_1 e_1 +\omega_2 e_2)\in \Omega. \nonumber$$ One may then verify in a straightforward way that $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_1 &=& \{\omega_1:\omega \in \Omega\}\subset \mathbb{C}(i_1 )\nonumber\\
\Omega_2 &=& \{\omega_2:\omega \in \Omega\}\subset \mathbb{C}(i_1 )\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ will be domain of complex-valued functions $f_1$ and $f_2$ respectively. In view of projection operators $\mathcal{P}_1$ and $\mathcal{P}_2$ that can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Omega_1 = \mathcal{P}_1 (\Omega) \quad \Rightarrow \quad f_1 \equiv \mathcal{P}_1 f \nonumber\\
&&\Omega_2 = \mathcal{P}_2 (\Omega) \quad \Rightarrow \quad f_2 \equiv \mathcal{P}_2 f.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$\
Indeed in case of bicomplex-valued holomorphic functions most often the properties of its idempotent complex-valued holomorphic components are just carried over their bicomplex counterpart [@Sri]. For example, $f(\omega)$ will be convergent in a domain $\Omega$ if and only if $f_1 (\omega_1 ),f_2 (\omega_2 )$ are convergent in their domains $\Omega_1 = \mathcal{P}_1 (\Omega)$ and $\Omega_2 = \mathcal{P}_2 (\Omega)$ respectively.
Bicomplex version of Fourier transform
======================================
In this section our aim is to extend the Fourier transform $\mathcal{F}:\mathbb{D} \subset \mathbb{R} \mapsto \mathbb{C}_2$ in bicomplex variables from its complex version and to verify the basic properties in our version those hold good in later case.
Conjecture
----------
Suppose $f(t)$ be a real-valued function that is continuous for $-\infty <t <\infty$ and satisfies the estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ex1}
&& \mid f(t)\mid \leq C_1 \exp(-\alpha t),\quad t\geq 0, \quad \alpha >0 \nonumber\\
&& \mid f(t)\mid \leq C_2 \exp(\beta t),\quad t\leq 0, \quad \beta >0\end{aligned}$$ which guarantees that $f$ is absolute integrable on the whole real line.\
Now we start with the complex Fourier transform [@sidorov] $\mathcal{F}:\mathbb{D} \subset \mathbb{R}\mapsto \mathbb{C}(i_1)$. The complex Fourier transform of $f(t)$ associted with complex frequency $\omega_1$ is defined by $$\hat{f}_1 (\omega_1 ) = \mathcal{F}\{f(t)\} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t) f(t)dt,\quad \omega_1 \in \mathbb{C}(i_1)\nonumber$$ together with the requirement of $\mid \hat{f}_1 (\omega_1) \mid < \infty$.
Now for $\omega_1 =x+i_1 y$,$$\begin{aligned}
&&\mid \hat{f}_1 (\omega_1 )\mid = \mid \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t) f(t)dt \mid \leq \int_{-\infty}^\infty \mid \exp(-yt) f(t)\mid dt\nonumber\\
&=& \int_{-\infty}^0 \exp(-yt) \mid f(t) \mid dt+ \int_{0}^\infty \exp(-yt) \mid f(t) \mid dt \nonumber\\
&\leq & C_2 \int_{-\infty}^0 \exp\{(\beta-y)t\} dt +C_1 \int_{0}^\infty \exp\{-(\alpha+y)t\}dt\nonumber\\
&=& C_2 \frac{1}{\beta-y}+C_1 \frac{1}{\alpha+y}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we use the estimates (\[ex1\]) and the facts $\mid \exp(i_1 xt) \mid=1,\mid \exp(-yt)\mid=\exp(-yt)$, as $\exp(-yt)>0$.
Then the requirement $\mid \hat{f}_1 (\omega_1) \mid < \infty$ only implies that $-\alpha<y<\beta$. As its consequence $\hat{f}_1 (\omega_1)$ is holomorphic in the strip $$\Omega_1 = \{\omega_1 \in \mathbb{C}(i_1): -\infty < \mbox{ Re }(\omega_1 )<\infty, -\alpha < \mbox{ Im }(\omega_1 )< \beta\}.$$
In similar arguments the complex Fourier transform of $f(t)$ associted with another complex frequency $\omega_2$ will be $$\hat{f}_2 (\omega_2 ) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t) f(t)dt,\quad \omega_2 \in \mathbb{C}(i_1)\nonumber$$ which will be holomorphic in the strip $$\Omega_2 = \{\omega_2 \in \mathbb{C}(i_1): -\infty < \mbox{ Re }(\omega_2 )<\infty, -\alpha < \mbox{ Im }(\omega_2 )< \beta \}.$$
Now employing duplication over these complex functions $\hat{f}_1 (\omega_1 ), \hat{f}_2 (\omega_2 )$ in association with idempotent units $e_1$ and $e_2$ we observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{f}_1 (\omega_1 )e_1 +\hat{f}_2 (\omega_2 )e_2 &=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t) f(t)dt. e_1 +\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t) f(t)dt. e_2 \nonumber\\
&=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \{\omega_1 e_1 +\omega_2 e_2\} t)f(t)dt \nonumber \\
&=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t) f(t)dt \nonumber \\
&=& \hat{f}(\omega)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we use duplication of complex frequencies $\omega_1 ,\omega_2$ to obtain bicomplex frequency $\omega$ as $\omega = \omega_1 e_1 + \omega_2 e_2$.\
Since $\hat{f}_1 (\omega_1 ),\hat{f}_2 (\omega_2 )$ are complex holomorphic functions in $\Omega_1 ,\Omega_2$ respectively then as it’s natural consequence the bicomplex function $\hat{f}(\omega)$ will be holomorphic in the region $$\Omega = \{\omega \in \mathbb{C}_2 : \omega = \omega_1 e_1 +\omega_2 e_2 , \omega_1 \in \Omega_1 \mbox{ and }\omega_2 \in \Omega_2 \} .\nonumber$$
It is worthwhile to mention that the complex-valued holomorphic functions $\hat{f}_1 (\omega_1 ) \mbox{ and } \hat{f}_2 (\omega_2 )$ are both convergent absolutely in $\Omega_1 \mbox{ and } \Omega_2$ respectively. Then it is direct to prove that the region of absolute convergence of $\hat{f}(\omega)$ will be $\Omega$.\
For better geometrical understanding of the region of convergence of bicomplex Fourier transform it will be advantageous to use the general four-unit representation of bicomplex numbers. In this occasion we take conventional representation of $\omega_1 ,\omega_2 \in \mathbb{C}(i_1)$ as $$\label{rest}
\omega_1 =x_1 +i_1 x_2 , \quad \omega_2 =y_1 +i_1 y_2 ; \quad x_1 ,x_2 , y_1 ,y_2 \in \mathbb{R}$$ where the requirement for $\omega_1 \in \Omega_1$ and $\omega_2 \in \Omega_2$ imply $ -\infty <x_1 ,y_1 <\infty $\
and $-\alpha <x_2 <\beta ;\quad -\alpha <y_2 <\beta$. Using these and (\[idcmp\]) $\omega$ takes the explicit four-components form $$\label{ex}
\omega = \frac{x_1 +y_1}{2}+i_1 \frac{x_2 +y_2}{2}+i_2 \frac{y_2 -x_2}{2}+i_1 i_2 \frac{x_1 -y_1}{2}=a_0 +i_1 a_1 +i_2 a_2 +i_1 i_2 a_3$$ where $a_0 ,a_1 ,a_2 ,a_3 \in \mathbb{R}$.\
On the basis of the restrictions on $x_2 \mbox{ and }y_2$ given in (\[rest\]), the following three possibilities can occur:
1. If $x_2 =y_2$, it is trivial to obtain $-\alpha <a_1 <\beta$ and $a_2 =0$,
2. For $x_2 > y_2$ one may infer $-\alpha -a_2 <a_1 <\beta +a_2$ whereas $-\frac{\alpha + \beta}{2}< a_2 <0$,
3. If $x_2 < y_2$ then in similar to previous possibility we obtain $-\alpha +a_2 < a_1 <\beta - a_2$ and $0 < a_2 < \frac{\alpha +\beta}{2}$,
whereas $-\infty <a_0 ,a_3 <\infty$ in all three cases.\
Considering all of these results we conclude that $$-\infty <a_0 ,a_3 <\infty, -\alpha +\mid a_2 \mid <a_1 <\beta -\mid a_2 \mid \mbox{ and }0\leq \mid a_2 \mid <\frac{\alpha + \beta}{2}$$ and hence the region of convergence of $\hat{f}(\omega)$ (See fig-1 in appendix for $a_1 - a_2$ plane section of the region) can be identified as $$\label{roc}
\Omega = \{\omega =a_0 +i_1 a_1 +i_2 a_2 +i_1 i_2 a_3 \in \mathbb{C}_2 : -\infty <a_0 ,a_3 <\infty; -\alpha +\mid a_2 \mid <a_1 <\beta -\mid a_2 \mid; 0\leq \mid a_2 \mid <\frac{\alpha + \beta}{2}\}.$$
- Conversely, the existence of bicomplex Fourier transform $\hat{f}(\omega)$ can be obtained in the following way:\
If $\omega = a_0 +i_1 a_1 +i_2 a_2 +i_1 i_2 a_3 \in \Omega$ ; $-\infty <a_0 ,a_3 <\infty, -\alpha +\mid a_2 \mid <a_1 <\beta -\mid a_2 \mid, \mbox{ and } 0\leq \mid a_2 \mid <\frac{\alpha + \beta}{2}$. Now expressing $\omega$ in idempotent components as $$\omega= a_0 +i_1 a_1 +i_2 a_2 +i_1 i_2 a_3 = [(a_0 +a_3 )+i_1 (a_1 -a_2 )]e_1 + [(a_0 -a_3 )+i_1 (a_1 +a_2 )]e_2 =\omega_1 e_1 +\omega_2 e_2$$ we obtain
1. $a_2 =0$ and $-\alpha <a_1 <\beta$ trivially leads $-\alpha< a_1 -a_2 <\beta$ and $-\alpha<a_1 +a_2 <\beta$,
2. when $a_2 <0$, from the first inequality of $-\alpha-a_2 <a_1 <\beta +a_2$ we can get $-\alpha<a_1 +a_2$ whereas the last inequality gives $a_1 -a_2 <\beta$. Following $a_2 <0$ these results can be interpreted as $-\alpha<a_1 +a_2 <a_1 -a_2$ and $a_1 +a_2 <a_1 -a_2 <\beta$ which in together combined into $-\alpha <a_1 +a_2 <a_1 -a_2 <\beta$,
3. when $a_2 >0$, from the first inequality of $-\alpha +a_2 <a_1 <\beta -a_2$ we can get $-\alpha<a_1 -a_2$ whereas the last inequality gives $a_1 +a_2 <\beta$. Following $a_2 >0$ these results can be interpreted as $-\alpha<a_1 -a_2 <a_1 +a_2$ and $a_1 -a_2 <a_1 +a_2 <\beta$ which in together combined into $-\alpha <a_1 -a_2 <a_1 +a_2 <\beta$,
Hence the result.
Now we are ready to define the Fourier transform for bicomplex variable.
Definition
----------
Let $f(t)$ be a real-valued continuous function in $(-\infty,\infty)$ that satisfies the estimates (\[ex1\]). The Fourier transform of $f(t)$ can be defined as $$\label{ft}
\hat{f}(\omega ) = \mathcal{F}\{f(t)\} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t) f(t)dt,\quad \omega \in \mathbb{C}_2 .$$ The Fourier transform $\hat{f}(\omega)$ exists and holomorphic for all $\omega \in \Omega$ where $\Omega$ (given in (\[roc\])) is the region of absolute convergence of $\hat{f}$.
Existence of Fourier transform
------------------------------
***Theorem:*** If $f(t)$ be a real valued function and is continuous for $-\infty<t<\infty$ satisfying estimates (\[ex1\]) then $\hat{f}(\omega)$ (defined in (\[ft\])) exists in the region (\[roc\]).\
\
***Proof:***$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{f}(\omega)&=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t) f(t)dt\nonumber\\
&=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t) f(t)dt. e_1 + \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t) f(t)dt .e_2\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Both the integrals exist when $-\alpha<\mbox{ Im }(\omega_1 =x_1 +i_1 x_2 )<\beta$ and $-\alpha<\mbox{ Im }(\omega_2 =y_1 +i_1 y_2 )<\beta$. So $\hat{f}(\omega)$ exists for $\omega = \omega_1 e_1 +\omega_2 e_2 =a_0 +i_1 a_1 +i_2 a_2 +i_1 i_2 a_3$ where $$-\infty <a_0 ,a_3 <\infty, -\alpha +\mid a_2 \mid <a_1 <\beta -\mid a_2 \mid, \mbox{ and } 0\leq \mid a_2 \mid <\frac{\alpha + \beta}{2}.$$
Uniqueness of Fourier transform
-------------------------------
***Theorem:*** If $f(t)$ and $g(t)$ have Fourier transforms $\hat{f}(\omega)$ and $\hat{g}(\omega)$ respectively and\
$\hat{f}(\omega)=\hat{g}(\omega)$, then $f(t)=g(t)$.\
\
***Proof:*** Let $\hat{f}(\omega)=\hat{f}_1 (\omega_1 )e_1 +\hat{f}_2 (\omega_2 )e_2$ and $\hat{g}(\omega)=\hat{g}_1 (\omega_1 )e_1 +\hat{g}_2 (\omega_2 )e_2$ in their idempotent representations. Now $\hat{f}(\omega)=\hat{g}(\omega)$ is possible if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hat{f}_1 (\omega_1 )=\hat{g}_1 (\omega_1 )\mbox{ and }\hat{f}_2 (\omega_2 )=\hat{g}_2 (\omega_2 )\nonumber\\
& \Rightarrow & \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t) f(t)dt = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t) g(t)dt \nonumber\\
&& \mbox{ and } \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t) f(t)dt = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t) g(t)dt\nonumber\\
& \Rightarrow & f(t)=g(t).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Basic properties of Fourier transform
-------------------------------------
1. **Linearity property**\
***Theorem:*** If the Fourier transforms of $f(t)$ and $g(t)$ are $\hat{f}(\omega)$ and $\hat{g}(\omega)$ respectively and $a$ and $b$ are constants then $\mathcal{F}(af+bg)=a\hat{f}+b\hat{g}$.
***Proof:*** Let $\hat{f}$ and $\hat{g}$ are both defined for $\omega(=\omega_1 e_1 +\omega_2 e_2 ) \in \Omega,\quad \omega_1 \in \Omega_1, \omega_2 \in \Omega_2$, then $$\begin{aligned}
&& \mathcal{F}\left\{a f(t)+b g(t)\right\}=\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t)\left\{a f(t)+b g(t)\right\}dt\nonumber\\
&=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \{\omega_1 e_1 +\omega_2 e_2\} t)\left\{a f(t)+b g(t)\right\}dt\nonumber\\
&=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)\left\{a f(t)+b g(t)\right\}dt.e_1 +\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)\left\{a f(t)+b g(t)\right\}dt.e_2 \nonumber\\
&=& a\left[\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)f(t)dt.e_1 +\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)f(t)dt.e_2\right]\nonumber\\
&& +b\left[\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)g(t)dt.e_1 +\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)g(t)dt.e_2 \right]\nonumber\\
&=& a\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \{\omega_1 e_1 +\omega_2 e_2\} t)f(t)dt +b\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \{\omega_1 e_1 +\omega_2 e_2\} t)g(t)dt\nonumber\\
&=& a\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t)f(t)dt +b\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t)g(t)dt = a\hat{f}(\omega)+b\hat{g}(\omega).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
2. **Shifting property**\
***Theorem:*** If $\hat{f}(\omega)$ is the Fourier transforms of $f(t)$ then $\mathcal{F}\left\{f(t-a)\right\}=\exp(i_1 \omega a)\hat{f}(\omega)$.
***Proof:*** By definition $\mathcal{F}\left\{f(t-a)\right\}=\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t)f(t-a)dt$.\
Now for $t=a+u$, the integral in right hand side is equal to\
$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp\{i_1 \omega (a+u)\}f(u)du=\exp(i_1 \omega a)\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega u)f(u)du=\exp(i_1 \omega a)\hat{f}(\omega)$.
3. **Scaling property**\
***Theorem:*** If $\hat{f}(\omega)$ is the Fourier transforms of $f(t)$ then $\mathcal{F}\{f(at)\}=\frac{1}{\mid a \mid}\hat{f}(\frac{\omega}{a})$ where $a\neq 0$.
***Proof:*** If $a>0$ then $ \mathcal{F}\{f(at)\}= \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t)f(at)dt =\frac{1}{a}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \frac{\omega}{a} u)f(u)du = \frac{1}{a}\hat{f}(\frac{\omega}{a})$ where we take $at=u$.
If $a<0$ then for $a=-b :b>0$ we have $\mathcal{F}\{f(at)\}=\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t)f(at)dt=\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t)f(-bt)dt$. Now taking $bt=-u$ the integral is $-\frac{1}{b}\int_{\infty}^{-\infty} \exp(i_1 \frac{\omega}{-b} u)f(u)du =\frac{1}{b}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \frac{\omega}{-b} u)f(u)du =\frac{1}{-a}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \frac{\omega}{a} u)f(u)du = \frac{1}{-a}\hat{f}(\frac{\omega}{a})$.
From above these results we conclude $\mathcal{F}\{f(at)\}=\frac{1}{\mid a \mid}\hat{f}(\frac{\omega}{a})$.
4. **Convolution theorem**\
***Theorem:*** The Fourier transform of the convolution of two functions $f(t)$ and $g(t)$,$-\infty<t<\infty$ is the product of their Fourier transforms, respectively $\hat{f}(\omega)$ and $\hat{g}(\omega)$ *i.e.* $$\mathcal{F}\left\{f(t)*g(t)\right\}=\mathcal{F}\left\{\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(u)g(t-u)du\right\}=\hat{f}(\omega)\hat{g}(\omega).$$
***Proof:*** By definition $$\begin{aligned}
&& \mathcal{F} \left\{f(t)*g(t)\right\}=\mathcal{F}\left\{\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(u)g(t-u)du\right\}=\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t)\left\{\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(u)g(t-u)du\right\}dt\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)\left\{\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(u)g(t-u)du\right\}dt. e_1 +\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)\left\{\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(u)g(t-u)du\right\}dt. e_2\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(u)\left\{\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)g(t-u)dt\right\}du. e_1 +\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(u)\left\{\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)g(t-u)dt\right\}du. e_2\nonumber\\
&& \mbox{ using method for changing order of integrals in complex analysis \cite{mat}}\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(u)\left\{\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t)g(t-u)dt\right\}du\nonumber\\
&=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty f(u)\exp(i_1 \omega u)\hat{g}(\omega)du, \mbox{ using shifting property (see property 2) }\nonumber\\
&=& \left\{\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(u)\exp(i_1 \omega u)du\right\}\hat{g}(\omega) = \hat{f}(\omega)\hat{g}(\omega).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
5. ***Theorem:*** If $f(t)$ and $t^r f(t),r=1,2,....,n$ are all integrable in $-\infty<t<\infty$ then $$\mathcal{F}\left\{t^n f(t)\right\}=(-i_1)^n \frac{d^n}{d\omega^n}\{\hat{f}(\omega)\}$$ where $\hat{f}(\omega)$ is the Fourier transform of $f(t)$.
***Proof:*** We will prove this theorem by using the method of mathematical induction and differentiation under integral sign. For $n=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{d}{d\omega}\hat{f}(\omega) = \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega_1}\hat{f_1}(\omega_1)e_1 +\frac{\partial}{\partial\omega_2}\hat{f_2}(\omega_2)e_2 \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega_1}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)f(t)dt.e_1 + \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega_2}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)f(t)dt.e_2\nonumber\\
&=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega_1}\{\exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)f(t)\}dt.e_1 + \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega_2}\{\exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)f(t)\}dt.e_2 \nonumber\\
&& \mbox{using Leibnitz rule in complex analysis \cite{mat} }\nonumber\\
&=& i_1 \int_{-\infty}^\infty t f(t) \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)dt.e_1 +i_1 \int_{-\infty}^\infty t f(t) \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)dt.e_2\nonumber\\
&=& i_1 \int_{-\infty}^\infty t f(t)\{\exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)e_1 + \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)e_2\}dt \nonumber\\
&=& i_1 \int_{-\infty}^\infty t f(t) \exp(i_1 \omega t)dt=i_1 \mathcal{F}\{t f(t)\}\nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow & \mathcal{F}\{t f(t)\}=-i_1 \frac{d}{d\omega}\hat{f}(\omega).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Now for $n=2$, in similar to the case for $n=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{d^2}{d\omega^2}\hat{f}(\omega)=\frac{d}{d\omega}\left[\frac{d}{d\omega}\hat{f}(\omega)\right]\nonumber\\
&=& i_1 \frac{d}{d\omega}\left[\int_{-\infty}^\infty t f(t)\exp(i_1 \omega t)dt\right]\nonumber\\
&=& i_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega_1}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)t f(t)dt.e_1 + i_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega_2}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)t f(t)dt.e_2\nonumber\\
&=& i_1 \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega_1}\{\exp(i_1 \omega_1 t) t f(t)\}dt.e_1 + i_1 \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega_2}\{\exp(i_1 \omega_2 t) t f(t)\}dt.e_2 \nonumber\\
&& \mbox{using Leibnitz rule \cite{mat}}\nonumber\\
&=& - \int_{-\infty}^\infty t^2 f(t) \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)dt.e_1 - \int_{-\infty}^\infty t^2 f(t) \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)dt.e_2\nonumber\\
&=& - \int_{-\infty}^\infty t^2 f(t) \{\exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)e_1 + \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)e_2\}dt \nonumber\\
&=& - \int_{-\infty}^\infty t^2 f(t) \exp(i_1 \omega t)dt= -\mathcal{F}\{t^2 f(t)\}\nonumber\\
&\Rightarrow & \mathcal{F}\left\{t^2 f(t)\right\}=-\frac{d^2}{d\omega^2}\hat{f}(\omega)=(-i_1 )^2 \frac{d^2}{d\omega^2}\hat{f}(\omega).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Proceeding in this way we obtain $$\mathcal{F}\left\{t^n f(t)\right\}=(-i_1 )^n \frac{d^n}{d\omega^n}\hat{f}(\omega).$$
6. ***Theorem:*** If $f(t)$ and $f^{(r)}(t),r=1,2,....,n$ are piecewise smooth and tend to 0 as $\mid t \mid \rightarrow \infty$, and $f$ with its derivatives of order up to $n$ are integrable in $-\infty<t<\infty$ then $$\mathcal{F}\{f^{(n)}(t)\}=(-i_1 \omega)^n \hat{f}(\omega)\}$$ where $\hat{f}(\omega)$ is the Fourier transform of $f(t)$ and $f^{(r)}(t)=\frac{d^r}{dt^r}f(t)$.
***Proof:*** We will prove it also using method of induction. For $n=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&& \mathcal{F}\{f'(t)\}=\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t)f'(t)dt\nonumber\\
&=& \left[f(t)\exp(i_1 \omega t)\right]_{-\infty}^\infty -i_1 \omega \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t) f(t)dt\nonumber\\
&=& 0-i_1 \omega \hat{f}(\omega)=-i_1 \omega \hat{f}(\omega).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly for $n=2$, $$\begin{aligned}
&& \mathcal{F}\{f''(t)\}=\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t)f''(t)dt\nonumber\\
&=& \left[f'(t)\exp(i_1 \omega t)\right]_{-\infty}^\infty -i_1 \omega \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp(i_1 \omega t) f'(t)dt\nonumber\\
&=& 0-i_1 \omega \mathcal{F}\{f'(t)\}=(-i_1 \omega)^2 \hat{f}(\omega).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Proceeding with similar arguments we can get $\mathcal{F}\{f^{(n)}(t)\}=(-i_1 \omega)^n \hat{f}(\omega)\}$.
- **Corollary**\
If $f(t)$ is finite, *i.e.* $f(t)=0 \quad \mid t \mid >T$ and continuous inside $\mid t \mid \leq T$, then its complex Fourier transform is an entire function. As it’s consequence $\hat{f}_1 (\omega_1)=\int_{-T}^T \exp(i_1 \omega_1 t)f(t)dt$ and $\hat{f}_2 (\omega_2)=\int_{-T}^T \exp(i_1 \omega_2 t)f(t)dt$. So the bicomplex Fourier transform $\hat{f}(\omega)$ exists and converges absolutely within the whole $\mathbb{C}_2$.
Examples
--------
1. If $$f(t)=\exp(-a\mid t \mid),\quad a>0$$ then it satisfies estimates (\[ex1\]) for $\alpha = \beta =a$ and its complex Fourier transforms are $$\hat{f}_1 (\omega_1)=\frac{2a}{a^2 +{\omega_1}^2},\quad \hat{f}_2 (\omega_2)=\frac{2a}{a^2 +{\omega_2}^2}.$$ Both $\hat{f}_1 ,\hat{f}_2$ are holomorphic in the strip $-a<\mbox{ Im }(\omega_1),\mbox{ Im }(\omega_2)<a$. Then the bicomplex Fourier transform will be $$\hat{f}(\omega)=\frac{2a}{a^2 +\omega^2}$$ with region of convergence $$\Omega=\{\omega=a_0 +i_1 a_1 +i_2 a_2 +i_1 i_2 a_3 \in \mathbb{C}_2 :\quad 0\leq \mid a_2 \mid <a,\quad -a+\mid a_2 \mid <a_1 <
a-\mid a_2 \mid \}.$$
2. If $$f(t)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\exp(-t),\qquad{t>0;} \\
0, \qquad{t\leq 0}
\end{array}
\right.$$ then $\alpha=1$ but $\beta$ be any positive number. Here $$\hat{f}(\omega)=\frac{1}{1-i_1 \omega}$$ and its region of convergence is $$\Omega=\{\omega=a_0 +i_1 a_1 +i_2 a_2 +i_1 i_2 a_3 \in \mathbb{C}_2 : 0\leq \mid a_2 \mid <\frac{1+\beta}{2},a_1 >-1,\quad \mbox{for any positive }\beta\}.$$
3. If $f(t)=\exp(-\frac{t^2}{2})$ then $\hat{f}(\omega)=\sqrt{2\pi}\exp(-\frac{\omega^2}{2})$ and its region of convergence is $$\Omega=\{\omega=a_0 +i_1 a_1 +i_2 a_2 +i_1 i_2 a_3 \in \mathbb{C}_2 : -\infty < a_1, a_2 <\infty \}.$$
4. If $$f(t)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, \quad{\mid t \mid \leq a;} \\
0, \quad{\mid t \mid >a}
\end{array}
\right.$$ then its complex Fourier transforms in both $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ planes are entire functions. Then using the corollary we obtain $\hat{f}_1 (\omega_1)=\frac{2}{\omega_1}\sin(a\omega_1)$ and $\hat{f}_2 (\omega_2)=\frac{2}{\omega_2}\sin(a\omega_2)$, where the singularity at $\omega=0$ is removable. In this case the bicomplex Fourier transform will be $\hat{f}(\omega)=\frac{2}{\omega}\sin(a\omega)$ and it’s region of convergence is $\mathbb{C}_2$.
5. If $$f(t)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, \quad{t<0;} \\
\exp (-\frac{t}{T})\sin (\omega_0 t), \quad{t\geq 0, \quad T,\omega_0 >0}
\end{array}
\right.$$ which might represent the displacement of a damped harmonic oscillator. Here from the estimates (\[ex1\]) we have $\alpha=\frac{1}{T}$. Then complex Fourier transform in $\omega_1$ (similar for $\omega_2$) plane is given by $$\hat{f}_1 (\omega_1)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{\omega_1 -\omega_0 +\frac{i_1}{T}}-\frac{1}{\omega_1 +\omega_0 +\frac{i_1}{T}}\right]$$ which is holomorphic in in the infinite strip $\mbox{Im }(\omega_1)>-\frac{1}{T}$ except $\mbox{Re }(\omega_1) \neq \pm \omega_0$. In this problem the bicomplex Fourier transform will be $$\hat{f} (\omega)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{\omega +\omega_0 +\frac{i_1}{T}}-\frac{1}{\omega -\omega_0 +\frac{i_1}{T}}\right]$$ with region of convergence $$\Omega=\{\omega =a_0 +i_1 a_1 +i_2 a_2 +i_1 i_2 a_3\in \mathbb{C}_2 : a_0 \neq 0,\pm \omega_0; a_3 \neq 0,\pm \omega_0 ; a_1 >-\frac{1}{T}\}$$ where $a_2 =\frac{\mbox{ Im }(\omega_2)-\mbox{ Im }(\omega_1)}{2}: \mbox{ Im }(\omega_1),\mbox{ Im }(\omega_2)>-\frac{1}{T}$.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we have exploited the bicomplex version of Fourier transform method and the condition of absolute convergence of the transformed bicomplex-valued function. We examine the usual properties of Fourier transform in the ring of bicomplex numbers. Finally let us point out that in our observation the concepts introduced or results obtained in this work are the generalization of the corresponding concepts or results in complex analysis.
[99]{} **C.Segre** Math.Ann.:40,1892,pp:413. **N.Spampinato** Atti Reale Accad. Naz. Lincei,Rend.:22,1935,pp:38. **N.Spampinato** Ann.Mat.Pura.Appl.:14,1936,pp:305. **W.R.Hamilton** *Lectures on quaternion* Dublin:Hodges and Smith: 1853. **G.B.Price** Marcel,Dekkar: 1991. **S.Olariu** Norh-Holland Mathematics Studies,Elsevier: 190,2002,pp:269. **G.Shpilker** Doklady AN SSSR: 282,1985,pp:1090. **G.Shpilker** Doklady AN SSSR: 293,1987,pp:578. **S.Dimiev,R.Lazov,S.Slavova** Topics in Contemporary Differential Geometry,Complex Analysis and Mathematical physics: 2006,pp:50-56. **I.M.Yaglom** Academic Press, N.Y.: 1968. **I.M.Yaglom** Springer, N.Y.: 1979. **K.S.Charak,D.Rochon,N.Sharma** Fractals: 17,2009. **R.Goyal** Tokyo Journal of Mathematics:30,2007. **S.Gal** Nova Science Publishers: 2002. **A.Motter,M.Rosa** Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebra: 8,1998,pp:109. **J.Ryan** Complex variables,Theory and Applications: 1,1982,pp:119. **R.K.Srivastava** Proc.Soc.of Special Functions and their applications (SSFA): 2005,pp:55. **S.Rönn** arXiv:math/0101200\[math.CV\],2001. **Y.Xuegang** Adv.Appl.Clifford Algebra: 9,1998,pp:109. **V.Kravchenko,M.Shapiro** Pitman Research Notes in Math.,Addison-Wesley-Longman: 351,1996. **D.Dart,D.Haag,H.Cartarins,J.Main,G.Wunner** arXiv:1306.3871\[quant-ph\],2013. **D.Rochon,S.Tremblay** Adv.Appl.Clifford Algebra: 14,2004,pp:231. **D.Rochon,S.Tremblay** Adv.Appl.Clifford Algebra: 16,2006,pp:135. **E.Martineau,D.Rochon** Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos: 15,2005. **A.Kumar,P.Kumar** International Journal of Engineering and Technology: 3,2011,pp:225. **A.Banerjee,S.K.Datta,A.Hoque** Mathematical Inverse Problems:1,2014. **S.Bochner,K.Chandrasekharan** Princeton University Press: 1949. **G.Kaiser** Birkhauser: 1994. **Y.V.Sidorov,M.V.Fedoryuk,M.I.Shabunin** Mir Publishers,Moscow: 1985. **J.H.Mathews,R.W.Howell** Narosa Publication : 2006.
[^1]: [email protected], abhijit\[email protected]
[^2]: sanjib\_kr\[email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The rapid shape change in Zr isotopes near neutron number $N$=60 is identified to be caused by type II shell evolution associated with massive proton excitations to its $0g_{9/2}$ orbit, and is shown to be a quantum phase transition. Monte Carlo shell-model calculations are carried out for Zr isotopes of $N$=50-70 with many configurations spanned by eight proton orbits and eight neutron orbits. Energy levels and B(E2) values are obtained within a single framework in a good agreement with experiments, depicting various shapes in going from $N$=50 to 70. Novel coexistence of prolate and triaxial shapes is suggested.'
author:
- 'Tomoaki Togashi$^{1}$, Yusuke Tsunoda$^1$, Takaharu Otsuka$^{1,2,3,4}$ and Noritaka Shimizu'
title: Quantum Phase Transition in the Shape of Zr isotopes
---
The shape of the atomic nucleus has been one of the primary subjects of nuclear structure physics [@bohr_mottelson], and continues to provide intriguing and challenging questions in going to exotic nuclei. One such question is the transition from spherical to deformed shapes as a function of the neutron (proton) number $N$ ($Z$), referred to as [*shape transition*]{}. The shape transition is visible in the systematics of the excitation energies of low-lying states, for instance, the first 2$^+$ levels of even-even nuclei: it turns out to be high (low) for spherical (deformed) shapes [@bohr_mottelson; @ring_schuck; @casten]. A shell model (SM) calculation is suited, in principle, for its description, because of the high capability of calculating those energies precisely. On the other hand, since the nuclear shape is a consequence of the collective motion of many nucleons, the actual application of the SM encountered some limits in the size of the calculation.
In this Letter, we present results of large-scale Monte Carlo Shell Model (MCSM) calculations [@mcsm_review1] on even-even Zr isotopes with a focus on the shape transition from $N =$ 50 to $N =$ 70, [*e.g.*]{} [@federman79]. Figure \[sys\](a) shows that the observed 2$^+_1$ level moves up and down within the 1-2 MeV region for $N$=50-58, whereas it is quite low ($\sim$0.2 MeV) for $N\ge$ 60 [@nudat2; @ex100Zr1; @ex100Zr2; @ex100Zr3; @ex102Zr; @ex100102104Zr; @ex104Zr; @BE2_100104; @ex104106Zr; @ex106108Zr; @ex108Zr]. Namely, a sharp drop by a factor of $\sim$6 occurs at $N$=60, which is consistent with the corresponding B(E2) values shown in Fig. \[sys\](c). These features have attracted much attention, also because no theoretical approach seems to have reproduced those rapid changes covering both sides. More importantly, an abrupt change seems to occur in the structure of the ground state as a function of $N$, which can be viewed as an example of the quantum phase transition (QPT) satisfying its general definition to be discussed [@qpt1; @qpt2]. This is quite remarkable, as the shape transition is in general rather gradual. In addition, there is much interest in those Zr isotopes from the viewpoint of the shape coexistence [@coexist_review1].
protonorbit magicnumber neutronorbit
---------------------------------- ------------- ----------------------------------
- $1f_{7/2},2p_{3/2}$
82
- $0h_{11/2}$
$0g_{7/2},1d_{5/2,3/2},2s_{1/2}$ $0g_{7/2},1d_{5/2,3/2},2s_{1/2}$
50
$0g_{9/2}$ $0g_{9/2}$
$0f_{5/2},1p_{3/2,1/2}$ -
: Model space for the shell model calculation.[]{data-label="mspace"}
The advanced version of MCSM [@mcsm_ptep; @mcsm_reorder] can cover all Zr isotopes in this range of $N$ with a fixed Hamiltonian, when taking a large model space, as shown in Table \[mspace\]. The MCSM, thus, resolves the difficulties of conventional SM calculation, where the largest dimension reaches 3.7$\times$10$^{23}$, much beyond its current limit. Note that no truncation on the occupation numbers of these orbits is made in the MCSM. The structure of Zr isotopes has been studied by many different models and theories. For instance, a recent large-scale conventional SM calculation showed a rather accurate reproduction of experimental data up to $N$=58, whereas it was not extended beyond $N$=60 [@sieja09]. The 2$^+_1$ levels have been calculated in a wider range in Interacting Boson Model (IBM) calculations, although the afore-mentioned rapid change is absent [@ibm_1; @ibm_2]. Some other works were restricted to deformed states [@federman79; @xu02; @psm], or indicated gradual shape-changes [@vampir; @hfb; @hfb+GCM; @xiang; @RMF; @moller95; @skalski; @smmc].
![(Color online) (a) $2^+_{1,2}$ levels, (b) $0^+$ levels of Zr isotopes as a function of $N$. Symbols are present theoretical results with the shape classification as shown in the legends (see the text for details). Solid lines denote experimental data [@nudat2; @ex100Zr1; @ex100Zr2; @ex100Zr3; @ex102Zr; @ex100102104Zr; @ex104Zr; @BE2_100104; @ex104106Zr; @ex106108Zr; @ex108Zr]. Dashed lines connect relevant results to guide the eye. The ratio between the $4^+_1$ and $2^+_1$ levels is shown in the insert of (a) in comparison to experiment. The lowest four $0^+$ levels are shown for $^{100}$Zr. (c) $B(E2; 2^+\rightarrow0^+)$ values as a function of $N$. Experimental data are from [@BE2; @BE2_96; @BE2_100104; @BE2_102; @BE2_104106; @BE2_94Zr_2+2; @kremer]. (d) Deformation parameter $\beta_2$. The values by other methods are shown, too. []{data-label="sys"}](Fig1a.eps "fig:")\
![(Color online) (a) $2^+_{1,2}$ levels, (b) $0^+$ levels of Zr isotopes as a function of $N$. Symbols are present theoretical results with the shape classification as shown in the legends (see the text for details). Solid lines denote experimental data [@nudat2; @ex100Zr1; @ex100Zr2; @ex100Zr3; @ex102Zr; @ex100102104Zr; @ex104Zr; @BE2_100104; @ex104106Zr; @ex106108Zr; @ex108Zr]. Dashed lines connect relevant results to guide the eye. The ratio between the $4^+_1$ and $2^+_1$ levels is shown in the insert of (a) in comparison to experiment. The lowest four $0^+$ levels are shown for $^{100}$Zr. (c) $B(E2; 2^+\rightarrow0^+)$ values as a function of $N$. Experimental data are from [@BE2; @BE2_96; @BE2_100104; @BE2_102; @BE2_104106; @BE2_94Zr_2+2; @kremer]. (d) Deformation parameter $\beta_2$. The values by other methods are shown, too. []{data-label="sys"}](Fig1b.eps "fig:")\
![(Color online) (a) $2^+_{1,2}$ levels, (b) $0^+$ levels of Zr isotopes as a function of $N$. Symbols are present theoretical results with the shape classification as shown in the legends (see the text for details). Solid lines denote experimental data [@nudat2; @ex100Zr1; @ex100Zr2; @ex100Zr3; @ex102Zr; @ex100102104Zr; @ex104Zr; @BE2_100104; @ex104106Zr; @ex106108Zr; @ex108Zr]. Dashed lines connect relevant results to guide the eye. The ratio between the $4^+_1$ and $2^+_1$ levels is shown in the insert of (a) in comparison to experiment. The lowest four $0^+$ levels are shown for $^{100}$Zr. (c) $B(E2; 2^+\rightarrow0^+)$ values as a function of $N$. Experimental data are from [@BE2; @BE2_96; @BE2_100104; @BE2_102; @BE2_104106; @BE2_94Zr_2+2; @kremer]. (d) Deformation parameter $\beta_2$. The values by other methods are shown, too. []{data-label="sys"}](Fig1c.eps "fig:")\
![(Color online) (a) $2^+_{1,2}$ levels, (b) $0^+$ levels of Zr isotopes as a function of $N$. Symbols are present theoretical results with the shape classification as shown in the legends (see the text for details). Solid lines denote experimental data [@nudat2; @ex100Zr1; @ex100Zr2; @ex100Zr3; @ex102Zr; @ex100102104Zr; @ex104Zr; @BE2_100104; @ex104106Zr; @ex106108Zr; @ex108Zr]. Dashed lines connect relevant results to guide the eye. The ratio between the $4^+_1$ and $2^+_1$ levels is shown in the insert of (a) in comparison to experiment. The lowest four $0^+$ levels are shown for $^{100}$Zr. (c) $B(E2; 2^+\rightarrow0^+)$ values as a function of $N$. Experimental data are from [@BE2; @BE2_96; @BE2_100104; @BE2_102; @BE2_104106; @BE2_94Zr_2+2; @kremer]. (d) Deformation parameter $\beta_2$. The values by other methods are shown, too. []{data-label="sys"}](Fig1d.eps "fig:")
It is, thus, very timely and needed to apply the MCSM to Zr isotopes, particularly heavy exotic ones. The Hamiltonian of the present work is constructed from existing ones, so as to reduce ambiguities. The JUN45 Hamiltonian is used for the orbits, $0g_{9/2}$ and below it [@jun45]. The SNBG3 Hamiltonian [@snbg3] is used for the $T$=1 interaction for $0g_{7/2}$, $1d_{5/2,3/2}$, $2s_{1/2}$ and $0h_{11/2}$. Note that the JUN45 and SNBG3 interactions were obtained by adding empirical fits to microscopically derived effective interactions [@jun45; @snbg3]. The $V_{{\rm MU}}$ interaction [@vmu] is taken for the rest of the effective interaction. The $V_{{\rm MU}}$ interaction consists of the central part given by a Gaussian function in addition to the $\pi$- and $\rho$-meson exchange tensor force [@vmu]. The parameters of the central part were fixed from monopole components of known SM interactions [@vmu]. The $T$=0 part of the $V_{{\rm MU}}$ interaction is kept unchanged throughout this work. The $T$=1 central part is reduced by a factor of 0.75 except for $1f_{7/2}$ and $2p_{3/2}$ orbits. On top of this, $T$=1 two-body matrix elements for $0g_{9/2}$ and above it, including those given by the SNBG3 interaction, are fine tuned by using the standard method [@honma02; @brown06]. The observed levels of the 2$^+_1$ and 4$^+_1$ states of $^{90-96}$Zr and the 0$^+_2$ state of $^{94-100}$Zr are then used. Since the number of available data is so small, this cannot be a fit but a minor improvement. The single-particle energies are determined so as to be consistent with the prediction of the JUN45 Hamiltonian, the observed levels of $^{91}$Zr with spectroscopic factors, [*etc*]{}. The present SM Hamiltonian is, thus, fixed, and no change is made throughout all the calculations below. It is an initial version, and can be refined for better details.
Figure \[sys\](a) shows excitation energies of the 2$^+_{1,2}$ states of the Zr isotopes, indicating that the present MCSM results reproduce quite well the observed trends. The shape of each calculated state is assigned as spherical, prolate, triaxial or oblate by the method of [@mcsm_ni68], as will be discussed later. The calculated 2$^+_1$ state is spherical for $N$=52-56, while it becomes prolate deformed for $N\ge$58. Its excitation energy drops down at $N$=60 by a factor of $\sim$6, and stays almost constant, in agreement with experiment. The ratio between the $4^+_1$ and $2^+_1$ levels, denoted $R_{4/2}$, is depicted in the insert of Fig. \[sys\](a) in comparison to experiment. The sudden increase at $N$=60 is seen in both experiment and calculation, approaching the rotational limit, 10/3, indicative of a rather rigid deformation. The $R_{4/2} < 2$ for $N\le$58 suggests a seniority-type structure which stems from the $Z$=40 semi-magicity.
Figure \[sys\](b) shows the properties of $0^+_{1,2}$ states. Their shapes are assigned in the same way as the 2$^+$ states. The ground state remains spherical up to $N$=58, and becomes prolate at $N$=60. A spherical state appears as the $0^+_4$ state at $N$=60 instead, as shown in Fig. \[sys\](b). We here sketch how the shape assignment is made for the MCSM eigenstate. The MCSM eigenstate is a superposition of MCSM basis vectors projected onto the angular momentum and parity. Each basis vector is a Slater determinant, [*i.e.*]{}, a direct product of superpositions over original single-particle states. The optimum amplitudes in such superpositions are searched based on quantum Monte-Carlo and variational methods [@mcsm_review1; @mcsm_ptep]. For each MCSM basis vector so fixed, we can compute and diagonalize its quadrupole matrix. This gives us the three axes of the ellipsoid with quadrupole momenta $Q_0$ and $Q_2$ in the usual way [@ring_schuck]. One can then plot this MCSM basis vector as a circle on the Potential Energy Surface (PES) , as shown in Fig. \[tplot\]. The overlap probability of this MCSM basis vector with the eigenstate is indicated by the area of the circle. Thus, one can pin down each MCSM basis vector on the PES according to its $Q_0$ and $Q_2$ with its importance by the area of the circle. Note that the PES in Fig. \[tplot\] is obtained by constrained HF calculation for the same SM Hamiltonian, and is used for the sake of an intuitive understanding of MCSM results. This method, called a [*T-plot*]{} [@mcsm_ni68], enables us to analyze SM eigenstates from the viewpoint of intrinsic shape. Figure \[tplot\](a) shows that the MCSM basis vectors of the $0^+_1$ state of $^{98}$Zr are concentrated in a tiny region of the spherical shape, while its $0^+_2$ state is composed of basis vectors of prolate shape with $Q_0\sim$350 fm$^2$ (see Fig. \[tplot\](b)). A similar prolate shape dominates the $0^+_{1}$ state of $^{100}$Zr with slightly larger $Q_0$, as shown in Fig.\[tplot\](c). We point out the abrupt change of the ground-state property from Fig. \[tplot\](a) to (c), and will come back to this point later. The [*T-plot*]{} shows stable prolate shape for the $0^+_{1}$ state from $^{100}$Zr to $^{110}$Zr (see Fig. \[tplot\](d)).
Figure \[sys\](c) displays $B(E2; 2^+_1\rightarrow0^+_1)$ values, with small values up to $N$=58 and a sharp increase at $N$=60, consistent with experiment [@BE2; @BE2_96; @BE2_100104; @BE2_102; @BE2_104106]. The effective charges, $(e_p, e_n) = (1.3e, 0.6e)$, are used. Because the $B(E2; 2^+_1\rightarrow0^+_1)$ value is a sensitive probe of the quadrupole deformation, the salient agreement here implies that the present MCSM calculation produces quite well the shape evolution as $N$ changes. In addition, theoretical and experimental $B(E2; 2^+_2\rightarrow0^+_2)$ values are shown for $N$=54 [@BE2_94Zr_2+2] and 56. The value for $N$=56 has been measured by experiment, discussed in the subsequent paper [@kremer], as an evidence of the shape coexistence in $^{96}$Zr. The overall agreement between theory and experiment appears to be remarkable. It is clear that the $2^+_2\rightarrow0^+_2$ transitions at $N$=54 and 56 are linked to the $2^+_1\rightarrow0^+_1$ transitions in heavier isotopes, via $2^+_1\rightarrow0^+_2$ transition at $N$=58.
Figure \[sys\](d) shows the deformation parameter $\beta_2$ [@bohr_mottelson]. The results of IBM [@ibm_2], HFB [@hfb] and FRDM [@moller95] calculations are included, exhibiting much more gradual changes. The MCSM values are obtained from $B(E2; 2^+_1\rightarrow0^+_1)$.
The systematic trends indicated by the $2^+_1$ level, the ratio $R_{4/2}$, the $B(E2; 2^+_1\rightarrow0^+_1)$ value (or $\beta_2$), and the [*T-plot*]{} analysis are all consistent among themselves and in agreement with relevant experiments. We can, thus, identify the change between $N$=58 and 60 as a QPT, where in general an abrupt change should occur in the quantum structure of the ground state for a certain parameter [@qpt1; @qpt2]. The parameter here is nothing but the neutron number $N$, and the transition occurs from a “spherical phase” to a “deformed phase”. Figure \[sys\](b) demonstrates that the 0$^+_1$ state is spherical up to $N$=58, but the spherical 0$^+$ state is pushed up to the 0$^+_4$ state at $N$=60, where the prolate-deformed 0$^+$ state comes down to the ground state from the 0$^+_2$ state at $N$=58. This sharp crossing causes the present QPT. The discontinuities of various quantities, one of which can be assigned the order parameter, at the crossing point imply the first-order phase transition. The shape transition has been noticed in many chains of isotopes and isotones, but appears to be rather gradual in most cases, for instance, from $^{148}$Sm to $^{154}$Sm. The abrupt change in the Zr isotopes is exceptional.
We comment on the relation between the QPT and the modifications of the interaction mentioned above. Without them, the 2$^+_1$ level is still $\sim$0.2 MeV at $N$=60 close to Fig. \[sys\](a), while at $N$=58 it is higher than the value in Fig. \[sys\](a). Thus, the present QPT occurs rather insensitively to the modifications, whereas experimental data can be better reproduced by them.
![ (Color online) (a) Occupation numbers of protons and (b) effective single-particle energies of neutrons for selected Zr isotopes. Neutron $0g_{9/2}$ is around -12 MeV, and is not shown.[]{data-label="occ_espe"}](Fig3a.eps "fig:")\
![ (Color online) (a) Occupation numbers of protons and (b) effective single-particle energies of neutrons for selected Zr isotopes. Neutron $0g_{9/2}$ is around -12 MeV, and is not shown.[]{data-label="occ_espe"}](Fig3b.eps "fig:")
We now discuss the origin of such abrupt changes. Figure \[occ\_espe\](a) displays the occupation numbers of proton orbits for the $0^+_{1,2}$ states of $^{98}$Zr, the $0^+_{1}$ state of $^{100}$Zr and the $0^+_{1,2}$ states of $^{110}$Zr. From the spherical $0^+_{1}$ to prolate $0^+_{2}$ states of $^{98}$Zr, the occupation number of the proton $0g_{9/2}$ increases from 0.4 to 3.5, while those of the $pf$-shell orbits decrease. The proton $0g_{9/2}$ orbit is more occupied in the prolate $0^+_{1}$ state of $^{100,110}$Zr.
Figure \[occ\_espe\](b) shows effective single-particle energies (ESPE) of neutron orbits calculated with the occupation numbers of the SM eigenstates, shown in Fig. \[occ\_espe\](a) (see [@otsuka16; @mcsm_ni68] for explanations). At a glance, one notices that the ESPEs from $2s_{1/2}$ to $0g_{7/2}$ are distributed over a range of 4 MeV for the $0^+_{1}$ state of $^{98}$Zr, but are within 2 MeV for the prolate states, such as $0^+_{2}$ of $^{98}$Zr, $0^+_{1}$ of $^{100}$Zr and $0^+_{1}$ of $^{110}$Zr. We notice also a massive (3.5-5.5) excitation of protons into $0g_{9/2}$ in these prolate states (see Fig. \[occ\_espe\](a)). These two phenomena are correlated, and are, indeed, predicted in the type II shell evolution scenario [@mcsm_ni68; @otsuka16], where particular particle-hole excitations can vary the shell structure significantly. (See Ref. [@otsuka16] for an overview of type I and II shell evolutions, and Ref. [@kremer] for the discussion on $^{96}$Zr.) To be more concrete, protons in the $0g_{9/2}$ orbital lower the ESPEs of neutron $0g_{7/2}$ and $0h_{11/2}$ orbitals more than other orbits. For the $0g_{9/2}$-$0g_{7/2}$ coupling, the tensor and central forces work coherently [@tensor; @vmu; @nobel], and substantial lowering ($\sim$2 MeV) occurs. In the $0g_{9/2}$-$0h_{11/2}$ case, the tensor and central forces work destructively but the net effect is still lowering, though weaker than the other case. Regarding the central force, the attraction between unique-parity orbits is stronger than the average due to similarities in radial wave functions, as also mentioned earlier by Federman and Pittel [@federman_pittel; @otsuka16]. The present deformation is primarily a result of the quadrupole component of the effective interaction, and is enhanced by coherent contributions of various configurations (Jahn-Teller effect [@jahn_teller]). If single-particle energies are spread with sizable gaps in between, such coherence is disturbed and the deformation is suppressed. In the present prolate states, by distributing protons and neutrons in a favorable way partly by particle-hole excitations, ESPEs can be optimized for stronger deformation as much as possible, thanks to the monopole properties of the central and tensor forces [@tensor; @vmu; @nobel]. This is the idea of type II shell evolution [@otsuka16; @mcsm_ni68], and one finds that it occurs here.
Such reorganization of the shell structure involves substantial re-configuration of protons and neutrons (or type II shell evolution), leading to more different configurations between the normal states and the states with this deformation-optimized shell structure. This property results in a suppressed mixing of two such states even around their crossing point. The abrupt change, thus, appears with almost no mixing, leading to a QPT. In order to have such a situation, a unique-parity orbit, like $0g_{9/2}$, should sit just above a closed shell. This can be fulfilled in the $_{38}$Sr isotopes to a certain extent with similar but less distinct systematic changes. In other elements, however, there is no such case known so far, making the Zr (and Sr) isotopes quite unique at this time. In fact, other cases with somewhat weaker effects of type II shell evolution turn out to be shape coexistence in various forms. For instance, in $^{68}$Ni case, the proton $pf$ shell plays a similar role to the present neutron orbits, but has somewhat weaker collectivity [@mcsm_ni68; @otsuka16].
![ Levels of (a) $^{100}$Zr and (b) $^{110}$Zr. Prolate, oblate and triaxial bands are shown in red, blue and purple, respectively. The $0^+_4$ state in light blue in (a) is spherical. Some large B(E2) values are shown in W.u., with rigid-triaxial-rotor values in parentheses. []{data-label="level"}](Fig4.eps)
Figure \[level\] indicates that the prolate ground bands are similar between $^{100}$Zr and $^{110}$Zr, but an intriguing difference appears in side bands. Figure \[level\](a) depicts the coexistence of the prolate and oblate bands with reasonable agreement to experiment. The excited band of $^{110}$Zr corresponds to a triaxial shape with a profound local minimum at $\gamma \sim 30 ^\circ$ in Fig. \[tplot\](e). It co-exists with the prolate band in such a close energy, because their ESPEs are so different (see Fig. \[occ\_espe\](b)) due to different proton occupations shown in Fig. \[occ\_espe\](a). Note that neutron ESPEs for the $0^+_2$ have two substructures with a gap between $0h_{11/2}$ and $1d_{3/2}$. The B(E2) values in this triaxial band are almost identical to those given by the rigid-triaxial rotor model of Davydov and Filippov with $\gamma$=28$^\circ$ [@DFtriaxial_1; @DFtriaxial_2]. Their prediction normalized by the $B(E2; 2^+_2\rightarrow0^+_2)$ value is included in Fig. \[level\](b). Type II shell evolution thus produces another interesting case. The transition from Figs. \[tplot\](c) to (d,e) suggests a possible second-order phase transition at larger $N$ values, as a future issue.
In summary, a quantum phase transition of the nuclear shape has been shown to occur in the Zr isotopes. The abrupt change appears with a fixed Hamiltonian through type II shell evolution. The re-organization of the shell structure due to type II shell evolution provides us with a new way to look into nuclear structure, and is expected to occur in other nuclei. The lowest states of these Zr isotopes provide a variety of shapes and their coexistence (see Ref. [@kremer] for $^{96}$Zr), including a novel situation of prolate-triaxial coexistence. Further investigations, for instance on octupole shapes, are of much interest, [*e.g.*]{} [@mach90; @kremer].
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Prof. S. Miyashita for valuable comments on the QPT. We are grateful to Prof. B.R. Barrett and Prof. P. Van Duppen for useful remarks, and to Prof. N. Pietralla and Dr. C. Kremer for various discussions, including those on their experimental data prior to publication. This work was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (23244049). It was supported in part by HPCI Strategic Program (hp150224), in part by MEXT and JICFuS and a priority issue (Elucidation of the fundamental laws and evolution of the universe) to be tackled by using Post “K” Computer (hp160211), and by CNS-RIKEN joint project for large-scale nuclear structure calculations.
[99]{}
A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, [ *Nuclear Structure*]{}, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).
P. Ring and R. Schuck, [*The Nuclear Many-Body Problem*]{}, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980).
R.F. Casten, [*Nuclear Structure from a Simple Perspective*]{}, (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2001).
T. Otsuka, M. Honma, T. Mizusaki, N. Shimizu and Y. Utsuno, [Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.]{}, **47**, 319, (2001).
P. Federman and S. Pittel, Phys. Rev. C [**20**]{}, 820 (1979).
NuDat 2.6, http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/
F.K. Wohn, J.C. Hill, C.B. Howard [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**33**]{}, 677 (1986).
G. Lhersonneau, B. Pfeiffer, R. Capote [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 024318 (2002).
J.K. Hwang, A.V. Ramayya, J.H. Hamilton [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{}, 017303 (2006).
J.C. Hill, D.D. Schwellennbach, F.K. Wohn [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**43**]{}, 2591 (1991).
M.A.C. Hotchkis, J.L. Durell, J.B. Fitzgerald [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. A [**530**]{}, 111 (1991).
H. Hua, C.Y. Wu, D. Cline [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{}, 014317 (2004).
J.K. Hwang, A.V. Ramayya, J.H. Hamilton, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**73**]{}, 044316 (2006).
A. Navin, M. Rejmund, C. Schmitt [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**728**]{}, 136 (2014).
T. Sumikama, K. Yoshinaga, and H. Watanabe, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 202501 (2011).
D. Kameda, T. Kubo, and T. Ohnishi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**86**]{}, 054319 (2012).
Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=\
Quantum$\_$phase$\_$transition$\&$oldid=719023111.
S. Sachdev, [*Quantum Phase Transitions*]{}, (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2011).
K. Heyde and J.L. Wood, Rev. Mod. Phys. **83**, 1467, (2011).
N. Shimizu, T. Abe, Y. Tsunoda, Y. Utsuno, T. Yoshida, T. Mizusaki, M. Honma, and T. Otsuka, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. **2012**, 01A205 (2012).
N. Shimizu, Y. Utsuno, T. Mizusaki, M. Honma, Y. Tsunoda, and T. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. C **85**, 054301, (2012).
K. Sieja, F. Nowacki, K. Langanke, and G. Martínez-Pinedo, Phys. Rev. C [**79**]{}, 064310 (2009).
J. E. García-Ramos, K. Heyde, R. Fossion, V. Hellemans, and S. De Baerdemacker, Eur. Phys. J. A [**26**]{}, 221 (2005).
M. Böyükata, P. Van Isacker and İ Uluer, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**37**]{}, 105102 (2010).
F.R. Xu, P.M. Walker, and R. Wyss, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 021303 (2002).
Y. -X. Liu, Y. Sun, X. -H. Zhou, Y. -H. Zhang, S. -Y. Yu, Y. -C. Yang, H. Jin, Nucl. Phys. A [**858**]{}, 11 (2011).
A. Petrovici, K. W. Schmid, and A. Faessler, J. Phys. : Conf. Series [**312**]{}, 092051 (2011); A. Petrovici, Phys. Rev. C [**85**]{}, 034337 (2012).
R. Rodríguez-Guzmán, P. Sarriguren, L. M. Robledo, and S. Perez-Martin, Phys. Lett. B [**691**]{}, 202 (2010).
J. Skalski, P.-H. Heenen, P. Bonche, Nucl. Phys. A [**559**]{}, 221 (1993).
J. Xiang, Z.P. Li, Z.X. Li, J.M. Yao, and J. Meng, Nucl. Phys. A [**873**]{}, 1 (2012).
H. Mei, J. Xiang, J.M. Yao, Z.P. Li, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C [**85**]{}, 034321 (2012).
P. Möller, J.R. Nix, W.D. Myers and W.J. Swiatecki, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables [**59**]{}, 185 (1995).
J. Skalski, S. Mizutori, and W Nazarewicz, Nucl. Phys. A [**617**]{}, 282 (1997).
C. Özen and D. J. Dean, Phys. Rev. C [**73**]{}, 014302 (2006).
M. Honma T. Otsuka, T. Mizusaki, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**80**]{}, 064323, (2009).
M. Honma, [*et al.*]{}, RIKEN Accel. Prog. Rep. [**45**]{}, 35 (2012); M. Honma, private communication.
T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, M. Honma, Y. Utsuno, N. Tsunoda, K. Tsukiyama, and M.H.-Jensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 012501 (2010).
M. Honma, B.A. Brown, T. Mizusaki, and T. Otsuka, Nucl. Phys. A [**704**]{}, 134c (2002).
B.A. Brown and W.A. Richter, Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{}, 034315 (2006).
Y. Tsunoda, T. Otsuka, N. Shimizu, M. Honma, and Y. Utsuno, Phys. Rev. C **89**, 031301, (2014).
S. Raman, C.W. Nestor, JR., and P. Tikkanen, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables [**78**]{}, 1 (2001).
G. Kumbartzki, N. Benczer-Koller, J. Holden [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**562**]{}, 193 (2003).
F. Browne, A.M. Bruce, T. Sumikama, [*et al*]{}., Acta Phys. Pol. B [**46**]{}, 721 (2015).
F. Browne, A.M. Bruce, T. Sumikama [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**750**]{}, 448 (2015).
A. Chakraborty, E.E. Peters, B.P. Crider [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 022504 (2013).
C. Kremer [*et al.*]{}, submitted to PRL.
T. Otsuka and Y. Tsunoda, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**43**]{}, 024009 (2016).
T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, R. Fujimoto, H. Grawe and Y. Akaishi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 232502 (2005).
T. Otsuka, Phys. Scr. [**T152**]{}, 014007 (2013).
P. Federman and S. Pittel, Phys. Lett. B [**69**]{}, 385 (1977).
H.A. Jahn and E. Teller, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A [**161**]{}, 220 (1937).
A.S. Davydov and G.F. Filippov, Nucl. Phys. [**8**]{}, 237 (1958).
A.S. Davydov and V.S. Rostovsky, Nucl. Phys. [**12**]{}, 58 (1959).
H. Mach, S. Ćwiok, W. Nazarewicz, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**42**]{}, R811, (1990).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In recent years, ideas from statistics and scientific computing have begun to interact in increasingly sophisticated and fruitful ways with ideas from computer science and the theory of algorithms to aid in the development of improved worst-case algorithms that are useful for large-scale scientific and Internet data analysis problems. In this chapter, I will describe two recent examples—one having to do with selecting good columns or features from a (DNA Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) data matrix, and the other having to do with selecting good clusters or communities from a data graph (representing a social or information network)—that drew on ideas from both areas and that may serve as a model for exploiting complementary algorithmic and statistical perspectives in order to solve applied large-scale data analysis problems.'
author:
- 'Michael W. Mahoney[^1]'
title: |
Algorithmic and Statistical Perspectives\
on Large-Scale Data Analysis[^2]
---
Introduction
============
In recent years, motivated in large part by technological advances in both scientific and Internet domains, there has been a great deal of interest in what may be broadly termed *large-scale data analysis*. In this chapter, I will focus on what seems to me to be a remarkable and inevitable trend in this increasingly-important area. This trend has to do with the convergence of two very different perspectives or worldviews on what are appropriate or interesting or fruitful ways to view the data. At the risk of oversimplifying a large body of diverse work, I would like to draw a distinction between what I will loosely term the *algorithmic perspective* and the *statistical perspective* on large-scale data analysis problems. By the former, I mean roughly the approach that one trained in computer science might adopt. From this perspective, primary concerns include database issues, algorithmic questions such as models of data access, and the worst-case running time of algorithms for a given objective function. By the latter, I mean roughly the approach that one trained in statistics (or some application area where strong domain-specific assumptions about the data may be made) might adopt. From this perspective, primary concerns include questions such as how well the objective functions being considered conform to the phenomenon under study and whether one can make reliable predictions about the world from the data at hand.
Although very different, these two approaches are certainly not incompatible. Moreover, in spite of peoples’ best efforts *not* to forge the union between these two worldviews, and instead to view the data from one perspective or another, depending on how one happened to be trained, the large-scale data analysis problems that we are increasingly facing—in scientific, Internet, financial, etc. applications—are so important and so compelling—either from a business perspective, or an academic perspective, or an intellectual perspective, or a national security perspective, or from whatever perspective you find to be most compelling—that we are being forced to forge this union.
Thus, *e.g.*, if one looks at the SIG-KDD meeting, ACM’s flagship meeting on data analysis, now (in $2010$) versus $10$ or $15$ years ago, one sees a substantial shift away from more database-type issues toward topics that may be broadly termed statistical, *e.g.*, that either involve explicit statistical modeling or involve making generative assumptions about data elements or network participants. And vice-versa—there has been a substantial shift in statistics, and especially in the natural and social sciences more generally, toward thinking in great detail about computational issues. Moreover, to the extent that statistics as an academic discipline is deferring on this matter, the relatively new area of machine learning is filling in the gap.
I should note that I personally began thinking about these issues some time ago. My Ph.D. was in computational statistical mechanics, and it involved a lot of Monte Carlo and molecular dynamics computations on liquid water and DNA-protein-water interactions. After my dissertation, I switched fields to theoretical computer science, where I did a lot of work on the theory (and then later on the application) of randomized algorithms for large-scale matrix problems. One of the things that struck me during this transition was the deep conceptual disconnect between these two areas. In computer science, we have a remarkable infrastructure of machinery—from complexity classes and data structuring and algorithmic models, to database management, computer architecture, and software engineering paradigms—for solving problems. On the other hand, it seems to me that there tends to be a remarkable lack of appreciation, and thus associated cavalierness, when it comes to understanding how the data can be messy and noisy and poorly-structured in ways that adversely affect how one can be confident in the conclusions that one draws about the world as a result of the output of one’s fast algorithms.
In this chapter, I would like to describe some of the fruits of this thought. To do so, I will focus on two very particular very applied problems in large-scale data analysis on which I have worked. The solution to these two problems benefited from taking advantage of the complementary algorithmic versus statistical perspectives in a novel way. In particular, we will see that, by understanding the statistical properties *implicit* in worst-case algorithms, we can make very strong claims about very applied problems. These claims would have been *much* more difficult to make and justify if one chose to view the problem from just one perspective or the other. The first problem has to do with selecting good features from a data matrix representing DNA microarray or DNA Single Nucleotide Polymorphism data. This is of interest, *e.g.*, to geneticists who want to understand historical trends in population genetics, as well as to biomedical researchers interested in so-called personalized medicine. The second problem has to do with identifying, or certifying that there do not exist, good clusters or communities in a data graph representing a large social or information network. This is of interest in a wide range of applications, such as finding good clusters or micro-markets for query expansion or bucket testing in Internet advertising applications.
The applied results for these two problems have been reported previously in appropriate domain-specific (in this case, genetics and Internet) publications [@Paschou07a; @Paschou07b; @CUR_PNAS; @LLDM08_communities_CONF; @LLDM08_communities_TR; @LLM10_communities_CONF], and I am indebted to my collaborators with whom I have discussed some of these ideas in preliminary form. Thus, rather than focusing on the genetic issues *per se* or the Internet advertising issues *per se* or the theoretical analysis *per se*, in this chapter I would like to focus on what was going on “under the hood” in terms of the interplay between the algorithmic and statistical perspectives. The hope is that these two examples can serve as a model for exploiting the complementary aspects of the algorithmic and statistical perspectives in order to solve very applied large-scale data analysis problems more generally.[^3] As we will see, in neither of these two applications did we *first* perform statistical modeling, independent of algorithmic considerations, and *then* apply a computational procedure as a black box. This approach of more closely coupling the computational procedures used with statistical modeling or statistical understanding of the data seems particularly appropriate more generally for very large-scale data analysis problems, where design decisions are often made based on computational constraints but where it is of interest to understand the implicit statistical consequences of those decisions.
Diverse approaches to modern data analysis problems
===================================================
Before proceeding, I would like in this section to set the stage by describing in somewhat more detail some of diverse approaches that have been brought to bear on modern data analysis problems [@FSS96; @Smy00; @Donoho00; @Bri01_all; @Lam03; @PS03; @MMDS06; @MMDS08_SiamNews]. In particular, although the significant differences between the algorithmic perspective and the statistical perspective have been highlighted previously [@Lam03], they are worth reemphasizing.
A common view of the data in a database, in particular historically among computer scientists interested in data mining and knowledge discovery, has been that the data are an accounting or a record of everything that happened in a particular setting. For example, the database might consist of all the customer transactions over the course of a month, or it might consist of all the friendship links among members of a social networking site. From this perspective, the goal is to tabulate and process the data at hand to find interesting patterns, rules, and associations. An example of an association rule is the proverbial “People who buy beer between $5$ p.m. and $7$ p.m. also buy diapers at the same time.” The performance or quality of such a rule is judged by the fraction of the database that satisfies the rule exactly, which then boils down to the problem of finding frequent itemsets. This is a computationally hard problem, and much algorithmic work has been devoted to its exact or approximate solution under different models of data access.
A very different view of the data, more common among statisticians, is one of a particular random instantiation of an underlying process describing unobserved patterns in the world. In this case, the goal is to extract information about the world from the noisy or uncertain data that are observed. To achieve this, one might posit a model: $ \mathit{data} \sim F_{\theta} $ and $ \operatorname*{mean}(\mathit{data}) = g(\theta) $, where $F_{\theta}$ is a distribution that describes the random variability of the data around the deterministic model $g(\theta)$ of the data. Then, using this model, one would proceed to analyze the data to make inferences about the underlying processes and predictions about future observations. From this perspective, modeling the noise component or variability well is as important as modeling the mean structure well, in large part since understanding the former is necessary for understanding the quality of predictions made. With this approach, one can even make predictions about events that have yet to be observed. For example, one can assign a probability to the event that a given user at a given web site will click on a given advertisement presented at a given time of the day, even if this particular event does not exist in the database.
Although these two perspectives are certainly not incompatible, they are very different, and they lead one to ask very different questions of the data and of the structures that are used to model data. Recall that in many applications, graphs and matrices are common ways to model the data [@MMDS06; @MMDS08_SiamNews]. For example, a common way to model a large social or information network is with an interaction graph model, $G=(V,E)$, in which nodes in the vertex set $V$ represent “entities” and the edges (whether directed, undirected, weighted or unweighted) in the edge set $E$ represent “interactions” between pairs of entities. Alternatively, these and other data sets can be modeled as matrices, since an $m \times n$ real-valued matrix $A$ provides a natural structure for encoding information about $m$ objects, each of which is described by $n$ features. Thus, in the next two sections, I will describe two recent examples—one having to do with modeling data as matrices, and the other having to do with modeling data as a graph—of particular data analysis problems that benefited from taking advantage in novel ways of the respective strengths of the algorithmic and statistical perspectives.
Genetics applications and novel matrix algorithms
=================================================
In this section, I will describe an algorithm for selecting a “good” set of exactly $k$ columns (or, equivalently, exactly $k$ rows) from an arbitrary $m \times n$ matrix $A$. This problem has been studied extensively in scientific computing and Numerical Linear Algebra (NLA), often motivated by the goal of finding a good basis with which to perform large-scale numerical computations. In addition, variants of this problem have recently received a great deal of attention in Theoretical Computer Science (TCS). More generally, problems of this sort arise in many data analysis applications, often in the context of finding a good set of features with which to describe the data or to perform tasks such as classification or regression.
Motivating genetics application
-------------------------------
Recall that “the human genome” consists of a sequence of roughly $3$ billion base pairs on $23$ pairs of chromosomes, roughly $1.5\%$ of which codes for approximately $20,000$ – $25,000$ proteins. A DNA microarray is a device that can be used to measure simultaneously the genome-wide response of the protein product of each of these genes for an individual or group of individuals in numerous different environmental conditions or disease states. This very coarse measure can, of course, hide the individual differences or polymorphic variations. There are numerous types of polymorphic variation, but the most amenable to large-scale applications is the analysis of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs), which are known locations in the human genome where two alternate nucleotide bases (or alleles, out of $A$, $C$, $G$, and $T$) are observed in a non-negligible fraction of the population. These SNPs occur quite frequently, ca. $1$ b.p. per thousand, and thus they are effective genomic markers for the tracking of disease genes (*i.e.*, they can be used to perform classification into sick and not sick) as well as population histories (*i.e*, they can be used to infer properties about population genetics and human evolutionary history).
In both cases, $m \times n$ matrices $A$ naturally arise, either as a people-by-gene matrix, in which $A_{ij}$ encodes information about the response of the $j^{th}$ gene in the $i^{th}$ individual/condition, or as people-by-SNP matrices, in which $A_{ij}$ encodes information about the value of the $j^{th}$ SNP in the $i^{th}$ individual. Thus, matrix computations have received attention in these applications [@Alter_SVD_00; @KPS02; @Meng03; @Horne04; @LA04]. A common *modus operandi* in applying NLA and matrix techniques such as PCA and the SVD to to DNA microarray, DNA SNPs, and other data problems is:
- Model the people-by-gene or people-by-SNP data as an $m \times n$ matrix $A$.
- Perform the SVD (or related eigen-methods such as PCA or recently-popular manifold-based methods [@TSL00; @RS00; @SWHSL06] that boil down to the SVD) to compute a small number of eigengenes or eigenSNPs or eigenpeople that capture most of the information in the data matrix.
- Interpret the top eigenvectors as meaningful in terms of underlying biological processes; or apply a heuristic to obtain actual genes or actual SNPs from the corresponding eigenvectors in order to obtain such an interpretation.
In certain cases, such reification may lead to insight and such heuristics may be justified. (For instance, if the data happen to be drawn from a Guassian distribution, then the eigendirections tend to correspond to the axes of the corresponding ellipsoid, and there are many vectors that, up to noise, point along those directions.) In such cases, however, the justification comes from domain knowledge and not the mathematics [@Gould96; @KPS02; @CUR_PNAS]. The reason is that the eigenvectors themselves, being mathematically defined abstractions, can be calculated for any data matrix and thus are not easily understandable in terms of processes generating the data: eigenSNPs (being linear combinations of SNPs) cannot be assayed; nor can eigengenes be isolated and purified; nor is one typically interested in how eigenpatients respond to treatment when one visits a physician.
For this and other reasons, a common task in genetics and other areas of data analysis is the following: given an input data matrix $A$ and a parameter $k$, find the best subset of exactly $k$ *actual* DNA SNPs or *actual* genes, *i.e.*, *actual* columns or rows from $A$, to use to cluster individuals, reconstruct biochemical pathways, reconstruct signal, perform classification or inference, etc.
A formalization of and prior approaches to this problem
-------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, common formalizations of this algorithmic problem—including looking for the $k$ actual columns that capture the largest amount of information or variance in the data or that are maximally uncorrelated—lead to intractable optimization problems [@CM09a; @CM09b]. In this chapter, I will consider the so-called Column Subset Selection Problem (CSSP): given as input an arbitrary $m \times n$ matrix $A$ and a rank parameter $k$, choose the set of exactly $k$ columns of $A$ s.t. the $m \times k$ matrix $C$ minimizes (over all ${n \choose k}$ sets of such columns) the error: $$\min ||A-P_CA||_{\xi} = \min ||A-CC^+A||_{\xi} \hspace{5mm} (\xi=2,F)
\label{eqn:error-measure}$$ where $\xi=2,F$ represents the spectral or Frobenius norm[^4] of $A$ and where $P_C=CC^+$ is the projection onto the subspace spanned by the columns of $C$.
Within NLA, a great deal of work has focused on this CSSP problem [@BG65; @Fos86; @Cha87; @CH90; @BH91; @HP92; @CI94; @GE96; @BQ98a; @PT99; @Pan00]. Several general observations about the NLA approach include:
- The focus in NLA is on *deterministic algorithms*. Moreover, these algorithms are greedy, in that at each iterative step, the algorithm makes a decision about which columns to keep according to a pivot-rule that depends on the columns it currently has, the spectrum of those columns, etc. Differences between different algorithms often boil down to how deal with such pivot rules decisions, and the hope is that more sophisticated pivot-rule decisions lead to better algorithms in theory or in practice.
- There are deep *connections with QR factorizations* and in particular with the so-called Rank Revealing QR factorizations. Moreover, there is an emphasis on optimal conditioning questions, backward error analysis issues, and whether the running time is a large or small constant multiplied by $n^2$ or $n^3$.
- Good *spectral norm bounds* are obtained. A typical spectral norm bound is: $$||A-P_CA||_2 \le O\left(\sqrt{k(n-k)}\right)||A-P_{U_k}A||_2 ,$$ and these results are algorithmic, in that the running time is a low-degree polynomial in $m$ and $n$ [@GE96]. On the other hand, the strongest results for the Frobenius norm in this literature is $$||A-P_CA||_F \le \sqrt{(k+1)(n-k)}||A-P_{U_k}A||_2 ,$$ but it is only an existential result, *i.e.*, the only known algorithm essentially involves exhaustive enumeration [@HP92]. (In these two expressions, $U_k$ is the $m \times k$ matrix consisting of the top $k$ left singular vectors of $A$, and $P_{U_k}$ is a projection matrix onto the span of $U_k$.)
Within TCS, a great deal of work has focused on the related problem of choosing good columns from a matrix [@DFKVV04_JRNL; @dkm_matrix1; @dkm_matrix2; @dkm_matrix3; @RV07; @DMM08_CURtheory_JRNL]. Several general observations about the TCS approach include:
- The focus in TCS is on *randomized algorithms*. In particular, with these algorithms, there exists some nonzero probability, which can typically be made extremely small, say $10^{-20}$, that the algorithm will return columns that fail to satisfy the desired quality-of-approximation bound.
- The algorithms select *more than $k$ columns*, and the best rank-$k$ projection onto those columns is considered. The number of columns is typically a low-degree polynomial in $k$, most often $O(k \log k)$, where the constants hidden in the big-O notation are quite reasonable.
- Very good *Frobenius norm bounds* are obtained. For example, the algorithm (described below) that provides the strongest Frobenius norm bound achieves: $$||A-P_{C_k}A||_F \le (1+\epsilon) ||A-P_{U_k}A ||_F ,
\label{eqn:rel-err}$$ while running in time of the order of computing an exact or approximate basis for the top-$k$ right singular subspace [@DMM08_CURtheory_JRNL]. The TCS literature also demonstrates that there exists a set of $k$ columns that achieves a constant-factor approximation: $$||A-P_{C_k}A||_F \le \sqrt{k} ||A-P_{U_k}A ||_F ,$$ but note that this is an existential result [@DV06]. (Here, $C_k$ is the best rank-$k$ approximation to the matrix $C$, and $P_{C_k}$ is the projection matrix onto this $k$-dimensional space.)
Much of the early work in TCS focused on randomly sampling columns according to an importance sampling distribution that depended on the Euclidean norm of those columns [@DFKVV04_JRNL; @dkm_matrix1; @dkm_matrix2; @dkm_matrix3; @RV07]. This had the advantage of being “fast,” in the sense that it could be performed in a small number of “passes” over that data from external storage, and also that additive-error quality-of-approximation bounds could be proved. This had the disadvantage of being less immediately-applicable to scientific computing and large-scale data analysis applications. For example, columns are often normalized during data preprocessing; and even when not normalized, column norms can still be uninformative, as in heavy-tailed graph data[^5] where they often correlate strongly with simpler statistics such as node degree.
The algorithm from the TCS literature that achieves the strongest Frobenius norm bounds of the form (\[eqn:rel-err\]) is the following.[^6] Given an $m \times n$ matrix $A$ and a rank parameter $k$:
- Compute the importance sampling probabilities $\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{n}$, where $p_i=\frac{1}{k}||{V_k^T}^{(i)}||_2^2$, where $V_k^T$ is *any* $k \times n$ orthogonal matrix spanning the top-$k$ right singular subspace of $A$. (Note that these quantities are proportional to the diagonal elements of the projection matrix onto the span of $V_k^T$.)
- Randomly select and rescale $c = O(k \log k /\epsilon^2)$ columns of $A$ according to these probabilities.
A more detailed description of this algorithm may be found in [@DMM08_CURtheory_JRNL; @CUR_PNAS], where it is proven that (\[eqn:rel-err\]) holds with extremely high probability. The computational bottleneck for this algorithm is computing $\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{n}$, for which it suffices to compute *any* $k \times n$ matrix $V_k^T$ that spans the top-$k$ right singular subspace of $A$. (That is, it suffices to compute any orthonormal basis spanning $V_k^T$, and it is not necessary to compute the full SVD.) It is an open problem whether these importance sampling probabilities can be approximated more rapidly.
To motivate the importance sampling probabilities used by this algorithm, recall that if one is looking for a worst-case relative-error approximation of the form (\[eqn:rel-err\]) to a matrix with $k-1$ large singular values and one much smaller singular value, then the directional information of the $k^{th}$ singular direction will be hidden from the Euclidean norms of the matrix. Intuitively, the reason is that, since $A_k=U_k \Sigma_k V_k^T$, the Euclidean norms of the columns of $A$ are convolutions of “subspace information” (encoded in $U_k$ and $V_k^T$) and “size-of-$A$ information” (encoded in $\Sigma_k$). This suggests deconvoluting subspace information and size-of-$A$ information by choosing importance sampling probabilities that depend on the Euclidean norms of the columns of $V_k^T$. Thus, this importance sampling distribution defines a nonuniformity structure over $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ that indicates *where* in the $n$-dimensional space the information in $A$ is being sent, independent of *what* that (singular value) information is. As we will see in the next two subsections, by using these importance sampling probabilities, we can obtain novel algorithms for two very traditional problems in NLA and scientific computing.
An aside on least squares and statistical leverage {#sxn:LS}
--------------------------------------------------
The analysis of the relative-error algorithm described in the previous subsection and of the algorithm for the CSSP described in the next subsection boils down to a least-squares approximation result. Intuitively, these algorithms find columns that provide a space that is good in a least-squares sense, when compared to the best rank-$k$ space, at reconstructing every row of the input matrix [@DMM08_CURtheory_JRNL; @BMD08_CSSP_TR].
Thus, consider the problem of finding a vector $x$ such that $Ax \approx b$, where the rows of $A$ and elements of $b$ correspond to constraints and the columns of $A$ and elements of $x$ correspond to variables. In the very overconstrained case where the $m \times n$ matrix $A$ has $m \gg n$,[^7] there is in general no vector $x$ such that $Ax=b$, and it is common to quantify “best” by looking for a vector $x_{opt}$ such that the Euclidean norm of the residual error is small, *i.e.*, to solve the least-squares (LS) approximation problem $$x_{opt} = \mbox{argmin}_x ||Ax-b||_2 .$$ This problem is ubiquitous in applications, where it often arises from fitting the parameters of a model to experimental data, and it is central to theory. Moreover, it has a natural statistical interpretation as providing the best estimator within a natural class of estimators, and it has a natural geometric interpretation as fitting the part of the vector $b$ that resides in the column space of $A$. From the viewpoint of low-rank matrix approximation and the CSSP, this LS problem arises since measuring the error with a Frobenius or spectral norm, as in (\[eqn:error-measure\]), amounts to choosing columns that are “good” in a least squares sense.
From an algorithmic perspective, the relevant question is: how long does it take to compute $x_{opt}$? The answer here is that is takes $O(mn^2)$ time [@GVL96]—*e.g.*, depending on numerical issues, condition numbers, etc., this can be accomplished with the Cholesky decomposition, a variant of the QR decomposition, or by computing the full SVD.
From a statistical perspective, the relevant question is: when is computing this $x_{opt}$ the right thing to do? The answer to this is that this LS optimization is the right problem to solve when the relationship between the “outcomes” and “predictors” is roughly linear and when the error processes generating the data are “nice” (in the sense that they have mean zero, constant variance, are uncorrelated, and are normally distributed; or when we have adequate sample size to rely on large sample theory) [@ChatterjeeHadi88].
Of course, in practice these assumptions do not hold perfectly, and a prudent data analyst will check to make sure that these assumptions have not been too violated. To do this, it is common to assume that $b=Ax+\varepsilon$, where $b$ is the response, the columns $A^{(i)}$ are the carriers, and $\varepsilon$ is the nice error process. Then $x_{opt}=(A^TA)^{-1}A^Tb$, and thus $\hat{b}=Hb$, where the projection matrix onto the column space of $A$, $H=A(A^TA)^{-1}A^T$, is the so-called *hat matrix*. It is known that $H_{ij}$ measures the influence or statistical leverage exerted on the prediction $\hat{b}_i$ by the observation $b_j$ [@HW78; @ChatterjeeHadi88; @CH86]. Relatedly, if the $i^{th}$ diagonal element of $H$ is particularly large then the $i^{th}$ data point is particularly sensitive or influential in determining the best LS fit, thus justifying the interpretation of the elements $H_{ii}$ as *statistical leverage scores* [@CUR_PNAS].[^8]
To gain insight into these statistical leverage scores, consider the so-called “wood beam data” example [@DS66; @HW78], which is visually presented in Figure \[fig:leverage:wooddata\], along with the best-fit line to that data. In Figure \[fig:leverage:woodscores\], the leverage scores for these ten data points are shown. Intuitively, data points that “stick out” have particularly high leverage—*e.g.*, the data point that has the most influence or leverage on the best-fit line to the wood beam data is the point marked “4”, and this is reflected in the relative magnitude of the corresponding statistical leverage score. Indeed, since $\mbox{Trace}(H)=n$, a rule of thumb that has been suggested in diagnostic regression analysis to identify errors and outliers in a data set is to investigate the $i^{th}$ data point if $H_{ii} > 2n/m$ [@VW81; @ChatterjeeHadiPrice00], *i.e.*, if $H_{ii}$ is larger that $2$ or $3$ times the “average” size. On the other hand, of course, if it happens to turn out that such a point is a legitimate data point, then one might expect that such an outlying data point will be a particularly important or informative data point.
\
\
Returning to the algorithmic perspective, consider the following random sampling algorithm for the LS approximation problem [@DMM06; @DMM08_CURtheory_JRNL]. Given a very overconstrained least-squares problem, where the input matrix $A$ and vector $b$ are *arbitrary*, but $m \gg n$:
- Compute normalized statistical leverage scores $\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{m}$, where $p_i = ||U_{A}^{(i)}||_2^2/k$, where $U$ is the $m \times n$ matrix consisting of the left singular vectors of $A$.[^9]
- Randomly sample and rescale $r=O(n \log n /\epsilon^2 )$ constraints, *i.e.*, rows of $A$ and the corresponding elements of $b$, using these scores as an importance sampling distribution.
- Solve (using any appropriate LS solver as a black box) the induced subproblem to obtain a vector $\tilde{x}_{opt}$.
Since this algorithm samples constraints and not variables, the dimensionality of the vector $\tilde{x}_{opt}$ that solves the subproblem is the same as that of the vector $x_{opt}$ that solves the original problem. This algorithm is described in more detail in [@DMM06; @DMM08_CURtheory_JRNL], where it is shown that relative error bounds of the form $$\begin{aligned}
||b-A\tilde{x}_{opt}||_2
&\leq& (1+\epsilon) ||b-Ax_{opt}||_2 \hspace{2mm} \mbox{ and } \\
||x_{opt} - \tilde{x}_{opt}||_2
% &\leq& \epsilon \left( \kappa(A)\sqrt{\gamma^{-2}-1} \right) ||x_{opt}||_2
&\leq& O(\epsilon) ||x_{opt}||_2 \end{aligned}$$ hold. Even more importantly, this algorithm highlights that the essential nonuniformity structure for the worst-case analysis of the LS (and, as we will see, the related CSSP) problem is defined by the statistical leverage scores! That is, the same “outlying” data points that the diagnostic regression analyst tends to investigate are those points that are biased toward by the worst-case importance sampling probability distribution.
Clearly, for this LS algorithm, which holds for arbitrary input $A$ and $b$, $O(mn^2)$ time suffices to compute the sampling probabilities; in addition, it has recently been shown that one can obtain a nontrivial approximation to them in $o(mn^2)$ time [@Malik10_TR]. For many applications, such as those described in subsequent subsections, spending time on the order of computing an exact or approximate basis for the top-$k$ singular subspace is acceptable, in which case immediate generalizations of this algorithm are of interest. In other cases, one can preprocess the LS system with a “randomized Hadamard” transform (as introduced in the “fast” Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma [@AC06; @Matousek08_RSA]). Application of such a Hadamard transform tends to “uniformize” the leverage scores, intuitively for the same reason that a Fourier matrix delocalizes a localized $\delta$-function, in much the same way as application of a random orthogonal matrix or a random projection does. This has led to the development of relative-error approximation algorithms for the LS problem that run in $o(mn^2)$ time in theory [@Sarlos06; @DMMS07_FastL2_TR]—essentially $O( mn \log(n/\epsilon) + \frac{n^3 \log^2 m}{\epsilon} )$ time, which is much less than $O(mn^2)$ when $m \gg n$—and whose numerical implementation performs faster than traditional deterministic algorithms for systems with as few as thousands of constraints and hundreds of variables [@RT08; @AMT09_DRAFT].
A two-stage hybrid algorithm for the CSSP
-----------------------------------------
In this subsection, I will describe an algorithm for the CSSP that uses the concept of statistical leverage to combine the NLA and TCS approaches, that comes with worst-case performance guarantees, and that performs well in practical data analysis applications. I should note that, prior to this algorithm, it was not immediately clear how to combine these two approaches. For example, if one looks at the details of the pivot rules in the deterministic NLA methods, it isn’t clear that keeping more columns will help at all in terms of reconstruction error. Similarly, since there is a version of the “coupon collecting” problem at the heart of the usual TCS analysis, keeping fewer than $\Omega(k \log k)$ will fail with respect to this worst-case analysis. Moreover, the obvious hybrid algorithm of first randomly sampling $O(k \log k)$ columns and then using a deterministic QR procedure to select exactly $k$ of those columns does not seem to perform so well (either in theory or in practice).
Consider the following more sophisticated version of a two-stage hybrid algorithm. Given an arbitrary $m \times n$ matrix $A$ and rank parameter $k$:
- (Randomized phase) Let $V_k^T$ be *any* $k \times n$ orthogonal matrix spanning the top-$k$ right singular subspace of $A$. Compute the importance sampling probabilities $\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{n}$, where $$p_i=\frac{1}{k}||{V_k^T}^{(i)}||_2^2 .
\label{eqn:sampling-probs}$$ Randomly select and rescale $c = O(k \log k)$ columns of $V_k^T$ according to these probabilities.
- (Deterministic phase) Let $\tilde{V}^T$ be the $k \times O(k \log k)$ non-orthogonal matrix consisting of the down-sampled and rescaled columns of $V_k^T$. Run a deterministic QR algorithm on $\tilde{V}^T$ to select exactly $k$ columns of $\tilde{V}^T$. Return the corresponding columns of $A$.
In particular, note that both the original choice of columns in the first phase, as well as the application of the QR algorithm in the second phase, involve the matrix $V_k^T$, *i.e.*, the matrix defining the relevant non-uniformity structure over the columns of $A$ in the ($1+\epsilon$)-relative-error algorithm [@DMM08_CURtheory_JRNL; @CUR_PNAS], rather than the matrix $A$ itself, as is more traditional.[^10] A more detailed description of this algorithm may be found in [@BMD08_CSSP_TR], were it is shown that with extremely high probability the following spectral[^11] and Frobenius norm bounds hold: $$\begin{aligned}
||A-P_CA||_2 &\le& O(k^{3/4} \log^{1/2}(k) n^{1/2}) ||A-P_{U_k}A||_2 \\
||A-P_CA||_F &\le& O(k \log^{1/2} k) ||A-P_{U_k}A||_F\end{aligned}$$ Interestingly, the analysis of this algorithm makes critical use of the importance sampling probabilities (\[eqn:sampling-probs\]), which are a generalization of the concept of *statistical* leverage described in the previous subsection, for its worst-case *algorithmic* performance guarantees. Moreover, it is critical to the success of this algorithm that the QR procedure in the second phase be applied to the randomly-sampled version of $V_k^T$, *i.e.*, the matrix defining the worst-case nonuniformity structure in $A$, rather than of $A$ itself.
With respect to running time, the computational bottleneck for this algorithm is computing $\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{n}$, for which it suffices to compute *any* $k \times n$ matrix $V_k^T$ that spans the top-$k$ right singular subspace of $A$. (In particular, a full SVD computation is *not* necessary.) Thus, this running time is of the same order as the running time of the QR algorithm used in the second phase when applied to the original matrix $A$. Moreover, this algorithm easily scales up to matrices with thousands of rows and millions of columns, whereas existing off-the-shelf implementations of the traditional algorithm may fail to run at all. With respect to the worst-case quality of approximation bounds, this algorithm selects columns that are comparable to the state-of-the-art algorithms for constant $k$ (*i.e.*, $O(k^{1/4}\log^{1/2}k)$ worse than previous work) for the spectral norm and only a factor of at most $O((k \log k)^{1/2})$ worse than the best previously-known existential result for the Frobenius norm.
Data applications of the CSSP algorithm {#sxn:cssp-data}
---------------------------------------
In the applications we have considered [@Paschou07a; @Paschou07b; @CUR_PNAS; @BMD08_CSSP_KDD; @BMD09_kmeans_NIPS], the goals of DNA microarray and DNA SNP analysis include the reconstruction of untyped genotypes, the evaluation of tagging SNP transferability between geographically-diverse populations, the classification and clustering into diseased and non-diseased states, and the analysis of admixed populations with non-trivial ancestry; and the goals of selecting good columns more generally include diagnostic data analysis and unsupervised feature selection for classification and clustering problems. Here, I will give a flavor of when and why and how the CSSP algorithm of the previous subsection might be expected to perform well in these and other types of data applications.
To gain intuition for the behavior of leverage scores in a typical application, consider Figure \[fig:leverage:zachary\], which illustrates the so-called Zachary karate club network [@zachary77karate], a small but popular network in the community detection literature. Given such a network $G=(V,E)$, with $n$ nodes, $m$ edges, and corresponding edge weights $w_e \ge 0$, define the $n \times n$ Laplacian matrix as $L=B^T W B$, where $B$ is the $m \times n$ edge-incidence matrix and $W$ is the $m \times m$ diagonal weight matrix. The effective resistance between two vertices is given by the diagonal entries of the matrix $R= B L^{\dagger} B^T$ (where $L^{\dagger}$ denotes the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse) and is related to notions of “network betweenness” [@newman05_betweenness]. For many large graphs, this and related betweenness measures tend to be strongly correlated with node degree and tend to be large for edges that form articulation points between clusters and communities, *i.e.*, for edges that “stick out” a lot. It can be shown that the effective resistances of the edges of $G$ are proportional to the statistical leverage scores of the $m$ rows of the $m \times n$ matrix $W^{1/2}B$—consider the $m \times m$ matrix $$P = W^{1/2}RW^{1/2} = \Phi(\Phi^T\Phi)^+\Phi^T ,$$ where $ \Phi = W^{1/2}B $, and note that if $U_{\Phi}$ denotes any orthogonal matrix spanning the column space of $\Phi$, then $$P_{ii} = (U_{\Phi}U_{\Phi}^T)_{ii} = ||(U_{\Phi})_{(i)}||_2^2 .$$ Figure \[fig:leverage:zachary\] presents a color-coded illustration of these scores for Zachary karate club network.
Next, to gain intuition for the (non-)uniformity properties of statistical leverage scores in a typical application, consider a term-document matrix derived from the publicly-released Enron electronic mail collection [@BB06], which is an example of social or information network we will encounter again in the next section and which is also typical of the type of data set to which SVD-based latent semantic analysis (LSA) methods [@DDLFH90] have been applied. I constructed a $65,031 \times 92,133$ matrix, as described in [@BB06], and I chose the rank parameter as $k=10$. Figure \[fig:leverage:cumlev\] plots the cumulative leverage, *i.e.*, the running sum of top $t$ statistical leverage scores, as a function of increasing $t$. Since $\frac{k}{n}=\frac{10}{92,133}\approx1.0854\times10^{-4}$, we see that the highest leverage term has a leverage score nearly two orders of magnitude larger than this “average” size scale, that the second highest-leverage score is only marginally less than the first, that the third highest score is marginally less than the second, etc. Thus, by the traditional metrics of diagnostic data analysis [@VW81; @ChatterjeeHadiPrice00], which suggests flagging a data point if $$(P_{U_k})_{ii} = (H_k)_{ii}> 2k/n ,$$ there are a *huge* number of data points that are *extremely* outlying. In retrospect, of course, this might not be surprising since the Enron email corpus is extremely sparse, with nowhere on the order of $\Omega(n)$ nonzeros per row. Thus, even though LSA methods have been successfully applied, plausible generative models associated with these data are clearly not Gaussian, and the sparsity structure is such that there is no reason to expect that nice phenomena such as measure concentration occur.
Finally, note that DNA microarray and DNA SNP data often exhibit a similar degree of nonuniformity, although for somewhat different reasons. To illustrate, Figure \[fig:leverage:bio\] presents two plots. First, it plots the normalized statistical leverage scores for a data matrix, as was described in [@CUR_PNAS], consisting of $m = 31$ patients with $3$ different cancer types with respect to $n = 5520$ genes. A similar plot illustrating the remarkable nonuniformity in statistical leverage scores for DNA SNP data was presented in [@Paschou07b]. Empirical evidence suggests that two phenomena may be responsible. First, as with the term-document data, there is no domain-specific reason to believe that nice properties like measure concentration occur—on the contrary, there are reasons to expect that they do not. Recall that each DNA SNP corresponds to a single mutational event in human history. Thus, it will “stick out,” as its description along its one axis in the vector space will likely not be well-expressed in terms of the other axes, *i.e.*, in terms of the other SNPs, and by the time it “works its way back” due to population admixing, etc., other SNPs will have occurred elsewhere. Second, the correlation between statistical leverage and supervised mutual information-based metrics is particularly prominent in examples where the data cluster well in the low-dimensional space defined by the maximum variance axes. Considering such data sets is, of course, a strong selection bias, but it is common in applications. It would be of interest to develop a model that quantifies the observation that, conditioned on clustering well in the low-dimensional space, an unsupervised measure like leverage scores should be expected to correlate well with a supervised measure like informativeness [@Paschou07b] or information gain [@CUR_PNAS].
With respect to some of the more technical and implementational issues, several observations [@BMD08_CSSP_KDD; @BMD08_CSSP_TR] shed light on the inner workings of the CSSP algorithm and its usefulness in applications. Recall that an important aspect of QR algorithms is how they make so-called pivot rule decisions about which columns to keep [@GVL96] and that such decisions can be tricky when the columns are not orthogonal or spread out in similarly nice ways.
- We looked at several versions of the QR algorithm, and we compared each version of QR to the CSSP using that version of QR in the second phase. One observation we made was that different QR algorithms behave differently—*e.g.*, some versions such as the Low-RRQR algorithm of [@CH94] tend to perform much better than other versions such as the qrxp algorithm of [@BQ98a; @BQ98b]. Although not surprising to NLA practitioners, this observation indicates that some care should be paid to using “off the shelf” implementations in large-scale applications. A second less-obvious observation is that preprocessing with the randomized first phase tends to improve more poorly-performing variants of QR more than better variants. Part of this is simply that the more poorly-performing variants have more room to improve, but part of this is also that more sophisticated versions of QR tend to make more sophisticated pivot rule decisions, which are relatively less important after the randomized bias toward directions that are “spread out.”
- We also looked at selecting columns by applying QR on $V_k^T$ and then keeping the corresponding columns of $A$, *i.e.*, just running the classical deterministic QR algorithm with no randomized first phase on the matrix $V_k^T$. Interestingly, with this “preprocessing” we tended to get better columns than if we ran QR on the original matrix $A$. Again, the interpretation seems to be that, since the norms of the columns of $V_k^T$ define the relevant nonuniformity structure with which to sample with respect to, working directly with those columns tends make things “spread out,” thereby avoiding (even in traditional deterministic settings) situations where pivot rules have problems.
- Of course, we also observed that randomization further improves the results, assuming that care is taken in choosing the rank parameter $k$ and the sampling parameter $c$. In practice, the choice of $k$ should be viewed as a “model selection” question. Then, by choosing $c=k,1.5k,2k,\ldots$, we often observed a “sweet spot,” in bias-variance sense, as a function of increasing $c$. That is, for a fixed $k$, the behavior of the deterministic QR algorithms improves by choosing somewhat more than $k$ columns, but that improvement is degraded by choosing too many columns in the randomized phase.
Some general thoughts on leverage scores and matrix algorithms
--------------------------------------------------------------
I will conclude this section with two general observations raised by these theoretical and empirical results having to do with using the concept of statistical leverage to obtain columns from an input data matrix that are good both in worst-case analysis and also in large-scale data applications.
One high-level question raised by these results is: why should statistical leverage, a traditional concept from regression diagnostics, be useful to obtain improved worst-case approximation algorithms for traditional NLA matrix problems? The answer to this seems to be that, intuitively, if a data point has a high leverage score and is not an error then it might be a particularly important or informative data point. Since worst-case analysis takes the input matrix as given, each row is assumed to be reliable, and so worst-case guarantees are obtained by focusing effort on the most informative data points. It would be interesting to see if this perspective is applicable more generally in the design of matrix and graph algorithms.
A second high-level question is: why are the statistical leverage scores so nonuniform in many large-scale data analysis applications. Here, the answer seems to be that, intuitively, in many very large-scale applications, statistical models are *implicitly* assumed based on computational and not statistical considerations. In these cases, it is not surprising that some interesting data points “stick out” relative to obviously inappropriate models. This suggests the use of these importance sampling scores as cheap signatures of the “inappropriateness” of a statistical model (chosen for algorithmic and not statistical reasons) in large-scale exploratory or diagnostic applications. It would also be interesting to see if this perspective is applicable more generally.
Internet applications and novel graph algorithms
================================================
In this section, I will describe a novel perspective on identifying good clusters or communities in a large graph. The general problem of finding good clusters in (or good partitions of) a data graph has been studied extensively in a wide range of applications. For example, it has been studied for years in scientific computation (where one is interested in load balancing in parallel computing applications), machine learning and computer vision (where one is interested in segmenting images and clustering data), and theoretical computer science (where one is interested in it as a primitive in divide-and-conquer algorithms). More recently, problems of this sort have arisen in the analysis of large social and information networks, where one is interested in finding communities that are meaningful in a domain-specific context.
Motivating Internet application
-------------------------------
Sponsored search is a type of contextual advertising where Web site owners pay a fee, usually based on click-throughs or ad views, to have their Web site search results shown in top placement position on search engine result pages. For example, when a user enters a term into a search box, the search engine typically presents not only so-called “algorithmic results,” but it also presents text-based advertisements that are important for revenue generation. In this context, one can construct a so-called *advertiser-bidded-phrase graph*, the simplest variant of which is a bipartite graph $G=(U,V,E)$, in which $U$ consists of some discretization of the set of advertisers, $V$ consists of some discretization of the set of keywords that have been bid upon, and an edge $e=(u,v) \in E$ is present if advertiser $u \in U$ had bid on phrase $v \in V$. It is then of interest to perform data mining on this graph in order to optimize quantities such as the user click-through-rate or advertiser return-on-investment.
Numerous community-related problems arise in this context. For example, in *micro-market identification*, one is interested in identifying a set of nodes that is large enough that it is worth spending an analyst’s time upon, as well as coherent enough that it can be usefully thought about as a “market” in an economic sense. Such a cluster can be useful for A/B bucket testing, as well as for recommending to advertisers new queries or sub-markets. Similarly, in *advanced match*, an advertiser places bids not only when an exact match occurs to a set of advertiser-specified phrases, but also when a match occurs to phrases “similar to” the specified bid phrases. Ignoring numerous natural language and game theoretic issues, one can imagine that if the original phrase is in the middle of a fairly homogeneous concept class, then there may be a large number of similar phrases that are nearby in the graph topology, in which case it might be advantageous to both the advertiser and the search engine to include those phrases in the bidding. On the other hand, if the original phrase is located in a locally very unstructured part of the graph, then there may be a large number of phrases that are nearby in the graph topology but that have a wide range of meanings very different than the original bid phrase, in which case performing such an expansion might not make sense.
As in many other application areas, in these clustering and community identification applications, a common *modus operandi* in applying data analysis tools is:
- Define an objective function that formalizes the intuition that one has as a data analyst as to what constitutes a good cluster or community.
- Since that objective function is almost invariably intractable to optimize exactly, apply some approximation algorithm or heuristic to the problem.
- If the set of nodes that are thereby obtained look plausibly good in an application-dependent sense, then declare success. Otherwise, modify the objective function or heuristic or algorithm, and iterate the process.
Such an approach can lead to insight—*e.g.*, if the data are “morally” low-dimensional, as might be the case, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:communities:toy-kmeans\], when the Singular Value Decomposition, manifold-based machine learning methods, or $k$-means-like statistical modeling assumptions are appropriate; or if the data have other “nice” hierarchical properties that conform to one’s intuition, as suggested by the schematic illustration in Figure \[fig:communities:ad-bid-schematic\]; or if the data come from a nice generative model such as a mixture model. In these cases, a few steps of such a procedure will likely lead to a reasonable solution.
On the other hand, if the size of the data is larger, or if the data arise from an application where the sparsity structure and noise properties are more adversarial and less intuitive, then such an approach can be problematic. For example, if a reasonable solution is not readily obtained, then it is typically not clear whether one’s original intuition was wrong; whether this is due to an improper formalization of the correct intuitive concept; whether insufficient computational resources were devoted to the problem; whether the sparsity and noise structure of the data have been modeled correctly, etc. That common visualization algorithms applied to large networks lead to largely non-interpretable figures, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:communities:real-network-vis\], which reveal more about the inner workings of the visualization algorithm than the network being visualized, *suggests* that this more problematic situation is more typical of large social and information network data. In such cases, it would be of interest to have principled tools, the algorithmic and statistical properties of which are well-understood, to “explore” the data.
-- -- --
-- -- --
A formalization of and prior approaches to this problem
-------------------------------------------------------
One of the most basic question that one can ask about a data set (and one which is intimately related to questions of community identification) is: what does the data set “look like” if it is cut into two pieces? This is of interest since, *e.g.*, one would expect very different properties from a data set that “looked like” a hot dog or a pancake, in that one could split it into two roughly equally-sized pieces, each of which was meaningfully coherent in and of itself; as opposed to a data set that “looked like” a moderately-dense expander-like random graph, in that there didn’t exist any good partitions of any size of the data into two pieces; as opposed to a data set in which there existed good partitions, but those involved nibbling off just $0.1\%$ of the nodes of the data and leaving the rest intact.
A common way to formalize this question of qualitative connectivity is via the *graph partitioning* problem [@Pot96; @jain99data; @ShiMalik00_NCut; @gaertler05_clustering; @luxburg05_survey; @newman2006finding; @Schaeffer07_survey]. Graph partitioning refers to a family of objective functions and associated approximation algorithms that involve cutting or partitioning the nodes of a graph into two sets with the goal that the cut has good quality (*i.e.*, not much edge weight crosses the cut) as well as good balance (*i.e.*, each of the two sets has a lot of the node weight). There are several standard formalizations of this bi-criterion. In this chapter, I will be interested in the quotient cut formulations,[^12] which require the small side to be large enough to “pay for” the edges in the cut.
Given an undirected, possibly weighted, graph $G=(V,E)$, the *expansion $\alpha(S)$ of a set of nodes $S \subseteq V$* is: $$\alpha(S) = \frac{|E(S, \overline{S})|}{\min\{|S|,|\overline{S}|)\}},
\label{eqn:expansion_set}$$ where $E(S, \overline{S})$ denotes the set of edges having one end in $S$ and one end in the complement $\overline{S}$, and where $|\cdot|$ denotes cardinality (or weight); and the *expansion of the graph $G$* is: $$\alpha(G) = \min_{S \subseteq V} \alpha(S) .
\label{eqn:expansion_graph}$$ Alternatively, if there is substantial variability in node degree, then normalizing by a related quantity is of greater interest. The *conductance $\phi(S)$ of a set of nodes $S \subset V$* is: $$\phi(S) = \frac{ |E(S, \overline{S})| }{ \min\{A(S),A(\bar{S})\} } ,
\label{eqn:conductance_set}$$ where $A(S) = \sum_{i \in S} \sum_{j \in V} A_{ij} $, where $A$ is the adjacency matrix of a graph. In this case, the *conductance of the graph $G$* is: $$\phi(G) = \min_{S \subseteq V} \phi(S) .
\label{eqn:conductance_graph}$$ In either case, one could replace the “min” in the denominator with a “product,” *e.g.*, replace $\min\{A(S),A(\bar{S})\}$ in the denominator of Eqn. (\[eqn:conductance\_set\]) with $A(S)\cdot A(\bar{S})$.[^13] The product formulation provides a slightly greater reward to a cut for having a big big-side, and it so has a slightly weaker preference for balance than the minimum formulation. Both formulations are equivalent, though, in that the objective function value of the set of nodes achieving the minimum with the one is within a factor of $2$ of the objective function value of the (in general different) set of nodes achieving the minimum with the other. Generically, the Minimum Conductance Cut Problem refers to solving any of these formulations; and importantly, all of these variants of the graph partitioning problem lead to intractable combinatorial optimization problems.
Within scientific computing [@Pot96; @spielman96_spectral; @karypis98_metis; @karypis98metis], and more recently within statistics and machine learning [@ShiMalik00_NCut; @weiss99_segmentation; @NJW01_spectral; @KVV04_JRNL], a great deal of work has focused on the conductance (or normalized cut) versions of this graph partitioning problem. Several general observations about the approach adopted in these literatures include:
- The focus is on *spectral approximation algorithms*. Spectral algorithms use an exact or approximate eigenvector of the graph’s Laplacian matrix to find a cut that achieves a “quadratic approximation,” in the sense that the cut returned by the algorithm has conductance value no bigger than $\phi$ if the graph actually contains a cut with conductance $O(\phi^2)$ [@Cheeger69_bound; @Donath:1972; @fiedler73graphs; @mohar91_survey; @Chung:1997].
- The focus is on *low-dimensional graphs*, *e.g.*, bounded-degree planar graphs and finite element meshes (for which quality-of-approximation bounds are known that depend on just the number of nodes and not on structural parameters such as the conductance value). Moreover, there is an acknowledgement that *spectral methods are inappropriate for expander graphs* that have constant expansion or conductance (basically, since for these graphs any clusters returned are not meaningful in applications).
- Since the algorithm is typically applied to find partitions of a graph that are useful in some downstream application, there is a *strong interest in the actual pieces returned by the algorithm*. Relatedly, there is interest in the robustness or consistency properties of spectral approximation algorithms under assumptions on the data.
Recursive bisection heuristics—recursively divide the graph into two groups, and then further subdivide the new groups until the desired number of clusters groups is achieved—are also common here. They may be combined with local improvement methods [@Kernighan:1970; @Fiduccia:1982], which when combined with multi-resolution ideas leads to programs such as Metis [@karypis98_metis; @karypis98metis], Cluto [@zhao04cluto], and Graclus [@dhillon07graclus].
Within TCS, a great deal of work has also focused on this graph partitioning problem [@Leighton:1988; @LLR95_JRNL; @Shm96; @Leighton:1999; @Arora:2004; @ARV_CACM08]. Several general observations about the traditional TCS approach include:
- The focus is on *flow-based approximation algorithms*. These algorithms use multi-commodity flow and metric embedding ideas to find a cut whose conductance is within an $O(\log n)$ factor of optimal [@Leighton:1988; @LLR95_JRNL; @Leighton:1999], in the sense that the cut returned by the algorithm has conductance no bigger than $O(\log n)$, where $n$ is the number of nodes in the graph, times the conductance value of the optimal conductance set in the graph.
- The focus is on worst-case analysis of *arbitrary graphs*. Although flow-based methods achieve their worst-case $O(\log n)$ bounds on expanders, it is observed that *spectral methods are appropriate for expander graphs* (basically, since the quadratic of a constant is a constant, which implies a worst-case constant-factor approximation).
- Since the algorithmic task is simply to approximate the value of the objective function of Eqn. (\[eqn:expansion\_graph\]) or Eqn. (\[eqn:conductance\_graph\]), *there is no particular interest in the actual pieces returned by the algorithm*, except insofar as those pieces have objective function value that is close to the optimum.[^14]
Most of the TCS work is on the expansion versions of the graph partitioning problem, but it is noted that most of the results obtained “go through” to the conductance versions by considering appropriately-weighted functions on the nodes.
There has also been recent work within TCS that has been motivated by achieving improved worst-case bounds and/or being appropriate in data analysis applications where very large graphs, say with millions or billions or nodes, arise. These methods include:
- *Local Spectral Methods*. These methods [@Spielman:2004; @andersen06local; @chung07_fourproofs; @Chung07_localcutsLAA; @Chung07_heatkernelPNAS] take as input a seed node and a locality parameter and return as output a “good” cluster “nearby” the seed node. Moreover, they often have computational cost that is proportional to the size of the piece returned, and they have roughly the same kind of quadratic approximation guarantees as the global spectral method.
- *Cut-Improvement Algorithms*. These methods [@Gallo:1989; @kevin04mqi; @andersen08soda; @MOV09_TR], *e.g.*, MQI [@kevin04mqi; @andersen08soda], take as input a graph and an initial cut and use spectral or flow-based methods to return as output a “good” cut that is “within” or “nearby” the original cut. As such, they, can be combined with a good method (say, from spectral or Metis) for initially splitting the graph into two pieces to obtain a heuristic method for finding low conductance cuts in the whole graph [@kevin04mqi; @andersen08soda].
- *Combining Spectral and Flow*. These methods can be viewed as combinations of spectral and flow-based techniques which exploit the complementary strengths of these two classes of techniques. They include an algorithm that used semidefinite programming to find a solution that is within a multiplicative factor of $O(\sqrt{\log n})$ of optimal [@Arora:2004; @ARV_CACM08], as well as several related algorithms [@AHK04; @khandekar06_partitioning; @Arora:2007; @OSVV08; @LMO09] that are more amenable to medium- and large-scale implementation.
A novel approach to characterizing network structure
----------------------------------------------------
Most work on community detection in large networks begins with an observation such as: “It is a matter of common experience that communities exist in networks. Although not precisely defined, communities are usually thought of as sets of nodes with better connections amongst its members than with the rest of the world.” (I have not provided a reference for this quotation since variants of it could have been drawn from any one of scores or hundreds of papers on the topic. Most of this work then typically goes on to apply the *modus operandi* described previously.) Although far from perfect, conductance is probably the combinatorial quantity that most closely captures this intuitive bi-criterial notion of what it means for a set of nodes to be a good community.
Even more important from the perspective of this chapter, the use of conductance as an objective function has the following benefit. Although exactly solving the combinatorial problem of Eqn. (\[eqn:expansion\_graph\]) or Eqn. (\[eqn:conductance\_graph\]) is intractable, there exists a wide range of heuristics and approximation algorithms, the respective strengths and weaknesses of which are well-understood in theory and/or in practice, for approximately optimizing conductance. In particular, recall that spectral methods and multi-commodity flow-based methods are complementary in that:
- The worst-case $O(\log n)$ approximation factor is obtained for flow-based methods on expander graphs [@Leighton:1988; @Leighton:1999], a class of graphs which does not cause problems for spectral methods (to the extent than any methods are appropriate).
- The worst-case quadratic approximation factor is obtained for spectral methods on graphs with “long stringy” pieces [@guatterymiller98; @spielman96_spectral], basically since spectral methods can confuse “long path” with “deep cuts,” a difference that does not cause problems for flow-based methods.
- Both methods perform well on “low-dimensional graphs”—*e.g.*, road networks, discretizations of low-dimensional spaces as might be encountered in scientific modeling, graphs that are easily-visualizable in two dimensions, and other graphs that have good well-balanced cuts—although the biases described in the previous two bullets still manifest themselves.
I should note that empirical evidence [@LLDM08_communities_CONF; @LLDM08_communities_TR; @LLM10_communities_CONF] clearly demonstrates that large social and information networks have all of these properties—they are expander-like when viewed at large size scales; their sparsity and noise properties are such that they have structures analogous to stringy pieces that are cut off or regularized away by spectral methods; and they often have structural regions that at least locally are meaningfully low-dimensional.
All of this suggests a rather novel approach—that of using approximation algorithms for the intractable graph partitioning problem (or other intractable problems) as “experimental probes” of the structure of large social and information networks. By this, I mean using these algorithms to “cut up” or “tear apart” a large network in order to provide insights into its structure. From this perspective, although we are defining an edge-counting metric and then using it to perform an optimization, we are not particularly interested *per se* in the clusters that are output by the algorithms. Instead, we are interested in what these clusters, coupled with knowledge of the inner workings of the approximation algorithms, tell us about network structure. Relatedly, given the noise properties and sparsity structure of large networks, we are not particularly interested *per se* in the solution to the combinatorial problem. For example, if we were provided with an oracle that returned the solution to the intractable combinatorial problem, it would be next to useless to us. Instead, much more information is revealed by looking at ensembles of output clusters in light of the artifactual properties of the heuristics and approximation algorithms employed. That is, from this perspective, we are interested in the *statistical properties implicit in worst-case approximation algorithms* and what these properties tell us about the data.
The analogy between approximation algorithms for the intractable graph partitioning problem and experimental probes is meant to be taken more seriously rather than less. Recall, *e.g.*, that it is a non-trivial exercise to determine what a protein or DNA molecule “looks like”—after all, such a molecule is very small, it can’t easily be visualized with traditional methods, it has complicated dynamical properties, etc. To determine the structure of a protein, an experimentalist puts the protein in solution or in a crystal and then probes it with X-ray crystallography or a nuclear magnetic resonance signal. In more detail, one sends in a signal that scatters off the protein; one measures a large quantity of scattering output that comes out the other side; and then, using what is measured as well as knowledge of the physics of the input signal, one reconstructs the structure of the hard-to-visualize protein. In an analogous manner, we can analyze the structure of a large social or information by tearing it apart in numerous ways with one of several local or global graph partitioning algorithms; measuring a large number of pieces output by these procedures; and then, using what was measured as well as knowledge of the artifactual properties of the heuristics and approximation algorithms employed, reconstructing structural properties of the hard-to-visualize network.
By adopting this approach, one can hope to use approximation algorithms to test commonly-made data analysis assumptions, *e.g.*, that the data meaningfully lie on a manifold or some other low-dimensional space, or that the data have structures that are meaningfully-interpretable as communities.
Community-identification applications of this approach
------------------------------------------------------
As a proof-of-principle application of this approach, let me return to the question of characterizing the small-scale and large-scale community structure in large social and information networks. Given the conductance (or some other) community quality score, define the *network community profile* (NCP) as the conductance value, as a function of size $k$, of the minimum conductance set of cardinality $k$ in the network: $$\Phi(k) = \min_{ S \subset V,|S|=k} \phi(S) .$$ Intuitively, just as the “surface-area-to-volume” aspect of conductance captures the “gestalt” notion of a good cluster or community, the NCP measures the score of “best” community as a function of community size in a network. See Figure \[fig:communities:toy-fig2\] for an illustration of small network and Figure \[fig:communities:toy-fig2-ncp\] for the corresponding NCP. Operationally, since the NCP is NP-hard to compute exactly, one can use approximation algorithms for solving the Minimum Conductance Cut Problem in order to compute different approximations to it. Although we have experimented with a wide range of procedures on smaller graphs, in order to scale to very large social and information networks,[^15] we used:
- *Metis+MQI*—this flow-based method consists of using the popular graph partitioning package Metis [@karypis98_metis] followed by a flow-based MQI cut-improvement post-processing step [@kevin04mqi], and it provides a surprisingly strong heuristic method for finding good conductance cuts;
- *Local Spectral*—although this spectral method [@andersen06local] is worse than Metis+MQI at finding very good conductance pieces, the pieces it finds tend to be “tighter” and more “community-like”; and
- *Bag-of-Whiskers*—this is a simple heuristic to paste together small barely-connected sets of nodes that exert a surprisingly large influence on the NCP of large informatics graphs;
and we compared and contrasted the outputs of these different procedures.
The NCP behaves in a characteristic downward-sloping manner [@LLDM08_communities_CONF; @LLDM08_communities_TR; @LLM10_communities_CONF] for graphs that are well-embeddable into an underlying low-dimensional geometric structure, *e.g.*, low-dimensional lattices, road networks, random geometric graphs, and data sets that are well-approximatable by low-dimensional spaces and non-linear manifolds. (See, *e.g.*, Figure \[fig:communities:toy-fig2-ncp\].) Relatedly, a downward sloping NCP is also observed for small commonly-studied networks that have been widely-used as testbeds for community identification algorithms, while the NCP is roughly flat at all size scales for well-connected expander-like graphs such as moderately-dense random graphs. Perhaps surprisingly, common generative models, including preferential attachment models, as well as “copying” models and hierarchical models specifically designed to reproduce community structure, also have flat or downward-sloping NCPs. Thus, when viewed from the perspective of $10,000$ meters, all of these graphs “look like” either a hot dog (in the sense that one can split the graph into two large and meaningful pieces) or a moderately-dense expander-like random graph (in the sense that there are no good partitions of any size in the graph). This fact is used to great advantage by common machine learning and data analysis tools.
From the same perspective of $10,000$ meters, what large social and information networks “look like” is very different. In Figure \[fig:communities:realNCP-LiveJournal\] and Figure \[fig:communities:realNCP-epinions\], I present the NCP computed several different ways for two representative large social and information networks. Several things are worth observing: first, up to a size scale of roughly $100$ nodes, the NCP goes down; second, it then achieves its global minimum; third, above that size scale, the NCP gradually increases, indicating that the community-quality of possible communities gets gradually worse and worse as larger and larger purported communities are considered; and finally, even at the largest size scales there is substantial residual structure above and beyond what is present in a corresponding random graph. Thus, good network communities, at least as traditionally conceptualized, tend to exist only up to a size scale of roughly $100$ nodes, while at larger size scales network communities become less and less community-like.
The explanation for this phenomenon is that large social and information networks have a *nested core-periphery structure*, in which the network consists of a large moderately-well connected core and a large number of very well-connected communities barely connected to the core, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:communities:core-periphery\]. If we define a notion of a *whisker* to be maximal sub-graph detached from network by removing a single edge and the associated notion of the *core* to be the rest of the graph, *i.e.*, the 2-edge-connected core, then whiskers contain (on average) $40\%$ of nodes and $20\%$ of edges. Moreover, in nearly every network, the global minimum of the NCP is a whisker. Importantly, though, even if *all* the whiskers are removed, then the core itself has a downward-then-upward-sloping NCP, indicating that the core itself has a nested core-periphery structure. In addition to being of interest in community identification applications, this fact explains the inapplicability of many common machine learning and data analysis tools for large informatics graphs. For example, it implies that recursive-bisection heuristics are largely inappropriate for this class of graphs (basically since the recursion depth will be very large).
There are numerous ways one can be confident in these domain-specific conclusions.[^16] Most relevant for the interplay between the algorithmic and statistical perspectives on data that I am discussing in this chapter are:
- *Modeling Considerations*. Several lines of evidence point to the role that sparsity and noise have in determining the large-scale clustering structure of large networks.
- Extremely sparse Erdős-Rényi random graphs with connection probability parameter roughly $p \in (1/n, \log (n)/n)$—*i.e.*, in the parameter regime where measure fails to concentrate sufficiently to have a fully-connected graph or to have observed node degrees close to expected node degrees—provide the simplest mechanism to reproduce the qualitative property of having very-imbalanced deep cuts and no well-balanced deep cuts.
- So-called Power Law random graphs [@Chung02_distancesPNAS; @Chung03_spectraPNAS] with power law parameter roughly $\beta \in (2,3)$—which, due to exogenously-specified node degree variability, have an analogous failure of measure concentration—also exhibit this same qualitative property.
- A model in which new edges are added randomly but with an iterative “forest fire” burning mechanism provides a mechanism to reproduce the qualitative property of a relatively *gradually-increasing* NCP.[^17]
- *Algorithmic-Statistical Considerations*. Ensembles of clusters returned by different approximation algorithms, *e.g.*, Local Spectral versus the flow-based methods such as Metis+MQI versus the Bag-of-Whiskers heuristic, have very different properties, in a manner consistent with known artifactual properties of how those algorithms operate.
- For example, Metis+MQI finds sets of nodes that have very good conductance scores—at very small size scales, these are similar to the pieces from Local Spectral and these sets of nodes could plausibly be interpreted as good communities; but at size scales larger than roughly $100$ nodes, these are often tenuously-connected (and in some cases unions of disconnected) pieces, for which such an interpretation is tenuous at best.
- Similarly, the NCP of a variant of flow-based partitioning that permits disconnected pieces to be output mirrors the NCP from the Bag-of-Whiskers heuristic that combines disconnected whiskers, while the NCP of a variant of flow-based partitioning that requires connected pieces more closely follows that of Local Spectral, at least until much larger size scales where flow has problems since the graph becomes more expander-like.
- Finally, Local Spectral finds sets of nodes with good (but not as good as Metis+MQI) conductance value that that are more “compact” and thus more plausibly community-like than those pieces returned by Metis+MQI. For example, since spectral methods confuse long paths with deep cuts, empirically one obtains sets of nodes that have worse conductance scores but are internally more coherent in that, *e.g.*, they have substantially smaller diameter and average diameter. This is illustrated in Figures \[fig:communities:spectral-cmty-1\] through \[fig:communities:flow-cmty-2\]: Figures \[fig:communities:spectral-cmty-1\] and \[fig:communities:spectral-cmty-2\] show two ca. $500$-node communities obtained from Local Spectral, which are thus more internally coherent than the two ca. $500$-node communities illustrated in Figures \[fig:communities:flow-cmty-1\] and \[fig:communities:flow-cmty-2\] which were obtained from Metis+MQI and which thus consist of two tenuously-connected smaller pieces.
Some general thoughts on statistical issues and graph algorithms
----------------------------------------------------------------
I will conclude this section with a few general thoughts raised by these empirical results. Note that the modeling considerations suggest, and the algorithmic-statistical considerations verify, that statistical issues, and in particular *regularization issues*, are particularly important for extracting domain-specific understanding from approximation algorithms applied this class of data.
By regularization, of course, I mean the traditional notion that the computed quantities—clusters and communities in this case—are empirically “nicer,” or more “smooth” or “regular,” in some useful domain-specific sense [@Neu98; @CH02; @BL06]. Recall that regularization grew out of the desire to find meaningful solutions to ill-posed problems in integral equation theory, and it may be viewed as adding a small amount of bias to reduce substantially the variance or variability of a computed quantity. It is typically implemented by adding a “loss term” to the objective function being optimized. Although this manner of implementation leads to a natural interpretation of regularization as a trade-off between optimizing the objective and avoiding over-fitting the data, it typically leads to optimization problems that are harder (think of $\ell_1$-regularized $\ell_2$-regression) or at least no easier (think of $\ell_2$-regularized $\ell_2$-regression) than the original problem, a situation that is clearly unacceptable in the very large-scale applications I have been discussing.
Interestingly, though, at least for very large and extremely sparse social and information networks, intuitive notions of cluster quality tend to fail as one aggressively optimizes the community-quality score [@LLM10_communities_CONF]. For instance, by aggressively optimizing conductance with Metis+MQI, one obtains disconnected or barely-connected clusters that do not correspond to intuitive communities. This suggests the rather interesting notion of implementing *implicit regularization via approximate computation*—approximate optimization of the community score in-and-of-itself introduces a systematic bias in the properties of the extracted clusters, when compared with much more aggressive optimization or computation of the intractable combinatorial optimum. Of course, such a bias may in fact be preferred since, as in case of Local Spectral, the resulting “regularized communities” are more compact and correspond to more closely to intuitive communities. Explicitly incorporating the tradeoff between the conductance of the bounding cut of the cluster and the internal cluster compactness into a new modified objective function would not have led to a more tractable problem; but implicitly incorporating it in the approximation algorithm had both algorithmic and statistical benefits. It is clearly of interest to formalize this approach more generally.
Conclusions and Future Directions
=================================
As noted above, the algorithmic and statistical perspectives on data and what might be interesting questions to ask of the data are quite different, but they are not incompatible. Some of the more prominent recent examples of this include:
- Statistical, randomized, and probabilistic ideas are central to much of the recent work on developing improved worst-case approximation algorithms for matrix problems.
- Otherwise intractable optimization problems on graphs and networks yield to approximation algorithms when assumptions are made about the network participants.
- Much recent work in machine learning draws on ideas from both areas; similarly, in combinatorial scientific computing, implicit knowledge about the system being studied often leads to good heuristics for combinatorial problems.
- In boosting, a statistical technique that fits an additive model by minimizing an objective function with a method such as gradient descent, the computation parameter, *i.e.*, the number of iterations, also serves as a regularization parameter.
In this chapter, I have focused on two examples that illustrate this point in a somewhat different way. For the first example, we have seen that using a concept fundamental to statistical and diagnostic regression analysis was crucial in the development of improved algorithms that come with worst-case performance guarantees and that, for related reasons, also perform well in practice. For the second example, we have seen that an improved understanding of worst-case algorithms (*e.g.*, when they perform well, when they perform poorly, and what regularization is implicitly implemented by them) suggested methods for using those approximation algorithms as “experimental probes” of large informatics graphs and for better inference and prediction on those graphs.
To conclude, I should re-emphasize that in neither of these applications did we *first* perform statistical modeling, independent of algorithmic considerations, and *then* apply a computational procedure as a black box. This approach of more closely coupling the computational procedures used with statistical modeling or statistical understanding of the data seems particularly appropriate more generally for very large-scale data analysis problems, where design decisions are often made based on computational constraints but where it is of interest to understand the implicit statistical consequences of those decisions.
**Acknowledgments**
I would like to thank Schloss Dagstuhl and the organizers of Dagstuhl Seminar 09061 for an enjoyable and fruitful meeting; Peristera Paschou, Petros Drineas, and Christos Boutsidis for fruitful discussions on DNA SNPs, population genetics, and matrix algorithms; Jure Leskovec and Kevin Lang for fruitful discussions on social and information networks and graph algorithms; and my co-organizers of as well as numerous participants of the MMDS meetings, at which many of the ideas described here were formed.
[100]{}
N. Ailon and B. Chazelle. Approximate nearest neighbors and the fast [J]{}ohnson-[L]{}indenstrauss transform. In [*Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 557–563, 2006.
O. Alter, P.O. Brown, and D. Botstein. Singular value decomposition for genome-wide expression data processing and modeling. , 97(18):10101–10106, 2000.
R. Andersen, F.R.K. Chung, and K. Lang. Local graph partitioning using [PageRank]{} vectors. In [*FOCS ’06: Proceedings of the 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, pages 475–486, 2006.
R. Andersen and K. Lang. An algorithm for improving graph partitions. In [*SODA ’08: Proceedings of the 19th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete algorithms*]{}, pages 651–660, 2008.
S. Arora, E. Hazan, and S. Kale. ${O}(\sqrt {\log n)}$ approximation to sparsest cut in $\tilde{O}(n^2)$ time. In [*FOCS ’04: Proceedings of the 45th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, pages 238–247, 2004.
S. Arora and S. Kale. A combinatorial, primal-dual approach to semidefinite programs. In [*STOC ’07: Proceedings of the 39th annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 227–236, 2007.
S. Arora, S. Rao, and U. Vazirani. Expander flows, geometric embeddings and graph partitioning. In [*STOC ’04: Proceedings of the 36th annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 222–231, 2004.
S. Arora, S. Rao, and U. Vazirani. Geometry, flows, and graph-partitioning algorithms. , 51(10):96–105, 2008.
H. Avron, P. Maymounkov, and S. Toledo. Blendenpik: Supercharging [LAPACK]{}’s least-squares solver. Manuscript. (2009).
M.W. Berry and M. Browne. Email surveillance using non-negative matrix factorization. , 11(3):249–264, 2005.
P. Bickel and B. Li. Regularization in statistics. , 15(2):271–344, 2006.
C. H. Bischof and P. C. Hansen. Structure-preserving and rank-revealing [QR]{}-factorizations. , 12(6):1332–1350, 1991.
C. H. Bischof and G. Quintana-Ort[í]{}. Algorithm 782: [C]{}odes for rank-revealing [QR]{} factorizations of dense matrices. , 24(2):254–257, 1998.
C. H. Bischof and G. Quintana-Ort[í]{}. Computing rank-revealing [QR]{} factorizations of dense matrices. , 24(2):226–253, 1998.
C. Boutsidis, M.W. Mahoney, and P. Drineas. An improved approximation algorithm for the column subset selection problem. Technical report. Preprint: arXiv:0812.4293 (2008).
C. Boutsidis, M.W. Mahoney, and P. Drineas. Unsupervised feature selection for principal components analysis. In [*Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGKDD Conference*]{}, pages 61–69, 2008.
C. Boutsidis, M.W. Mahoney, and P. Drineas. Unsupervised feature selection for the $k$-means clustering problem. In [*Annual Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference*]{}, 2009.
L. Breiman. Statistical modeling: The two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author). , 16(3):199–231, 2001.
P. Businger and G.H. Golub. Linear least squares solutions by [H]{}ouseholder transformations. , 7:269–276, 1965.
E.J. Candes and B. Recht. Exact matrix completion via convex optimization. Technical report. Preprint: arXiv:0805.4471 (2008).
T.F. Chan. Rank revealing [QR]{} factorizations. , 88/89:67–82, 1987.
T.F. Chan and P.C. Hansen. Computing truncated singular value decomposition least squares solutions by rank revealing [QR]{}-factorizations. , 11:519–530, 1990.
T.F. Chan and P.C. Hansen. Low-rank revealing [QR]{} factorizations. , 1:33–44, 1994.
S. Chandrasekaran and I. C. F. Ipsen. On rank-revealing factorizations. , 15:592–622, 1994.
S. Chatterjee and A.S. Hadi. Influential observations, high leverage points, and outliers in linear regression. , 1(3):379–393, 1986.
S. Chatterjee and A.S. Hadi. . John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1988.
S. Chatterjee, A.S. Hadi, and B. Price. . John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2000.
J. Cheeger. A lower bound for the smallest eigenvalue of the laplacian. In [*Problems in Analysis, Papers dedicated to Salomon Bochner*]{}, pages 195–199. Princeton University Press, 1969.
Z. Chen and S. Haykin. On different facets of regularization theory. , 14(12):2791–2846, 2002.
F.R.K. Chung. , volume 92 of [*CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics*]{}. American Mathematical Society, 1997.
F.R.K Chung. Four proofs of [C]{}heeger inequality and graph partition algorithms. In [*Proceedings of ICCM*]{}, 2007.
F.R.K. Chung. The heat kernel as the pagerank of a graph. , 104(50):19735–19740, 2007.
F.R.K. Chung. Random walks and local cuts in graphs. , 423:22–32, 2007.
F.R.K. Chung and L. Lu. The average distances in random graphs with given expected degrees. , 99(25):15879–15882, 2002.
F.R.K. Chung, L. Lu, and V. Vu. The spectra of random graphs with given expected degrees. , 100(11):6313–6318, 2003.
A. Civril and M. Magdon-Ismail. Column based matrix reconstruction via greedy approximation of [SVD]{}. , 000:000–000, 2009.
A. Civril and M. Magdon-Ismail. On selecting a maximum volume sub-matrix of a matrix and related problems. , 410:4801–4811, 2009.
S.T. Deerwester, S.T. Dumais, G.W. Furnas, T.K. Landauer, and R. Harshman. Indexing by latent semantic analysis. , 41(6):391–407, 1990.
A. Deshpande and S. Vempala. Adaptive sampling and fast low-rank matrix approximation. In [*Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Randomization and Computation*]{}, pages 292–303, 2006.
I.S. Dhillon, Y. Guan, and B. Kulis. Weighted graph cuts without eigenvectors: A multilevel approach. , 29(11):1944–1957, 2007.
W.E. Donath and A.J. Hoffman. Algorithms for partitioning graphs and computer logic based on eigenvectors of connection matrices. , 15(3):938–944, 1972.
D.L. Donoho. Aide-memoire. [H]{}igh-dimensional data analysis: The curses and blessings of dimensionality, 2000. `http://www-stat.stanford.edu/ donoho/Lectures/AMS2000/Curses.pdf` Accessed December, 17 2008.
N. R. Draper and D. M. Stoneman. Testing for the inclusion of variables in linear regression by a randomisation technique. , 8(4):695–699, 1966.
P. Drineas, A. Frieze, R. Kannan, S. Vempala, and V. Vinay. Clustering large graphs via the singular value decomposition. , 56(1-3):9–33, 2004.
P. Drineas, R. Kannan, and M.W. Mahoney. Fast [Monte Carlo]{} algorithms for matrices [I]{}: Approximating matrix multiplication. , 36:132–157, 2006.
P. Drineas, R. Kannan, and M.W. Mahoney. Fast [Monte Carlo]{} algorithms for matrices [II]{}: Computing a low-rank approximation to a matrix. , 36:158–183, 2006.
P. Drineas, R. Kannan, and M.W. Mahoney. Fast [Monte Carlo]{} algorithms for matrices [III]{}: Computing a compressed approximate matrix decomposition. , 36:184–206, 2006.
P. Drineas, M.W. Mahoney, and S. Muthukrishnan. Sampling algorithms for $\ell_2$ regression and applications. In [*Proceedings of the 17th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, pages 1127–1136, 2006.
P. Drineas, M.W. Mahoney, and S. Muthukrishnan. Relative-error [CUR]{} matrix decompositions. , 30:844–881, 2008.
P. Drineas, M.W. Mahoney, S. Muthukrishnan, and T. Sarlós. Faster least squares approximation. Technical report. Preprint: arXiv:0710.1435 (2007).
U. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, and P. Smyth. From data mining to knowledge discovery in databases. , 17:37–54, 1996.
C.M. Fiduccia and R.M. Mattheyses. A linear-time heuristic for improving network partitions. In [*DAC ’82: Proceedings of the 19th ACM/IEEE Conference on Design Automation*]{}, pages 175–181, 1982.
M. Fiedler. Algebraic connectivity of graphs. , 23(98):298–305, 1973.
L. V. Foster. Rank and null space calculations using matrix decomposition without column interchanges. , 74:47–71, 1986.
M. Gaertler. Clustering. In U. Brandes and T. Erlebach, editors, [*Network Analysis: Methodological Foundations*]{}, pages 178–215. Springer, 2005.
G. Gallo, M.D. Grigoriadis, and R.E. Tarjan. A fast parametric maximum flow algorithm and applications. , 18(1):30–55, 1989.
G. H. Golub, M. W. Mahoney, P. Drineas, and L.-H. Lim. Bridging the gap between numerical linear algebra, theoretical computer science, and data applications. , 39(8), October 2006.
G.H. Golub and C.F. Van Loan. . Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1996.
S.J. Gould. . W. W. Norton and Company, New York, 1996.
M. Gu and S.C. Eisenstat. Efficient algorithms for computing a strong rank-revealing [QR]{} factorization. , 17:848–869, 1996.
S. Guattery and G.L. Miller. On the quality of spectral separators. , 19:701–719, 1998.
D.C. Hoaglin and R.E. Welsch. The hat matrix in regression and [ANOVA]{}. , 32(1):17–22, 1978.
Y. P. Hong and C. T. Pan. Rank-revealing [QR]{} factorizations and the singular value decomposition. , 58:213–232, 1992.
B.D. Horne and N.J. Camp. Principal component analysis for selection of optimal [SNP]{}-sets that capture intragenic genetic variation. , 26(1):11–21, 2004.
A.K. Jain, M.N. Murty, and P.J. Flynn. Data clustering: a review. , 31:264–323, 1999.
R. Kannan, S. Vempala, and A. Vetta. On clusterings: Good, bad and spectral. , 51(3):497–515, 2004.
G. Karypis and V. Kumar. A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning irregular graphs. , 20:359–392, 1998.
G. Karypis and V. Kumar. Multilevel k-way partitioning scheme for irregular graphs. , 48:96–129, 1998.
B. Kernighan and S. Lin. An effective heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs. , pages 291–308, 1970.
R. Khandekar, S. Rao, and U. Vazirani. Graph partitioning using single commodity flows. In [*STOC ’06: Proceedings of the 38th annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 385–390, 2006.
F.G. Kuruvilla, P.J. Park, and S.L. Schreiber. Vector algebra in the analysis of genome-wide expression data. , 3:research0011.1–0011.11, 2002.
D. Lambert. What use is statistics for massive data? In J. E. Kolassa and D. Oakes, editors, [*Crossing boundaries: statistical essays in honor of Jack Hall*]{}, pages 217–228. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2003.
K. Lang, M. W. Mahoney, and L. Orecchia. Empirical evaluation of graph partitioning using spectral embeddings and flow. In [*Proc. 8-th International SEA*]{}, pages 197–208, 2009.
K. Lang and S. Rao. A flow-based method for improving the expansion or conductance of graph cuts. In [*IPCO ’04: Proceedings of the 10th International IPCO Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization*]{}, pages 325–337, 2004.
T. Leighton and S. Rao. An approximate max-flow min-cut theorem for uniform multicommodity flow problems with applications to approximation algorithms. In [*FOCS ’88: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, pages 422–431, 1988.
T. Leighton and S. Rao. Multicommodity max-flow min-cut theorems and their use in designing approximation algorithms. , 46(6):787–832, 1999.
J. Leskovec, K.J. Lang, A. Dasgupta, and M.W. Mahoney. Community structure in large networks: Natural cluster sizes and the absence of large well-defined clusters. arXiv:0810.1355, October 2008.
J. Leskovec, K.J. Lang, A. Dasgupta, and M.W. Mahoney. Statistical properties of community structure in large social and information networks. In [*WWW ’08: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web*]{}, pages 695–704, 2008.
J. Leskovec, K.J. Lang, and M.W. Mahoney. Empirical comparison of algorithms for network community detection. In [*WWW ’10: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web*]{}, pages 631–640, 2010.
Z. Lin and R.B. Altman. Finding haplotype tagging [SNPs]{} by use of principal components analysis. , 75:850–861, 2004.
N. Linial, E. London, and Y. Rabinovich. The geometry of graphs and some of its algorithmic applications. , 15(2):215–245, 1995.
M. Magdon-Ismail. Row sampling for matrix algorithms via a non-commutative [B]{}ernstein bound. Technical report. Preprint: arXiv:1008.0587 (2010).
M. W. Mahoney, L.-H. Lim, and G. E. Carlsson. 2008: Algorithmic and statistical challenges in modern large-scale data analysis. , 42(1 & 2), January/February and March 2009.
M. W. Mahoney, L. Orecchia, and N. K. Vishnoi. A spectral algorithm for improving graph partitions. Technical report. Preprint: arXiv:0912.0681 (2009).
M.W. Mahoney and P. Drineas. matrix decompositions for improved data analysis. , 106:697–702, 2009.
J. Matoušek. On variants of the [J]{}ohnson–[L]{}indenstrauss lemma. , 33(2):142–156, 2008.
Z. Meng, D.V. Zaykin, C.F. Xu, M. Wagner, and M.G. Ehm. Selection of genetic markers for association analyses, using linkage disequilibrium and haplotypes. , 73(1):115–130, 2003.
B. Mohar. The [Laplacian]{} spectrum of graphs. In Y. Alavi, G. Chartrand, O.R. Oellermann, and A.J. Schwenk, editors, [*Graph Theory, Combinatorics, and Applications, Vol. 2*]{}, pages 871–898. Wiley, 1991.
A. Neumaier. Solving ill-conditioned and singular linear systems: A tutorial on regularization. , 40:636–666, 1998.
M.E.J. Newman. A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. , 27:39–54, 2005.
M.E.J. Newman. Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. , 74:036104, 2006.
A.Y. Ng, M.I. Jordan, and Y. Weiss. On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm. In [*NIPS ’01: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*]{}, 2001.
L. Orecchia, L. Schulman, U.V. Vazirani, and N.K. Vishnoi. On partitioning graphs via single commodity flows. In [*Proceedings of the 40th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 461–470, 2008.
C.-T. Pan. On the existence and computation of rank-revealing [LU]{} factorizations. , 316:199–222, 2000.
C. T. Pan and P. T. P. Tang. Bounds on singular values revealed by [QR]{} factorizations. , 39:740–756, 1999.
P. Paschou, M. W. Mahoney, A. Javed, J. R. Kidd, A. J. Pakstis, S. Gu, K. K. Kidd, and P. Drineas. Intra- and interpopulation genotype reconstruction from tagging [SNP]{}s. , 17(1):96–107, 2007.
P. Paschou, E. Ziv, E.G. Burchard, S. Choudhry, W. Rodriguez-Cintron, M.W. Mahoney, and P. Drineas. -correlated [SNP]{}s for structure identification in worldwide human populations. , 3:1672–1686, 2007.
T. Poggio and S. Smale. The mathematics of learning: Dealing with data. , 50(5):537–544, May 2003.
A. Pothen. Graph partitioning algorithms with applications to scientific computing. In D. E. Keyes, A. H. Sameh, and V. Venkatakrishnan, editors, [ *Parallel Numerical Algorithms*]{}. Kluwer Academic Press, 1996.
V. Rokhlin and M. Tygert. A fast randomized algorithm for overdetermined linear least-squares regression. , 105(36):13212–13217, 2008.
S.T. Roweis and L.K. Saul. Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by local linear embedding. , 290:2323–2326, 2000.
M. Rudelson and R. Vershynin. Sampling from large matrices: an approach through geometric functional analysis. , 54(4):Article 21, 2007.
T. Sarlós. Improved approximation algorithms for large matrices via random projections. In [*Proceedings of the 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, pages 143–152, 2006.
L. K. Saul, K. Q. Weinberger, J. H. Ham, F. Sha, and D. D. Lee. Spectral methods for dimensionality reduction. In O. Chapelle, B. Schoelkopf, and A. Zien, editors, [ *Semisupervised Learning*]{}, pages 293–308. MIT Press, 2006.
S.E. Schaeffer. Graph clustering. , 1(1):27–64, 2007.
J. Shi and J. Malik. Normalized cuts and image segmentation. , 22(8):888–905, 2000.
D. B. Shmoys. Cut problems and their application to divide-and-conquer. In D.S. Hochbaum, editor, [*Approximation Algorithms for [NP]{}-Hard Problems*]{}, pages 192–235. PWS Publishing, 1996.
P. Smyth. Data mining: data analysis on a grand scale? , 9(4):309–327, 2000.
D.A. Spielman and N. Srivastava. Graph sparsification by effective resistances. In [*Proceedings of the 40th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 563–568, 2008.
D.A. Spielman and S.-H. Teng. Spectral partitioning works: Planar graphs and finite element meshes. In [*FOCS ’96: Proceedings of the 37th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science*]{}, pages 96–107, 1996.
D.A. Spielman and S.-H. Teng. Nearly-linear time algorithms for graph partitioning, graph sparsification, and solving linear systems. In [*STOC ’04: Proceedings of the 36th annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing*]{}, pages 81–90, 2004.
J.B. Tenenbaum, V. de Silva, and J.C. Langford. A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. , 290:2319–2323, 2000.
P.F. Velleman and R.E. Welsch. Efficient computing of regression diagnostics. , 35(4):234–242, 1981.
U. von Luxburg. A tutorial on spectral clustering. Technical Report 149, Max Plank Institute for Biological Cybernetics, August 2006.
Y. Weiss. Segmentation using eigenvectors: a unifying view. In [*ICCV ’99: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision*]{}, pages 975–982, 1999.
W.W. Zachary. An information flow model for conflict and fission in small groups. , 33:452–473, 1977.
Y. Zhao and G. Karypis. Empirical and theoretical comparisons of selected criterion functions for document clustering. , 55:311–331, 2004.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. Email: [email protected]
[^2]: To appear in Uwe Naumann and Olaf Schenk, editors, *Combinatorial Scientific Computing*, Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, 2011.
[^3]: This chapter grew out of an invited talk at a seminar at Schloss Dagstuhl on Combinatorial Scientific Computing (a research area that sits at the interface between algorithmic computer science and traditional scientific computing). While the connection between “combinatorial” and “algorithmic” in my title is hopefully obvious, the reader should also note a connection between the statistical perspective I have described and approaches common in traditional scientific computing. For example, even if a formal statistical model is not specified, the fact that hydrated protein-DNA simulations or fluid dynamics simulations “live” in two or three dimensions places very strong regularity constraints on the ways in which information can propagate from point to point and thus on the data sets derived. Moreover, in these applications, there is typically a great deal of domain-specific knowledge that can be brought to bear that informs the questions one asks, and thus one clearly observes a tension between worst-case analysis versus field-specific assumptions. This implicit knowledge should be contrasted with the knowledge available for matrices and graphs that arise in much more unstructured data analysis applications such as arise in certain genetics and in many Internet domains.
[^4]: Recall that the spectral norm is the largest singular value of the matrix, and thus it is a “worst case” norm in that it measures the worst-case stretch of the matrix, while the Frobenius norm is more of an “averaging” norm, since it involves a sum over every singular direction. The former is of greater interest in scientific computing and NLA, where one is interested in actual columns for the subspaces they define and for their good numerical properties, while the latter is of greater interest in data analysis and machine learning, where one is more interested in actual columns for the features they define.
[^5]: By *heavy-tailed graph*, I mean a graph (or equivalently the adjacency matrix of such a graph) such as the social and information networks described below, in which quantities such as the degree distribution or eigenvalue distribution decay in a heavy-tailed or power law manner.
[^6]: Given a matrix $A$ and a rank parameter $k$, one can express the SVD as $A=U \Sigma V^T$, in which case the best rank-$k$ approximation to $A$ can be expressed as $A_k = U_k \Sigma_k V_k^T$. In the text, I will sometimes overload notation and use $V_k^T$ to refer to any $k \times n$ orthonormal matrix spanning the space spanned by the top-$k$ right singular vectors. The reason is that this basis is used only to compute the importance sampling probabilities; since those probabilities are proportional to the diagonal elements of the projection matrix onto the span of this basis, the particular basis does not matter.
[^7]: In this section only, we will assume that $m \gg n$.
[^8]: This concept has also proven useful under the name of graph resistance [@SS08a_STOC] and also of coherence [@CR08_TR].
[^9]: More generally, recall that if $U$ is *any* orthogonal matrix spanning the column space of $A$, then $H=P_U=UU^T$ and thus $H_{ii}=||U^{(i)}||_2^2$, *i.e.*, the statistical leverage scores equal the Euclidean norm of the rows of any such matrix $U$ [@CUR_PNAS]. Clearly, the columns of $U$ are orthonormal, but the rows of $U$ in general are not—they can be uniform if, *e.g.*, $U$ consists of columns from a truncated Hadamard matrix; or extremely nonuniform if, *e.g.*, the columns of $U$ come from a truncated Identity matrix; or anything in between.
[^10]: Note that QR (as opposed to the SVD) is *not* performed in the second phase to speed up the computation of a relatively cheap part of the algorithm, but instead it is performed since the goal of the algorithm is to return actual columns of the input matrix.
[^11]: Note that to establish the spectral norm bound, [@BMD08_CSSP_TR] used slightly more complicated (but still depending only on information in $V_k^T$) importance sampling probabilities, but this may be an artifact of the analysis.
[^12]: Other formulations include the graph bisection problem, which requires perfect $\frac{1}{2}:\frac{1}{2}$ balance and the $\beta$-balanced cut problem, with $\beta$ set to a fraction such as $\frac{1}{10}$, which requires at least a $\beta:(1-\beta)$ balance.
[^13]: Note that, up to scaling, this is simply the popular Normalized Cute metric [@ShiMalik00_NCut].
[^14]: That is not to say that those pieces are not sometimes then used in a downstream data application. Instead, it is to say simply that the algorithmic problem takes into account only the objective function value of those pieces and not how close those pieces might be to pieces achieving the optimum.
[^15]: We have examined a large number of networks with these methods. The networks we studied range in size from tens of nodes and scores of edges up to millions of nodes and tens of millions of edges. The networks were drawn from a wide range of domains and included large social networks, citation networks, collaboration networks, web graphs, communication networks, citation networks, internet networks, affiliation networks, and product co-purchasing networks. See [@LLDM08_communities_CONF; @LLDM08_communities_TR; @LLM10_communities_CONF] for details.
[^16]: For example, *structural considerations* (*e.g.*, small barely connected whiskers, discoverable with pretty much any heuristic or algorithm, are responsible for minimum); *lower-bound considerations* (*e.g.*, SDP-based lower bounds for large partitions provide a strong nonexistence results for large communities); *domain-specific considerations* (*e.g.*, considering the properties of “ground truth” communities and the comparing results from networks in different application areas with very different degrees of homogeneity to their edge semantics); and *alternate-formalization considerations* (*e.g.*, other formalizations of the community concept that take into account the inter-connectivity versus intra-connectivity bi-criterion tend to have similar NCPs, while formalizations that take into account one or the other criteria behave very differently).
[^17]: As an aside, these considerations suggest that the data look like *local structure on top of a global sparse quasi-random scaffolding*, much more than the more commonly-assumed model of *local noise on top of global geometric or hierarchical structure*, an observation with significant modeling implications for this class of data.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Wind- and current-driven flotsam, oil spills, pollutants, and nutrients, approaching the nearshore will frequently appear to slow down/park just beyond the break zone, where waves break. Moreover, the portion of these tracers that beach will do so only after a long time. Explaining why these tracers park and at what rate they reach the shore has important implications on a variety of different nearshore environmental issues, including the determination of what subscale processes are essential in computer models for the simulation of pollutant transport in the nearshore. Using a simple model we provide an explanation for the underlying mechanism responsible for the parking of tracers, not subject to inertial effects, the role played by the bottom topography, and the non-uniform dispersion which leads, in some circumstances, to the eventual landing of all or a portion of the tracers. We refer to the parking phenomenon in this environment as nearshore sticky waters.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 U.S.A.'
- 'Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 U.S.A.'
- 'Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 U.S.A.'
- 'Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712, U.S.A.'
- 'Institute of Computational and Engineering Sciences, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712, U.S.A. '
author:
- 'Juan M. Restrepo'
- 'Shankar C. Venkataramani'
- Clint Dawson
title: Nearshore Sticky Waters
---
Oil slick ,pollutant transport ,shallow water flows ,mixing and dispersion ,,waves and currents
Introduction {#intro}
============
Oil from spills, red tides, flotsam and other suspended and surface tracers approach the nearshore, carried by winds and currents. It is not uncommon, however, that these debris and tracers slow down and park themselves, somewhere beyond the break zone ( See Figure \[red\]); eventually, a portion of these reach the beach zone by the action of turbulence and tidal effects, in combination with inertial effects on the debris.
The tendency of tracers to park themselves in certain areas of the Great Barrier Reef has been noted. [@wolanski], who reported the phenomenon, and denoted it as “sticky waters." Though we will not be discussing estuarine environments and the mechanism at play in the Great Barrier Reef situation may be different from the nearshore case, we will borrow this terminology and refer to the phenomenon we investigate in this paper as “nearshore sticky waters."
Of obvious environmental, economic, and social importance, understanding why nearshore sticky waters occur is also fundamental to improved environmental assessments of coastal settings. Moreover, as part of a larger research agenda aimed at improving models for pollutant transport in ocean general circulation models, nearshore sticky waters offers a field-verifiable problem with which to test contaminant advection reaction and dispersion models.
The focus is on tracer transport phenomena, with length scales several times larger than the depth and temporal scales of hours, weeks. That is, we are mostly concerned with large-scale pollution “disasters," such as large-scale red tides, significant oil spills, etc. Although we consider long time and space scales, we cannot ignore depth dependent features of the flow and the transport of tracers. The tracer may be buoyant but not necessarily entirely residing on the surface of the ocean; We therefore consider a layered (instead of simply depth averaged) model for the tracer and account for the vertical structure of the advective velocity. We defer consideration of tracers with non-trivial inertial effects to a separate study. Obviously, tracers advect and diffuse in the alongshore direction as well as in the cross-shore direction. In fact, advection/diffusion in the longshore direction is usually more intense in many non-estuarine environments. However, if we consider a situation where the longshore variations of the tracer concentrations are small, the divergence of the flux in the longshore direction is negligible, and it is appropriate to consider a one-dimensional problem in the cross-shore direction.
Nearshore sticky waters will refer to the slowing down or the parking of the tracer approaching the shore. In a sticky water situation the center of mass of the incoming tracer that is approaching the shore at advective speeds will experience a partial or total slowing down. Whatever tracer amounts reach the shore will do so by the action of dispersive effects, usually higher inside the breakzone than in deeper waters. In the cross-shore direction, large scale currents are typically weak, close to the shore. In a wave-dominated nearshore setting, the typical advection velocity would be the residual flow due to the waves, the Stokes drift velocity. The length scales are those of the long waves, [*i.e.*]{}, waves which have wavelengths that are large when compared to the depth. The diffusive length scale is typified by large-scale eddies; if the break zone is a significant source of mixing, the length scale would be the distance between the start of the breaking of the waves and the shore. When advective and diffusive effects are those in balance, the diffusive time scale is large, in the order of hours. There is consensus that in wave-dominated beaches the dissipation of waves is different inside and outside of the breakzone, the latter being considerably smaller than the former. [@meibook], Chapter 10, describes the theoretical development of a model for wave action dissipation, based upon dimensional analysis and homogeneous turbulence concepts (see also [@svendsenpet], for further developments). The model used in [@uchiyamalongshore] is that of [@TG83], which is one of several based upon hydraulic jump parametrizations. Analysis of field data of the dispersion of tracers in the nearshore suggest that the diffusivity is much higher in the break zone than outside. Dispersion estimates based upon the dimensional analysis model of [@svendsenpet] are off by orders of magnitude, when compared to field data (see [@feddersenjpo12]). A possible explanation for the discrepancy might lie in the fact that the dimensional parametrization is based upon homogeneous turbulence conditions and is more typical of the smaller scale vertical diffusion, rather than the larger eddy-scale transverse diffusion (Feddersen, private communication).
The basic depth-averaged hydrodynamics, appropriate to these scales, are captured by the similarly scaled vortex force model in [@MRL04] (see [@MR99; @r01] for background and [@LRM06] for a comparison of this “vortex force” model and the “radiation stress” alternative. See also [@smithjpo06]). In the following form, the model has been used to study nearshore problems, such as longshore currents (in [@uchiyamalongshore]), and rip currents (in [@weirrips]). The depth-averaged momentum balance reads: $$\frac{D\mathbf{v}^c}{D t}=-g\nabla\zeta - \chi [\mathbf{u}^{St}]^\bot + {\bf N},
\label{mom}$$ where $\chi$ is the vorticity of the depth-averaged velocity ${\bf v}^c(x,y,t):=(u^c,v^c)$, and ${\bf N}$ encompasses bottom drag, wind forcing, and dissipation; it also encompasses momentum transfers from wave breaking to the current momentum (see [@RRMB]). The vortex force is the second term on the right hand side, which couples the residual flow due to the waves to the rotation in the current ${\bf v}^c$. The depth-averaged Stokes drift velocity is denoted by $\mathbf{u}^{St}:=(u^{St},v^{St})$; the operator $\bot$ is used to obtain $[\mathbf{u}^{St}]^\bot = (-v^{St},u^{St})$.
The continuity equation reads $$\frac{\partial \zeta}{\partial t}= -\frac{\partial \zeta^c}{\partial t}-\nabla \cdot [{\cal H} ({\bf v}^c + \mathbf{u}^{St})],
\label{continuity}$$ where ${\cal H} = \zeta^c + H(x,t)$ is the local water column depth and $\zeta^c = \zeta + \hat \zeta$ is the composite sea elevation; $\hat \zeta$ is the quasi-static sea elevation. The waves are found via conservation equations for the wave action ${\cal A}$, and wavenumber ${\bf k}$. For the wave action, the equation is $$\frac{\partial {\cal A}}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot ({\bf C}_G {\cal A}) = N_{{\cal A}},
\label{waveevo}$$ where $N_{{\cal A}}$ is the loss term and ${\bf C}_G$ is the absolute group velocity, $${\bf C}_G = {\bf v}^c + \frac{\Sigma}{2 k^2} \left(1 + \frac{2 k {\cal H}}{\sinh 2 k {\cal H}} \right) {\bf k}.
\label{groupvelo}$$ The relative frequency is $\omega = {\bf v}^c\cdot{\bf k} + \Sigma$, where the frequency satisfies the dispersion relation $\Sigma = \sqrt{g k \tanh (k {\cal H})}$. The wave action, the Stokes drift velocity and the quasi-static sea elevation response are given by $${\cal A}:=\frac{1}{2\Sigma}\rho g A^{2}, \quad \mathbf{u}^{St}:=\frac{1}{\rho {\cal H}}{\cal A}\mathbf{k}, \quad \hat \zeta =-\frac{A^2 k}{2 \sinh(2 k {\cal H})},
\label{waveac}$$ respectively. $A$ is the wave amplitude and $k$ is the magnitude of the wavenumber ${\bf k}$. The wavenumber conservation equations are $$\frac{\partial {\bf k}}{\partial t} + \nabla (\Sigma +{\bf v}^c \cdot {\bf k})
=0.
\label{wavenumber}$$
The evolution equation for a tracer $\theta$, (see [@MRL04]), is $$\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial t} + ({\bf v}^c + {\bf u}^{St})\cdot \nabla \theta =
N_{\theta},
\label{tracer}$$ where $N_\theta$ is the tracer dispersion term.
The simplest situation we consider is that of a flow with mean shoreward-directed velocity, transporting the pollutant toward land, flowing over a sloped and featureless bathymetry. We consider a nearshore domain that has only transverse extent $x$ and depth $z$; the water column increases in depth, away from the shore. Consideration of the actual mechanism that is generating the current field makes the basic story presented here richer, but is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead we focus on the basic kinematics of the tracers.
The advecting mean current, with a shore-directed component, might consist entirely or partially of a wave-induced flow, the Stokes drift velocity (see [@meibook]). For specificity we will assume, in fact, that the advective mean current is exclusively composed of the Stokes drift and that these are generated by shore-directed waves. (As the reader will eventually surmise we could have assumed instead the presence of currents not associated with waves, or even considered the case where both wave-induced flows and currents are present; nearshore sticky waters conditions do not require the presence of wave-generated currents). According to (\[mom\]), however, this Stokes drift will not generate a vortex force. If the velocity at the shore end, at $x=0$, is zero, the cross-shore component of the depth-averaged current $u^c(x,t)$ must be equal and opposite to the cross-shore component of the depth-averaged Stokes drift velocity (in [@uchiyamalongshore] we recognized it as the [*anti-Stokes*]{} current, but more generally it is the undertow current. See @lentzfewings for more details concerning the anti-Stokes current. This is a very readable introduction to the nearshore flow environment). The Stokes drift velocity depends on the wave action and the wavenumber by (\[waveac\]) and (\[wavenumber\]). In [@uchiyamalongshore], Figure 1, are shown the somewhat typical slight increases in the wave action, as the waves approach the breakzone, followed by their partial or full dissipation due to wave breaking, with an ensuing transfer of momentum to the currents. The resulting cross-shore component of the Stokes drift velocity increases as the waves shoal, and then diminishes drastically or becomes insignificant. If a separate current can be identified in the flow, and waves are present, an ensuing transfer of momentum ensues when the waves break. The currents are also subjected to bottom/form drag, sea elevation gradients, etc.
Momentum transfers from the breaking wave field to the currents via ${\bf N}$ in (\[mom\]), can generate currents, however, we will assume in what follows that velocities thus so generated are inconsequential. The depth-dependence of the current will prove essential: The Stokes drift drops off exponentially as a function of the depth. The velocity at $z=-H(x)$, must satisfy $W=0, {\bf U}:=(U,V) = 0$, where $W$ and ${\bf U}:=(U,V)$ are the vertical and transverse three-dimensional and time dependent Eulerian velocity components, respectively. (The boundary condition $W=-{\bf U}\cdot \nabla H$, applies to an inviscid flow). We assume that the wavenumber ${\bf k} = -k \hat x$, where $\hat x$ is the unit transverse vector, pointing away from the beach. With this assumption, and (\[waveac\])-(\[groupvelo\]) it is understood that reflections from the shore are insignificant, thanks to dissipative processes embodied by $N_{\cal A}$.
Since ${\bf v}^c + {\bf u}^{St}=0$ near the beach, the evolution of the depth-averaged tracer there is purely diffusive, by (\[tracer\]). It is generally agreed that diffusivity is small outside of the breakzone. If the diffusivity near the shore were insignificant, there would be little change of the depth-averaged tracer distribution. However, the flow in the breakzone is complex. At the larger scales these turbulent and boundary layer effects manifest themselves as enhanced diffusivity and viscosity.
The Model {#sec:pde}
=========
In this paper, we propose a [*kinematic*]{} model for oil transport in the nearshore, and in the model we include the following effects (1) A mean advective flow that is depth dependent and is shore directed on the surface, (2) A dispersion model that models the transport due to the fluctuating component of the velocity, and accounts for the enhanced diffusion in the break zone, (3) A simplified oil model which includes the effects of buoyant stratification of the oil into a surface slick and a bulk suspension, and (4) An exchange interaction which allows the bulk suspended oil to resurface and turbulence to entrain the surface oil into the bulk. The model is purely kinematic, and applies for various “physical" models of the underlying mechanisms with appropriate parameterizations of the advective velocity, dispersion, mixing layer depth and exchange rate.
Figure \[geo\] depicts the physical domain.
The quiescent ocean level is at $z=0$, the basin is bounded below, at $z=-H(x)$. The domain extends from $x=0$, the shore end, where the depth is $H_0 \ge 0$, to $x=X$ where the depth is $H_\infty \ge H_0$. The bathymetry $H(x)$ will be sloped and featureless: $$H(x) =
H_0 +m x, \quad 0 \le x \le X,$$ where $H_0$ is the depth in the nearshore, and $m \ge 0 $ is the slope. We distinguish two oceanic regimes in our problem: the high mixing surf zone, corresponding to $0 \le x \le L$, and the deep ocean zone, from $L <x \le X$. $L$ is typically tens to hundreds of meters. The pollutant (for example, oil), or the tracer (for example, an algal bloom) is subject to buoyancy effects. Oil in the surface slick may be entrained by the action of wave breaking and turbulent mixing. The oil may also resurface, at a rate dependent on the size of the droplets. We will assume that, in the most general case, there is a very thin layer of pure oil, riding on the ocean surface. This layer, which we will denote as the [*oil slick*]{}, has thickness $s(x,t)$, typically micrometric. Immediately below is a layer of ocean in which the bulk of the oil is found, in suspension. As depicted in Figure \[geo\], the layer containing the suspended oil is assumed to have a maximum thickness $P$. (It is possible to estimate $P$ in terms of the flow, but doing so is beyond the scope of this study. Here we treat $P$ as a parameter). We will denote this oil in suspension as the [*interior oil*]{}. $b(x,t)$ is thickness of an “equivalent" pure oil layer containing the same amount of oil as the interior. Assuming that the interior oil is uniformly distributed within the mixed layer, we have the [*equation of state*]{} $$b(x,t) =B(x,t) \xi(x),
\label{eqstate}$$ where $B$ denotes the (dimensionless) volume fraction of the oil in suspension, and $\xi(x)$ is the local depth of the mixed layer. We approximate $\xi(x)$ as a smooth approximation to $\min{(H(x), P)}$.
We now discuss the various mechanisms that transport the tracer (oil) and build a mathematical model for this process. Because the oil slick moves with the surface, the cross-shore component of the oil slick velocity $u_{S} \approx U^{St}(x,0,t):={\cal U}^{St}$, the Stokes drift velocity, evaluated at the surface, ${\cal U}^{St} \approx -A^2 k \Sigma$. (The mean Eulerian velocity has been set to zero). More realistically Stokes drift velocity depends on $x$ since the waves obey a dispersion relation that is a function of $x$, via its dependence on the water column depth; however, the results presented in the analysis that follows would only change quantitatively. (Idealized descriptions for simple shore geometries and waves can be found in [@lentzfewings]). The (time-averaged) advective flux in the slick is thus given by $u_S s(x,t)$. We will be using a simple proxy in place of the actual velocity $U(x,z,t)$, consistent with the essential kinematics detailed in Section \[intro\]: Assuming a parabolic profile for the Lagrangian mean velocity (See Figure \[veloa\]), we get $\displaystyle{U={\cal U}^{St}\left( 1+\frac{4 z}{H(x)} +\frac{3 z^2}{H(x)^2}\right)}$ by requiring that $U$ equals ${\cal U}^{St}$ at $z=0$, equals zero at $z= -H(x)$ and has zero depth average [*i.e.*]{}, $\int_{-H}^0 U \, dz = 0$. Undoubtedly, this is a crude approximation of the real flow, consisting of a flow, with mean shoreward-directed velocity, and an undertow, but it is qualitatively consistent with [@pearson2009], Figure 8, (ignoring mass fluxes that shift the mean sea level away from $z=0$, [*cf.*]{}, (\[waveac\]) ). Averaging $U$ over the mixed layer $-\xi(x) \leq z \leq 0$, we get the [*bulk velocity*]{} $$u_B(x) ={\cal U}^{St} \left[H(x) - \xi(x)\right]^2/H(x)^2.
\label{uvel}$$ The (time-averaged) advective flux in the bulk is thus given by $u_B(x) b(x,t)$.
The velocity fluctuations about the mean contribute to an effective dispersion (diffusivity) of the tracer. Field measurements indicate that the vertical and horizontal diffusivities have different dominant mechanics and different magnitudes (see [@feddersenjpo12], [@feddersenjgl12] and references cited in these). At scales of the surfzone itself, which are much larger, typically, than the water column depth, the horizontal diffusivity is dominated by eddies at scales larger than the depth. Measurement, characterization and parametrizations of the diffusivity tensor in the nearshore and the surfzone has come a long way in the last 20 years. Recent field measurements of large scale cross shore and long shore diffusivities are reported in [@clarketal]. These appear to be poorly captured in every respect by older estimates derived by dimensional analysis arguments in [@svendsenpet] (see also [@pearson2009]) with regard to cross-shore diffusivities, for example. This is clear in Figure 13 of [@clarketal].
For the purpose of formulating a simple model for the sticky water phenomenon we will adopt a very crude cross shore dispersion model. From field campaigns, [@spydell] give a rough estimate of the long-term cross shore diffusivity in the bulk, of $0.05$ m$^2$/s, away from the break zone, and $0.5-1.75$ m$^2$/s in the nearshore, under mild sea conditions. (Noted in their report, however, is that the diffusivity changes over time and it is generally larger in the longshore direction). We assume that the interior oil and the slick viscosities are equal, and given by the simple model $$D(x) = D_{eddy} + {\cal S}(x) D_{L},
\label{diffuse}$$ where ${\cal S}(x) = (1+\exp[(x-L)/w])^{-1}$. This crude model is similar to the one proposed in [@rippy13], which is inspired by field measurements. In the examples that follow $L = 200$m and $w=20$m is the width of the transition of the sigmoid. $D_{eddy}=0.05$m$^2$/s is the background eddy diffusivity, and $D_{L} = 1.6$ m$^2$/s the enhanced diffusivity in the nearshore due to turbulence and wave breaking (Figure \[velob\]). Fick’s law gives a diffusive flux $\displaystyle{-D(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} s}$ on the surface. In the subsurface region, the diffusive flux is driven by gradients of the bulk concentration $B$ but its effect on $b$ is found via the equation of state, (\[eqstate\]). Fick’s law along with integration in the depth of the mixed layer gives a diffusive flux $\displaystyle{-\xi(x) D(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} B}$ in the bulk.
The last process we model is the exchange of material between the surface and the bulk due to wave-mixing and buoyancy. On long time scales corresponding to averaging over many waves, a simple model for the net flux from the slick into the suspension is the linear expression $ \frac{1}{\tau(x)}((1-\gamma) s - \gamma P B)$, where $\gamma \in (0,1)$ is a parameter which sets the relative proportions of the oil in the slick and in suspension for vertical equilibrium, [*viz.*]{}, $$\frac{s}{PB} = \frac{ \gamma}{1-\gamma}.$$ $\tau(x)$ is the time scale for the vertical mixing. It is a measure of the total kinetic energy (TKE) in the fluctuating velocity field. Consequently dimensional analysis suggests that $\tau(x) \approx P^2/D(x)$, the diffusion time scale over the typical depth of the mixed layer. (See [@tkalichbreak], and references contained therein, for an alternative formulation of this exchange flux and for more details on the mixing/buoyancy physics).
Neglecting sources and sinks of oil, the conservation laws for $s$ and $b$, obtained from the above fluxes are: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial s}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial [u_{S}(x) s] }{\partial x} & = -\frac{(1-\gamma) s - \gamma P B}{\tau(x)} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[D(x) \frac{\partial s}{\partial x} \right],
\label{oilsl} \\
\frac{\partial b}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial[u_B(x) b]}{\partial x} & = \frac{(1-\gamma) s - \gamma P B}{\tau(x)} \\
& + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left[ \xi(x) D(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} B\right], \nonumber \\
\implies \frac{\partial b}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial[v(x) b]}{\partial x}& = \frac{(1-\gamma) s - \gamma P B}{\tau(x)} + \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \left[ D(x) \frac{\partial b}{\partial x} \right], \quad
\label{altoilb}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used and $$v(x):= u_B(x) + D(x) \frac{1}{\xi(x)} \frac{d \xi(x)}{dx},$$ (see Figure \[veloc\]). Note that the “effective” velocity $v$ of the oil in suspension is not the depth-averaged velocity of the flow $u_B$; rather it has a contribution that depends on the eddy diffusivity $D(x)$ and also the bottom topography $H(x)$ if $H(x) < P$, the maximum depth of the mixed layer.
To conserve total mass we specify zero flux conditions at $x=0$ and $x = L$: $$\begin{aligned}
u_S(x) s - D(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} s & = 0 \mbox{ at } x=0 \mbox{ and }L, \nonumber \\
v(x) b - D(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} b & = 0 \mbox{ at } x=0 \mbox{ and } L.
\label{no-flux-bcs}\end{aligned}$$ Eqs. , and , together with specified initial conditions $s(x,t=0)$ and $b(x,t=0)$ give a complete mathematical model which can be solved numerically. We denote this model as the [*PDE model*]{}.
Finite dimensional reduction of the model {#sec:ode}
=========================================
By specifying appropriate functional forms for the diffusivity $D(x)$ and the vertical mixing time $\tau(x)$ in the PDE model Eqs. , and , we can describe a variety of scenarios. Conversely, a natural question is the extent to which simple choices for the functions, $D(x)$ and $\tau(x)$, as motivated in the previous section, yield results that are valid for real physical flows. In this section we demonstrate that the results we obtain from the PDE model are robust, and depend only on gross features of $D(x)$ and $\tau(x)$, but not on fine details of these functions.
To this end we first derive a reduced finite dimensional model that describes the evolution of Gaussian pulse initial conditions. The ratio of the vertical and horizontal time scales is given by $(P^2/D) ({\cal U}^{St}/X) \lesssim 0.01$ for $P \sim 1$ to 6m, even in the deep ocean where $D$ is small. Thus, the vertical tracer distribution equilibrates very rapidly. We can determine $s$ and $b$ in terms of the total oil $q=s+b$ by setting the exchange flux to zero yielding $$s \approx \frac{\gamma P}{\gamma P + (1-\gamma) \xi} q, \qquad b \approx \frac{(1-\gamma) \xi}{\gamma P + (1-\gamma) \xi} q.$$ Substituting in the equations for $s$ and $b$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial q}{\partial t} & = \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[D(x) \frac{\partial q}{\partial x} - u_{e}(x) q\right], \nonumber \\
u_{e}(x) & = \frac{\gamma P u_{S} + (1-\gamma) \xi v(x)}{\gamma P + (1-\gamma) \xi}.
\label{totaloil}\end{aligned}$$ Observe that these equations no longer depend on $\tau(x)$, showing that as long as the mixing in the vertical direction is rapid on the scale of the horizontal transport, the precise choice of the mixing time is irrelevant.
Initial asymptotics: Pulse solutions
------------------------------------
Setting $\displaystyle{q \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2(t)} }\exp\left[ - \frac{(x-\mu(t))^2}{2 \sigma^2(t)}\right]}$ describes an evolving unit mass Gaussian pulse with mean (peak location) $\mu(t)$ and variance (width) $\sigma^2(t)$. We expect this Gaussian pulse [*ansatz*]{} to be valid as long as the peak of the pulse is “far" from the shore on the scale of its width, $\mu(t) \gg \sigma(t)$. Using this ansatz in and computing the first and second moments yields the [*ODE model*]{}, $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \mu = u_{e}(\mu) + \frac{\partial D}{\partial x} (\mu), \qquad
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \sigma^2 = 2 D(\mu),
\label{initial-asymptotics}$$ where we have assumed that $D$ and $u_{e}$ are slowly varying on the scale of the width $\sigma(t)$. This model works best at early times, when $\sigma(t)/\mu(t) \ll 1$, so the pulse does not “feel" the boundary condition at the shore $x=0$.
Steady states
-------------
Solving for long times $t \to \infty$, we obtain the [*steady state*]{} $$q \to q_{\infty} = C \exp\left[\int \frac{u_e(x)}{D(x)} dx\right], C \mbox{ is a normalizing constant}.
\label{steady}$$ $q_\infty$ has a maximum at the $x$ values where $u_e$ changes sign. Outside the break zone ($D(x)$ is small), or in sufficiently deep water ($\xi(x) = P$ so $\xi'(x) = 0$), we have $v(x) = u_B(x) < 0$. Thus $u_e$ is negative (shoreward).
If $u_e$ from is negative for all $x$ the maximum of the steady state distribution of $q$ is at $x=0$, and this is the case if $H_0$ is sufficiently large (see Figure \[veloc\]). However if $P > H_0$, then the depth averaged bulk velocity $u_B$ is zero at $x = 0$. In this case, $v(0) = D(0) m/H_0 > 0$ so the effective velocity $u_e > 0$ for sufficiently small $\gamma$ (see ). In this scenario $u_e$ will change sign away from $x=0$ (see Figure \[veloc\]).
Of course, in a physical situation, we do not get to choose $\gamma$. A natural question is in what circumstances is the maximum of the steady state distributions “significantly" away from the shore, [*i.e.*]{} the location of the maximum is on the scale of $L$, the width of the break zone. As we will see below, this corresponds to a significant slowing of the tracers as they approach the shore. The following argument gives estimates of the relevant parameter regime.
From , we see that $u_B = 0$ for all $x < C = (P-H_0)/m$. This motivates the definition of the non dimensional parameter $$\beta = \frac{C}{L} = \left(\frac{P-H_0}{H_\infty-H_0} \right) \frac{X}{L}.
\label{beta}$$ If $\beta < 0$ then $P < H(x)$ for all $x$. If $0\leq \beta \leq 1$, the point where $P=H(x)$ is in the break zone, and if $\beta > 1$, this point is outside the break zone.
For $x < C$, i.e. the region where $H(x) < P$, $u_B = 0$ and the definition of $v$ in yields $$u_e(x) > 0 \Leftrightarrow (1-\gamma) D(x) m \geq -\gamma P {\cal U}^{St} = \gamma P |{\cal U}^{St}|$$ where we note that the stokes drift ${\cal U}^{St}$ is negative as it is directed shoreward. This condition can be rearranged to give $$D(x) > \left(\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}\right) \frac{P |{\cal U}^{St}|}{m} \equiv D_{threshold}.
\label{threshold}$$ Using typical values for $P, {\cal U}^{St}$ and $m$, we get $\frac{P |{\cal U}^{St}|}{m} \sim (0.25-5)$ m$^2$/s so unless $\gamma$ is incredibly small, $D_{threshold} \gg D_{eddy}$ the eddy diffusivity outside the break zone, justfying our claim above that $u_e < 0$ (shoreward) outside the break zone. To get that $u_e(x) > 0$ for $x$ on the scale of $L$, we thus need two conditions to hold. From , we need $\beta \gtrsim O(1)$, and from and , we need that $D_L \geq D_{threshold}$. This motivates the definition of a second dimensionless parameter $$\delta = \frac{D_L}{D_{threshold}} = \frac{(1-\gamma) D_L (H_\infty - H_0)}{\gamma P |{\cal U}^{St}| X}.
\label{delta}$$
Approach to the steady state
----------------------------
In terms of the steady state distribution $q_\infty$, the long time asymptotics of are $$\begin{aligned}
q(x,t) & \approx q_{\infty}(x) + f(x) e^{-\lambda_1 t}, \nonumber \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[D(x) \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} - u_{e}(x) f\right] & = -\lambda_1 f
\label{final-asymptotics}\end{aligned}$$ $-\lambda_1$ is the largest negative eigenvalue of the above operator with no-flux boundary conditions at $x=0$ and $L$, and $f$ is a corresponding eigenfunction. Eqs. and give [*finite dimensional*]{} approximations to the short and long time behavior of the solutions. We can obtain a uniformly valid approximation by matching the two descriptions.
We need to switch from the short time to the long time description once the pulse (Eq. ) is close enough to the shore that it feels the effect of the no-flux boundary condition. We thus distinguish short and long times by comparing $\mu^2(t)/\sigma^2(t)$ with a fixed threshold $a$, which we set at 4 in the rest of the paper (See discussion below). This corresponds to changing from the initial to the final asymptotics when $2.5\%$ of the total oil has “beached" and $84\%$ of the oil is within $3 \sigma(t)$ from the shore. At the time $t_e$ determined by $\mu(t_e) = \sqrt{a} \sigma(t_e)$ we switch from using to to describe $q(x,t)$, [*i.e.*]{}, for $t > t_e$ $$\begin{aligned}
q(x,t) \approx & q_\infty + \left[ \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi \sigma^2(t_e)}} \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{Erf}(\sqrt{a/2})} \right.\nonumber \\
& \cdot \left. \exp\left[ - \frac{(x-\mu(t_e))^2}{2 \sigma^2(t_e)}\right]- q_\infty \right] e^{-\lambda_1(t-t_e)},
\label{matched}\end{aligned}$$ where we have normalized the Gaussian to have unit mass in $(0,\infty)$ and $\lambda_1$ is determined numerically by discretizing the operator in .
Patching asymptotic solutions
-----------------------------
Equations and together give a (piecewise defined) composite solution which we denote as the [*reduced*]{} or [*ODE model*]{} to contrast with the the PDE model in section \[sec:pde\]. A natural question is the dependence of the matched solution on the (somewhat arbitrary) choice of threshold $a$. Insofar as there is an overlap region where both and give good approximations to the true solution, the composite solution is insensitive to the precise choice of $a$ and gives a good approximation to the true solution from the PDE model for all time (see [@benderorszag]). We have also verified this numerically by taking $a =1$ and $a = 9$, which give similar results to taking $a=4$.
We get the following predictions for the dynamics of pulse solutions from the ODE model. For small times, the Gaussian pulse solution has an maximum away from the shore $x=0$ for $q,s$ and $b$. For long times, the maximum for $q$ (respectively $s$ and $b$) depends on the location of the maximum of the steady state for $q$ (respectively $s$ and $b$), which in turn is determined by the sign of the effective velocity $u_e$ in (and $\gamma$ and $\xi$). If the steady solution has a maximum away from the shore, then the maximum of $q$ (resp. $s$ and $b$) is away from the shore for all time. This indicates [*nearshore stickiness*]{}. Conversely if the steady solution has maximum at $x =0$, the matched solution will have two local maxima, one away from the shore for the Gaussian pulse, one at the boundary from the steady state. Further the [*global*]{} maximum will jump instantaneously to the shore at a critical time when the values at the two local maxima are equal.
Finally, the steady solution $q_\infty$ has a maximum that is significantly away from the shore, leading to nearshore stickiness, provided that $\beta \gtrsim O(1)$ (as shown in ) and $D(x) > D_{threshold}$ in the breakzone (as shown in ). These criteria are robust and depend on the mixing layer depth $P$ and the bottom topography $H_0,m$ and the enhanced diffusivity $D_L$ in the breakzone, but are insensitive to the details of the vertical mixing and in particular to the specific choice for the mixing time $\tau(x)$.
Model Outcomes {#sec:results}
==============
In this section we present, compare, and discuss results from numerically solving the PDE model (Section \[sec:pde\]) and the ODE model (Section \[sec:ode\]). The PDE model was numerically integrated using a Crank-Nicholson method with centered differencing for the diffusion terms and upwind differencing for the advection terms, while the ODE model was solved using [ode45]{} of matlab. Table 1 summarizes the values of the parameters used in the illustrative examples that follow.
units value units value units value
------------ --------- ------- -------------- --------- ------- ----------------- ------- ----------
$H_0$ m 1.2 $H_{\infty}$ m 20 $X$ m 1000
$L$ m 200 $P$ m 1 – 6 $ w$ m 20
$D_{eddy}$ m$^2$/s 0.05 $D_{L}$ m$^2$/s 1.6 ${\cal U}^{St}$ m/s $0.0203$
\[tab1\]
Before embarking on results, we can use $\beta$ and $\delta$ to predict, approximately, what conditions are required for stalling outside of the break zone, if we accept the parameter values in Table 1. From (\[beta\]), we see that for stalling to occur near the edge of the breakzone, we require a $P \gtrsim 3.76$m. From (\[delta\]), and for $P \approx 3.76$ m, we can ask whether $D_L=1.6$ m$^2$/s is above the $D_{theshold}$ required to see stalling. We find, approximately, that $D_{threshold} = 4\frac{\gamma}{1-\gamma}$. Hence, $\gamma \lesssim 0.29$, for $D_{threshold} \lesssim 1.6$ m$^2$/s.
Figure \[veloa\] displays the velocity $u(x,t)$ at $x=X$. Superimposed is a dashed line indicating $P=1$. Figure \[velob\] depicts the diffusivity $D(x)$, used in the calculations. The effective velocity $v(x)$ in (\[altoilb\]) is shown in Figure \[veloc\], for several $P$. For various choices of $P$ and $\gamma$, we describe the evolution from an initial condition corresponding to a symmetric oil slick on the surface, namely $$\begin{aligned}
s(x,t=0) & = \exp (-0.001 (x-500)^2 )/\sqrt{1000 \pi}\\
b(x,t=0)& = 0.
\end{aligned}$$
[**Case I:**]{} $P=1, \gamma=0.9$. Since $\gamma$ is high most of the oil is in the slick, rather than the interior. The space-time evolution of the $s(x,t)$ field is shown in Figure \[sta\],
and Figure \[stb\] depicts the contours of $s(x,t)$. The dynamics of the oil slick and the interior oil are phase-locked because the vertical mixing is very rapid on the scale of the horizontal transport. The $b(x,t)$ field takes up some of the oil and travels at the same rate as the surface oil $s(x,t)$.
Figure \[evoa\] illustrates the slick $s$, at four different times. For short times, the pulse is symmetric. For longer times, the pulse loses its symmetry, broadening more toward the beach due to a combination of the effective advection velocity $u_e$, the enhanced turbulent diffusion $D$ in the near shore and the no-flux boundary condition. Figure \[evo\] also includes the “ballistic" prediction, which is defined as the distance/time relationship given by the advective speed ${\cal U}^{St}$.
Figure \[evob\] shows the track traced out by the maximum of $s(x,t)$ (mx) and the center of mass (com). For comparison we superimpose a hypothetical [*ballistic*]{} trajectory, for oil traveling at speed ${\cal U}^{St}$. A slowdown of the pulse is evident. It begins to happen before the oil reaches the edge of the turbulent nearshore, which here spans $x=[0,200]$ m. Since $P<H(x)$, $u_B(x), v(x)$ and $u_e(x)$ are never zero ([*cf.*]{}, Figure \[veloc\]). The steady state solutions for $s$ and $b$ have their maxima at $x=0$, and as one would expect the maxima for both $s$ and $b$ jump instantaneously from the interior to the boundary. The center of mass of the oil slick, should approach the center of mass of the steady distribution, and thus stays away from the shore. We also plot the ODE model trajectories of the maximum and the center of mass. The agreement between the PDE and ODE trajectories is excellent.
[**Case II:**]{} $P=1, \gamma = 0.1$. As $\gamma$ is decreased $u_e$ gets closer to $u_B$ and $v$, which are smaller in magnitude than ${\cal U}^{St}$. This causes a slowdown of the center of mass of $q$ compared to the ballistic trajectory. (See Figure \[evogamma-a\].) The oil, which started in the slick, transitions to the interior and the bulk of the oil in short order.
We note the $v$ and $u_e$ for this case and the previous case are strictly negative, because $P=1$ (See Figure \[veloc\]), so the maximum for $s$ and $b$ in the steady state is at $x=0$ (See Figure \[pl2-a\].) Thus we expect the maxima to jump to zero, and this is borne out by simulations from the full model and also the reduced model, as depicted in Figure \[evogamma-a\].
[**Cases III and IV:**]{} $\gamma = 0.1, P = 3$ and $P = 6$ respectively. In these cases, $P=H(x)$ at $x= 95$ m (inside the break zone) and $x = 254$ m (outside the break zone), respectively. The effective velocity $v$ is positive on the shallow side of $P=H$, as shown in Figure \[veloc\] and the effective velocity $u_e$ changes sign. The maximum for the steady states of $b$ are now in the interior of the domain, while the maximum for the steady states of $s$ remain at $x = 0$ (See Figures \[pl2-b\]-). We thus predict that the maxima for $s$ will jump instantaneously, but the maxima for $b$ will remain away from the shore. This is indeed the case, for both the full and the reduced models as shown in Figures \[evogamma-b\]-.
Since $\gamma=0.1$, the initial pulse of oil in the slick transitions quickly to the interior, and remains there. Also, the maximum of $b$ stays away from the shore, so this is an example of [*nearshore sticky waters*]{}. The space-time evolution of $b(x,t)$ is shown in Figure \[pl1\], showing the slowing and parking of the tracers in the bulk away from the shore. We wish to draw attention to the agreement between the PDE and the ODE models in Figures \[evogamma-b\]-, even in situations where the ballistic and actual trajectories are very different.
Conclusions
===========
The model we propose describes, in a simple way, how buoyant contaminants that are impervious to inertial effects, may slow down as they approach nearshore environments. Evidence of unusually long residence times for tracers, measured in breakzone field experiments, is reported from time to time (see for example, [@reniers09]). The mechanism depends on vertical variations of the tracer density and the cross-shore component of the velocity, and thus on buoyant stratification and topographic features, rather than on blocking or stationary structures in the Lagrangian trajectories induced by the velocity field (see [@lcs], for details on Lagrangian Coherent Structures). It is also different from the surface-wave deceleration mechanism outside of the surf zone, that is explored in [@ohlmann12].
The phenomenon and the dynamics detailed here should have relevance to the long-term transport of other contaminants and biological material in which inertial effects are negligible. In environmental mitigation problems the timing of landfall of pollutants and the manner in which these make it to land are crucial. We hope this simple model motivates efforts to improve forecasting circulation models for nearshore flows and transport, with better the modeling of breakzone boundary conditions, and nearshore subscale transport of pollutants.
The proposed model (Section \[sec:pde\]) is a set of coupled PDEs and, despite its relative simplicity, it has multiple, potentially relevant parameters (See Table 1). In order to gain further insight into the dynamics of the PDE model, we derived a finite dimensional reduction in Section \[sec:ode\]. We gain significant insight from studying the reduced model, namely we can explain the evolution of the vertical stratification of the oil density, the evolution of the oil density from symmetric to shoreward skewed distributions, the eventual fate of the maximum and the center of mass of the oil distribution, both in the surface and in the interior including an explanation of stickiness phenomenon, and a prediction for the time and space scales for the complex dynamics of the oil distribution.
Most importantly, the reduced model demonstrates that nearshore stickiness is a robust phenomenon, and helps identify the key parameters (or combinations thereof) which govern the gross behavior of the system. The determining factors are the two dimensionless quantities $$\beta = \left(\frac{P-H_0}{H_\infty-H_0} \right) \frac{X}{L}, \qquad \delta = \frac{(1-\gamma) D_L (H_\infty - H_0)}{\gamma P |{\cal U}^{St}| X}.$$ These quantities indicate the outcomes would change if the topographical parameters or the magnitude of the ${\cal U}^{St}$, $P$, $\gamma$, and/or $D_L$ are changed. A general conclusion from our analysis is that increasing $\beta$ and/or increasing $\delta$ (equivalently decreasing $\gamma$) leads to more stickiness, [*i.e*]{}, the oil approaches the shore more slowly and stalls near the break zone for much longer.
The parameter $\beta$ depends on the topography of the nearshore, the sea conditions and the nature of the pollutant, as all of these influence $P$. Locations where the topography drops steeply even near the shore, such as in the Southern California Bight, will have small $\beta$ and are thus less “sticky." Conversely a typical situation in the Gulf of Mexico or on the mid and southern portions of the Atlantic US coast would have $P$ large when compared to $H$, even at considerable distances from the shore, i.e. $\beta$ large, so the nearshore is considerably more “sticky." The parameter $\delta$ depends on the enhanced turbulent diffusivity $D_L$ in the breakzone as well as the parameter $\gamma$ which governs the fraction of the oil which is in the slick. Increasing the turbulent eddy diffusivity or decreasing the fraction of the total oil in the slick both lead to increased stickiness.
The models we have developed have the virtue of simplicity and being analytically tractable, but they lack many of the ingredients of more realistic physical models. In particular we do not include inertial effects, and the transient setup and setdown process (see @lentzfewings). One expects the mixed layer to have a diffuse boundary unlike our simple model with a sharply discontinuous density at a constant layer depth $P$. The mixed layer can depend on the sea state and the oil or pollutant constituents. For instance, the mixed layer depth and the concentration of the oil in suspension will tend to increase with Langmuir turbulence and wave breaking activity. We use a kinematically specified flow with a parabolic profile, but a more realistic model should include a dynamical model for the ocean with a realistic vertical mean Lagrangian velocity structure, at least close to the shore, as well as a careful treatment of the form-stress for the coupling of wind effects, which are recognized as very important in the case of surface oil slick dynamics (see [@windoil]). Finally, we have a simplified description of buoyancy and vertical mixing effects. These are important issues which we consider in a sequel to this paper. While these effects are relevant, we believe they will not change the basic conclusions we have drawn from the simplified model, and it gives a robust description of the mechanisms which can lead to the the observed apparent stalling of incoming pollutants approaching a shore.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We received funding from GoMRI/BP and from NSF DMS grant 1109856. JMR wishes to thank the Statistics and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute, an NSF funded institute, in which some of this research was done. JMR also thanks the J. Tinsley Oden Fellowship program at the University of Texas for its support. SCV was also supported in part by the NSF DMS grant 0807501. Prof. J. C. McWilliams is acknowledged for bringing to our attention the problem of sticky waters in the Great Barrier Reef, which lead us to ask whether sticky waters occur in the nearshore setting. We are also very grateful to Prof. F. Feddersen for sharing with us his expertise on dispersive processes in the surfzone. His suggestions considerably improved this paper.
\[tab2\]
[26]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
Bender, C. M., Orszag, S. A., 1999. Advanced mathematical methods for scientists and engineers I: Asymptotic methods and perturbation theory. Vol. 1. Springer.
Clark, D. B., Feddersen, F., Guza, R. T., 2010. Cross-shore surfzone tracer dispersion in an alongshore current. Journal of Geophysical Research 115.
Elliot, A. J., Hurford, N., 1989. The influence of wind and wave shear on the spreading of a plume at sea. Oil & Chemical Pollution 5, 347–363.
Feddersen, F., 2012. Observations of the surfzone turbulent dissipation rate. Journal of Physical Oceanography 42, 386–399.
Feddersen, F., 2012. Scaling surf zone turbulence. Geophysical Research Letters 39.
Grant, S. B., Kim, J. H., Jones, B. H., Jenkins, S. A., Wasyl, J., Cudaback, C., 2005. Surf zone entrainment, along-shore transport, and human health implications of pollution from tidal outlets. Journal of Geophysical Research 110.
Haller, G., 2001. Distinguished material surfaces and coherent structures in 3[D]{} fluid flows. Physica D 149, 248–277.
Lane, E. M., Restrepo, J. M., McWilliams, J. C., 2007. Wave-current interaction: A comparison of radiation-stress and vortex-force representations. Journal of Physical Oceanography 37, 1122–1141.
Lentz, S. J., Fewings, M. R., 2012. The wind- and wave-driven inner-shelf circulation. Annual Reviews of Marine Science 44, 317–373.
McWilliams, J. C., Restrepo, J. M., 1999. The wave-driven ocean circulation. Journal of Physical Oceanography 29, 2523–2540.
McWilliams, J. C., Restrepo, J. M., Lane, E. M., 2004. An asymptotic theory for the interaction of waves and currents in coastal waters. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 511, 135–178.
Mei, C. C., 1989. The Applied Dynamics of Ocean Surface Waves. World Scientific, Singapore.
Ohlmann, J. C., Fewings, M. R., Melton, C., 2012. Lagrangian observations of inner-shelf motions in [S]{}outhern [C]{}alifornia: can surface waves decelerate shoreward-moving drifters just outside the surf zone? Journal of Physical Oceanography 42, 1313–1326.
Pearson, J. M., Guymer, I., West, J. R., Coates, L. E., 2009. Solute mixing in the surf zone. Journal of Waterway, Port and Coastal Engineering 135.
Reniers, A. J. H. M., MacMahan, J. H., Thornton, E. B., Stanton, T. P., Henriquez, M., Brown, J. W., Brown, J. A., Gallagher, E., 2009. Surf zone surface retention on a rip-channeled beach. Journal of Geophysical Research 114.
Restrepo, J. M., 2001. Wave-current interactions in shallow waters and shore-connected ridges. Continental Shelf Research 21, 1331–1360.
Restrepo, J. M., Ramirez, J. M., McWilliams, J. C., Banner, M., 2011. Multiscale momentum flux and diffusion due to whitecapping in wave-current interactions. Journal of Physical Oceanography 41.
Rippy, M., Franks, P., Feddersen, F., Guza, R., Moore, D., 2013. Physical dynamics controlling variability in nearshore fecal pollution: Fecal indicator bacteria as passive particles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 66, 151–157.
Smith, J. A., 2006. Wave-current interactions in finite depth. Journal of Physical Oceanography 36, 1403–1419.
Spydell, M. S., Feddersen, F., Guza, R. T., 2009. Observations of drifter dispersion in the surfzone: The effect of sheared alongshore currents. Journal of Geophysical Research 114, C07028.
Svendsen, I. A., Putrevu, U., 1994. Nearshore mixing and dispersion. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 445, 561–576.
Thornton, E. B., Guza, R. T., 1983. Transformation of wave height distribution. Journal of Geophysical Research 88(C10), 5925–5938.
Tkalich, P., Chan, E. S., 2002. Vertical mixing of oil droplets by breaking waves. Marine Pollution Bullentin 44, 1219–1229.
Uchiyama, Y., McWilliams, J. C., Restrepo, J. M., 2009. Wave-current interaction in nearshore shear instability analyzed with a vortex force formalism. Journal of Geophysical Research C, 06021.
Weir, B., Uchiyama, Y., Lane, E., Restrepo, J. M., McWilliams, J. C., 2011. A vortex force analysis of the interaction of rip currents and surface gravity waves. Journal of Geophysical Research 116, C050001.
Wolanski, E., Spagnol, S., 2000. sticky waters in the [G]{}reat [B]{}arrier [R]{}eef. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 50, 27–32.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we give an interesting extension of the partial $S$-metric space which was introduced [@Nabil1] to the $M_{s}$-metric space. Also, we prove the existence and uniqueness of a fixed point for a self mapping on an $M_{s}$-metric space under different contraction principles.'
author:
- |
N. Mlaiki$^{1}$, N. Souayah$^{2},$ K. Abodayeh$^{3},$ T. Abdeljawad$^{4}$\
[*Department of Mathematical Sciences, Prince Sultan University$^{1,}$$^{3,}$$^{4}$*]{}\
[*Department of Natural Sciences, Community College, King Saud University$^{2}$*]{}\
[*Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 11586* ]{}\
E-mail: [email protected]$^{1}$\
[email protected]$^{2}$\
[email protected]$^{3}$\
[email protected]$^{4}$
title: 'Contraction Principles in $M_s$-metric Spaces '
---
Introduction
============
Many researchers over the years proved many interesting results on the existence of a fixed point for a self mapping on different types of metric spaces for example, see ([@M2], [@M3], [@M4], [@M5], [@M6], [@M7], [@M8], [@M9], [@M10], [@Postolache1], [@Postolache2], [@Postolache3].) The idea behind this paper was inspired by the work of Asadi in [@M1]. He gave a more general extension of almost any metric space with two dimensions, and that is not just by defining the self “distance” in a metric as in partial metric spaces [@Val2005; @IATOP2010; @IAFTPA2011; @Marshad; @TEH2012], but he assumed that is not necessary that the self “distance” is less than the value of the metric between two different elements.
In [@Nabil1], an extension of $S$-metric spaces to a partial $S$-metric spaces was introduced. Also, they showed that every $S$-metric space is a partial $S$-metric space, but not every partial $S$-metric space is an $S$-metric space. In our paper, we introduce the concept of $M_{s}$- metric spaces which an extension of the partial $S$-metric spaces in which we will prove some fixed point results.
First, we remind the reader of the definition of a partial $S$-metric space
[@Nabil1] Let $X$ be a nonempty set. A partial S-metric on $X$ is a function $S_{p}:X^{3}\rightarrow [0,\infty)$ that satisfies the following conditions, for all $x,y,z,t \in X:$\
- $x=y$ if and only if $S_{p}(x,x,x)=S_{p}(y,y,y)=S_{p}(x,x,y)$,
- $S_{p}(x,y,z)\le S_{p}(x,x,t)+S_{p}(y,y,t)+S_{p}(z,z,t)-S_{p}(t,t,t)$,
- $S_{p}(x,x,x)\le S_{p}(x,y,z)$,
- $S_{p}(x,x,y)=S_{p}(y,y,x).$
The pair $(X,S_{p})$ is called a partial S-metric space.
Next, we give the definition of an $M_{s}$-metric space, but first we introduce the following notation.\
[**Notation.**]{}
1. $m_{{s}_{x,y,z}}:= \min \{ m_{s}(x,x,x),m_{s}(y,y,y),m_{s}(z,z,z) \}$
2. $M_{{s}_{x,y,z}}:= \max \{ m_{s}(x,x,x),m_{s}(y,y,y),m_{s}(z,z,z) \}$
\[def of Ms\] An $M_s$-metric on a nonempty set X is a function $m_{s} : X^{3} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{+}$ such that for all $x, y, z, t \in X$, the following conditions
are satisfied:\
1. $m_{s}(x,x,x)=m_{s}(y,y,y)=m_{s}(x,x,y)$ if and only if $x=y,$
2. $m_{{s}_{x,y,z}} \le m_{s}(x,y,z),$
3. $m_{s}(x,x,y)=m_{s}(y,y,x),$
4. $(m_{s}(x,y,z)-m_{{s}_{x,y,z}})\le (m_{s}(x,x,t)-m_{{s}_{x,x,t}})+(m_{s}(y,y,t)-m_{{s}_{y,y,t}})+(m_{s}(z,z,t)-m_{{s}_{z,z,t}}).$
The pair $(X,m_{s})$ is called an $M_{s}$-metric space. Notice that the condition $m_s(x,x,x)=m_s(y,y,y)=m_s(z,z,z)=m_s(x,y,z) \Leftrightarrow x=y=z$ implies (1) above.
It is a straightforward to verify that every partial $S$-metric space is an $M_s$-metric space but the converse is not true. The following is an example of an $M_{s}$-metric which is not a partial $S$-metric space.
Let $X=\{1,2,3\}$ and define the $M_{s}$-metric space $m_{s}$ on $X$ by $m_{s}(1,2,3)= 6 $,\
$m_{s}(1,1,2)=m_{s}(2,2,1)=m_{s}(1,1,1)=8$,\
$m_{s}(1,1,3)=m_{s}(3,3,1)=m_{s}(3,3,2)=m_{s}(2,2,3)=7$,\
$m_{s}(2,2,2)=9, \text{ and } m_{s}(3,3,3)=5$.\
It is not difficult to see that $(X,m_{s})$ is an $M_{s}$-metric space, but since $m_{s}(1,1,1)\not\le m_{s}(1,2,3)$ we deduce that $m_{s}$ is not a partial $S$-metric space.
Let $(X, m_{s})$ be an $M_s$-metric space. Then:
1. A sequence $\{x_{n}\}$ in $X$ converges to a point $x$ if and only if $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}(m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x)-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x}})=0.$$
2. A sequence $\{x_{n}\}$ in $X$ is said to be $M_{s}$-Cauchy sequence if and only if $$\lim_{n,m\rightarrow \infty}(m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x_{m})-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}}), \text{ and } \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}(M_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}}-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}})$$ exist and finite.
3. An $M_s$-metric space is said to be complete if every $M_{s}$-Cauchy sequence $\{x_{n}\}$ converges to a point $x$ such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow
\infty}(m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x)-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x}})=0 \text{ and } \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}(M_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x}}-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x}})=0.$$
A ball in the $M_s-$metric $(X, m_s)$ space with center $x \in X$ and radius $\eta >0$ is defined by $$B_{s}[x,\eta]=\{ y\in X\mid m_{s}(x,x,y)-m_{{s}{x,x,y}}\le
\eta\}.$$ The topology of $(X, M_s)$ is generated by means of the basis $\beta = \{B_{s}[x,\eta]: \eta>0\}$.
\[sequential\] Assume $x_n\rightarrow x$ and $y_n\rightarrow y$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$ in an $M_s-$metric space $(X, m_s)$. Then, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} (m_s(x_n,x_n,y_n)-m_{sx_n,x_n,y_n})=m_s(x,x,y)-m_{sx,x,y}$$
The proof follows by the inequality $(4)$ in Definition \[def of Ms\]. Indeed, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
|(m_s(x_n,x_n,y_n)-m_{sx_n,x_n,y_n})-(m_s(x,x,y)-m_{sx,x,y})| &\leq& 2[(m_s(x_n,x_n,x)-m_{sx_n,x_n,x})\\
&+& (m_s(y_n,y_n,y)-m_{sy_n,y_n,y})]\end{aligned}$$
Fixed Point Theorems
====================
In this section, we consider some results about the existence and the uniqueness of fixed point for self mappings on an $M_{s}$-metric space, under different contractions principles.
\[one\] Let $(X, m_{s})$ be a complete $M_s$-metric space and $T $ be a self mapping on $X$ satisfying the following condition: $$\label{cont1}
m_{s}(T x,T x, T y) \le k m_{s}(x, x,y),$$ for all $x, y \in
X,$ where $k\in [0,1).$ Then T has a unique fixed point $u$. Moreover, $m_{s}(u,u,u)=0.$
Since $k\in[0,1)$, we can choose a natural number $n_{0}$ such that for a given $0<\epsilon <1,$ we have $k^{n_{0}}<\dfrac{\epsilon}{8}.$ Let $T^{n_{0}}\equiv F$ and $F^{i}x_{0}=x_{i}$ for all natural numbers $i$, where $x_{0} $ is arbitrary. Hence, for all $x,y \in X$, we have
$$m_{s}(Fx,Fx,Fy)=m_{s}(T^{n_{0}}x,T^{n_{0}}x,T^{n_{0}}y)\le k^{n_{0}} m_{s}(x,x,y).$$ For any $i$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
m_{s}(x_{i+1},x_{i+1},x_{i}) & = m_{s}(Fx_{i},Fx_{i},Fx_{i-1}) \\& \le
k^{n_{0}}m_{s}(x_{i},x_{i},x_{i-1}) \\& \le k^{n_{0} +i}m_{s}(x_{1},x_{1},x_{0})\rightarrow
0\ as \ i \rightarrow \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, by (\[cont1\]) we have $m_s(x_i,x_i,x_i)\rightarrow 0$ as $i\rightarrow \infty$. Thus, we choose $l$ such that $$m_{s}(x_{l+1},x_{l+1},x_{l})< \frac{\epsilon}{8} \text{ and } m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},x_{l})< \frac{\epsilon}{4} .$$ Now, let $\eta=\frac{\epsilon}{2}+m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},x_{l})$. Define the set $$B_{s}[x_{l},\eta]=\{ y\in X\mid m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},y)-m_{{s}{x_{l},x_{l},y}}\le
\eta\}.$$ Note that, $x_{l} \in B_{s}[x_{l},\eta]$. Therefore $B_{s}[x_{l},\eta]\neq \emptyset.$ Let $z\in
B_{s}[x_{l},\eta]$ be arbitrary. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
m_{s}(Fz,Fz,Fx_{l})& \le k^{n_{0}} m_{s}(z,z,x_{l})\\ & \le
\frac{\epsilon}{8}[\frac{\epsilon}{2}+m_{{s}{z,z,x_{l}}}+m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},x_{l})] \\ & <
\frac{\epsilon}{8}[1+2m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},x_{l})].\end{aligned}$$ Also, we know that $ m_{s}(Fx_{l},Fx_{l},x_{l})=m_{s}(x_{l+1},x_{l+1},x_{l})<
\dfrac{\epsilon}{8}.$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
m_{s}(Fz,Fz,x_{l})-m_{{s}{Fz,Fz, x_{l}}}& \le
2[(m_{s}(Fz,Fz,Fx_{l})-m_{{s}{Fz,Fz,Fx_{l}}})]+(m_{s}(Fx_{l},Fx_{l},x_{l})-m_{{s}{Fx_{l},Fx_{l},x_{l}}})\\
& \le 2m_{s}(Fz,Fz,Fx_{l})+m_{s}(Fx_{l},Fx_{l},x_{l})]\\
&\le 2\frac{\epsilon}{8}(1+2m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},x_{l}))+\frac{\epsilon}{8}\\
&= \frac{\epsilon}{4}+\frac{\epsilon}{8}+ \frac{\epsilon}{2} m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},x_{l})\\
&< \frac{\epsilon}{2}+m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},x_{l}).\end{aligned}$$
Thus, $Fz \in B_{b}[x_{l},\eta]$ which implies that $F$ maps $B_{b}[x_{l},\eta]$ into itself. Thus, by repeating this process we deduce that for all $n\ge 1$ we have $F^{n}x_{l}\in
B_{b}[x_{l},\eta]$ and that is $x_{m}\in B_{b}[x_{l},\eta]$ for all $m\ge l.$ Therefore, for all $m>n\ge l$ where $n=l+i$ for some $i$ $$\begin{aligned}
m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x_{m})&=m_{s}(Fx_{n-1},Fx_{n-1},Fx_{m-1})\\
& \le k^{n_{0}}m_{s}(x_{n-1},x_{n-1},x_{m-1})\\
& \le k^{2n_{0}}m_{s}(x_{n-2},x_{n-2},x_{m-2})\\
&\vdots \\
&\le k^{in_{0}}m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},x_{m-i})\\
& \le m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},x_{m-i})\\
&\le \frac{\epsilon}{2}+m_{{s}{x_{l},x_{l},x_{m-i}}}+m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},x_{l})\\
& \le \frac{\epsilon}{2}+2m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},x_{l}) .\end{aligned}$$ Also, we have $m_{s}(x_{l},x_{l},x_{l})<\frac{\epsilon}{4},$ which implies that $m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x_{m})<\epsilon$ for all $m>n>l,$ and thus $m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x_{m})-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}}<\epsilon$ for all $m>n>l.$ By the contraction condition (\[cont1\]) we see that the sequence $\{m_s(x_n,x_n,x_n)\}$ is decreasing and hence, for all $m>n>l$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
M_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}}-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}}&\le M_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}} \\
& = m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x_{n}) \\
&\le k m_{s}(x_{n-1},x_{n-1},x_{n-1})\\
&\vdots \\
&\le k^{n}m_{s}(x_{0},x_{0},x_{0}) \rightarrow 0 \text{ as } n\rightarrow \infty.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we deduce that $$\lim_{n,m\rightarrow \infty}(m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x_{m})-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}})=0, \text{ and } \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}(M_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}}-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}})=0$$ Hence, the sequence $\{x_{n}\}$ is an $M_{s}$-Cauchy. Since $X$ is complete, there exists $u\in X $ such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},u)-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},u}}=0,~~\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} M_{sx_{n},x_{n},u}-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},u}}=0$$ The contraction condition (\[cont1\]) implies that $m_s(x_n,x_n,x_n)\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$. Moreover, notice that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} M_{sx_{n},x_{n},u}-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},u}}=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}|m_s(x_n,x_n,x_n)-m_s(u,u,u)|=0,$$ and hence $m_s(u,u,u)=0$. Since $x_n\rightarrow u$, $m_s(u,u,u)=0$ and $m_s(x_n,x_n,x_n)\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$ then $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}m_s(x_n,x_n,u)= \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} m_{sx_n,x_n,u}=0$. Since $m_s(Tx_n,Tx_n,Tu)\leq k m_s(x_n,x_n,u)\rightarrow 0 $ as $n\rightarrow \infty$, then $Tx_n\rightarrow Tu$.
Now, we show that $Tu=u.$ By Lemma \[sequential\] and that $Tx_n\rightarrow Tu$ and $x_{n+1}=Tx_n\rightarrow u$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},u)-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},u}}&=0\\
&= \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} m_{s}(x_{n+1},x_{n+1},u)-m_{{s}{x_{n+1},x_{n+1},u}}\\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} m_{s}(Tx_{n},Tx_{n},u)-m_{{s}{Tx_{n},Tx_{n},u}} \\
&= m_{s}(u,u,u)-m_{{s}{Tu,Tu,u}}\\
&= m_{s}(Tu,Tu,u)-m_{{s}{Tu,Tu,u}}.\end{aligned}$$
Hence, $m_{s}(Tu,Tu,u)= m_{{s}{Tu,Tu,u}}=m_s(u,u,u)$ , but also by the contraction condition (\[cont1\]) we see that $m_{{s}{Tu,Tu,u}}=m_s(Tu,Tu,Tu)$ . Therefore, (2) in Definition \[def of Ms\] implies that $Tu=u.$\
To prove the uniqueness of the fixed point $u,$ assume that $T$ has two fixed points $u,v \in X;$ that is, $Tu=u$ and $Tv=v.$ Thus, $$m_{s}(u,u,v)=m_{s}(Tu,Tu,Tv)\le km_{s}(u,u,v)<m_{s}(u,u,v),$$
$$m_{s}(u,u,u)=m_{s}(Tu,Tu,Tu)\le km_{s}(u,u,u)<m_{s}(u,u,u),$$
and $$m_{s}(v,v,v)=m_{s}(Tv,Tv,Tv)\le km_{s}(v,v,v)<m_{s}(v,v,v),$$
which implies that $m_{s}(u,u,v)=0=m_s(u,u,u)=m_s(v,v,v),$ and hence $u=v$ as desired. Finally,assume that $u$ is a fixed point of $T.$ Then applying the contraction condition (\[cont1\]) with $k \in [0,1)$, implies that $$\begin{aligned}
m_{s}(u,u,u) &=m_{s}(Tu,Tu,Tu)\\
&\le k m_{s}(u,u,u)\\
&\vdots \\
&\le k^n m_{s}(u,u,u)\end{aligned}$$ Taking the limit as $n$ tends to infinity, implies that is $m_{s}(u,u,u)=0.$
In the following result, we prove the existence and uniqueness of a fixed point for a self mapping in $M_{s}$-metric space, but under a more general contraction.
\[two\] Let $(X, m_{s})$ be a complete $M_{s}$-metric space and $T $ be a self mapping on $X$ satisfying the following condition: $$\label{cont2}
m_{s}(T x,T x, T y) \le \lambda[ m_{s}(x,x, Tx)+ m_{s}(y,y,Ty)],$$ for all $ x, y \in X,$ where $\lambda \in [0,\frac{1}{2}). $ Then T has a unique fixed point $u,$ where $m_{s}(u,u,u)=0.$
Let $x_{0}\in X$ be arbitrary. Consider the sequence $\{x_{n}\}$ defined by $x_{n}=T^{n}x_{0}$ and $m_{s_{n}}=m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x_{n+1}).$ Note that if there exists a natural number $n$ such that $m_{s_{n}}=0,$ then $x_{n}$ is a fixed point of $T$ and we are done. So, we may assume that $m_{s_{n}}>0,$ for $n\ge 0.$ By (\[cont2\]), we obtain for any $n\ge 0,$ $$\begin{aligned}
m_{s_{n}}& =m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x_{n+1})=m_{s}(Tx_{n-1},Tx_{n-1},Tx_{n})\\
&\le \lambda[ m_{s}(x_{n-1},x_{n-1}, Tx_{n-1})+ m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n}, Tx_{n})] \\
& = \lambda[ m_{s}(x_{n-1},x_{n-1}, x_{n})+ m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n}, x_{n+1})]\\
& = \lambda [m_{s_{n-1}}+m_{s_{n}}].\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $m_{s_{n}}\le \lambda m_{s_{n-1}}+ \lambda m_{s_{n}},$ which implies $m_{s_{n}}\le \mu
m_{s_{n-1}},$ where $\mu=\frac{\lambda}{1 -\lambda}<1$ as $\lambda
\in [0,\frac{1}{2}).$ By repeating this process we get $$m_{s_{n}}\le \mu^{n} m_{s_{0}}.$$ Thus, $\lim_{n\rightarrow
\infty}m_{s_{n}}=0.$ By (\[cont2\]), for all natural numbers $n,m$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x_{m})& =m_{s}(T^{n}x_{0},T^{n}x_{0},T^{m}x_{0})=m_{s}(Tx_{n-1},Tx_{n-1}, Tx_{m-1})\\
&\le \lambda[ m_{s}(x_{n-1},x_{n-1}, Tx_{n-1})+ m_{s}(x_{m-1},x_{m-1}, Tx_{m-1})] \\
& = \lambda[ m_{s}(x_{n-1},x_{n-1}, x_{n})+ m_{s}(x_{m-1},x_{m-1}, x_{m})]\\
& = \lambda [m_{s_{n-1}}+m_{s_{m-1}}].\end{aligned}$$ Since $\lim_{n\rightarrow
\infty}m_{s_{n}}=0,$ for every $\epsilon>0$, we can find a natural number $n_{0}$ such that $m_{s_{n}}<\frac{\epsilon}{2}$ and $m_{s_{m}}<\frac{\epsilon}{2}$ for all $m,n >n_{0}.$ Therefore, it follows that $$m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x_{m})\le \lambda [m_{s_{n-1}}+m_{s_{m-1}}]< \lambda[\frac{\epsilon}{2}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}]<
\frac{\epsilon}{2}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}=\epsilon\ \ \text{for all }
n,m>n_{0}.$$ This implies that $$m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},x_{m})-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}}<\epsilon \ \ \text{for all }
n,m>n_{0}.$$ Now, for all natural numbers $n,m$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
M_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}}& =m_{s}(Tx_{n-1},Tx_{n-1}, Tx_{n-1})\\
&\le \lambda[ m_{s}(x_{n-1},x_{n-1}, Tx_{n-1})+ m_{s}(x_{n-1}, x_{n-1}, Tx_{n-1})] \\
& = \lambda[ m_{s}(x_{n-1}, x_{n-1}, x_{n})+ m_{s}(x_{n-1},x_{n-1}, x_{n})]\\
& = \lambda [m_{s_{n-1}}+m_{s_{n-1}}]\\
& = 2\lambda m_{s_{n-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ As $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}m_{s_{n-1}}=0,$ for every $\epsilon>0$ we can find a natural number $n_{0}$ such that $m_{s_{n}}<\frac{\epsilon}{2}$ and for all $m,n >n_{0}.$ Therefore, it follows that $$M_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}}\le \lambda
[m_{s_{n-1}}+m_{s_{n-1}}]<
\lambda[\frac{\epsilon}{2}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}]<
\frac{\epsilon}{2}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}=\epsilon\ \ \text{for all }
n,m>n_{0},$$ which implies that $$M_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}}-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},x_{m}}}<\epsilon \ \ \text{for all }
n,m>n_{0}.$$ Thus, $\{x_{n}\}$ is an $M_{s}$-Cauchy sequence in $X.$ Since $X$ is complete, there exists $u \in X $ such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},u)-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},u}}=0.$$ Now, we show that $u$ is a fixed point of $T$ in $X.$ For any natural number $n$ we have, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} m_{s}(x_{n},x_{n},u)-m_{{s}{x_{n},x_{n},u}}&=0\\
&= \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} m_{s}(x_{n+1},x_{n+1},u)-m_{{s}{x_{n+1},x_{n+1},u}}\\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} m_{s}(Tx_{n},Tx_{n},u)-m_{{s}{Tx_{n},Tx_{n},u}} \\
&= m_{s}(Tu,Tu,u)-m_{{s}{Tu,Tu,u}}.\end{aligned}$$
This implies that $m_{s}(Tu,Tu,u)-m_{{s}{u,u,Tu}}=0,$ and that is $m_{s}(Tu,Tu,u)= m_{{s}{u,u,Tu}}.$ Now, assume that $$m_{s}(Tu,Tu,u)=m_{s}(Tu,Tu,Tu)\le 2\lambda m_{s}(u,u,Tu)= 2\lambda m_{s}(Tu,Tu,u)< m_{s}(u,u,Tu).$$ Thus, $$m_{s}(Tu,Tu,u)=m_{s}(u,u,u)\le m_{s}(Tu,Tu,Tu)\le 2\lambda m_{s}(u,u,Tu)<m_{s}(u,u,Tu)$$ Therefore, $Tu=u$ and thus $u$ is a fixed point of $T.$\
Next, we show that if $u$ is a fixed point, then $m_{s}(u,u,u)=0.$ Assume that $u$ is a fixed point of $T,$ then using the contraction (\[cont2\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
m_{s}(u,u,u)
&=m_{s}(Tu,Tu,Tu)\\&\le \lambda [m_{s}(u,u,Tu)+m_{s}(u,u,Tu)]\\
&=2\lambda m_{s}(u,u,Tu)\\
&=2\lambda m_{s}(u,u,u)\\
&<m_{s}(u,u,u)\ \ \text{since }
\lambda \in [0,\frac{1}{2}); \end{aligned}$$ that is, $m_{s}(u,u,u)=0.$
Finally, To prove uniqueness, assume that $T$ has two fixed points say $u,v \in
X.$ Hence, $$m_{s}(u,u,v)=m_{s}(Tu,Tu,Tv)\le \lambda [m_{s}(u,u,Tu)+m_{s}(v,v,Tv)]=\lambda [m_{s}(u,u,u)+m_{s}(v,v,v)]=0,$$ which implies that $m_{s}(u,u,v)=0=m_{s}(u,u,v)=m_{s}(u,u,v),$ and hence $u=v$ as required.\
In closing, the authors would like to bring to the reader’s attention that in this interesting $M_{s}$-metric space it is possible to add some control functions in both contractions of Theorems \[one\], and \[two\].
\[three\] Let $(X, m_{s})$ be a complete $M_s$-metric space and $T $ be a self mapping on $X$ satisfying the following condition: for all $x,y,z\in X$ $$\label{1}
m_s (Tx,Ty,Tz)\leq m_s (x,y,z)-\phi (m_s (x,y,z)),$$ where $\phi :[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ is a continuous and non-decreasing function and $\phi^{-1}(0)=0$ and $\phi (t)>0$ for all $t>0$. Then $T$ has a unique fixed point in $X$.
Let $x_0 \in X$. Define the sequence $\{x_{n}\}$ in $X$ such that $x_n =T^{n-1}x_0 =Tx_{n-1}$, for all $n\in {{\rm I} \hspace{-0.03in} {\rm N}}$. Note that if there exists an $n\in{{\rm I} \hspace{-0.03in} {\rm N}}$ such that $x_{n+1}=x_n$, then $x_n$ is a fixed point for $T$. Without lost of generality, assume that $x_{n+1}\neq x_n$, for all $n\in{{\rm I} \hspace{-0.03in} {\rm N}}$. Now
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2}
m_s (x_n ,x_{n+1}, x_{n+1}) &=& m_s (Tx_{n-1},Tx_n ,Tx_n )\nonumber \\
&\leq & m_s (x_{n-1} ,x_{n}, x_{n}) -\phi (m_s (x_{n-1} ,x_{n}, x_{n})) \nonumber \\
&\leq & m_s (x_{n-1} ,x_{n}, x_{n}).\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, we can prove that $m_s (x_{n-1} ,x_{n}, x_{n}) \leq m_s (x_{n-2} ,x_{n-1}, x_{n-1}) .$ Hence, $m_s (x_n ,x_{n+1}, x_{n+1})$ is a monotone decreasing sequence. Hence there exists $r\geq 0$ such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} m_s (x_n ,x_{n+1}, x_{n+1}) =r.$$ Now, by taking the limit as $n\rightarrow\infty$ in the inequality (\[eq2\]), we get $r\leq r-\phi (r)$ which leads to a contradiction unless $r=0$. Therefore, $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} m_s (x_n ,x_{n+1}, x_{n+1}) =0. \\$$ Suppose that $\{x_{n}\}$ is not an $M_s$-Cauchy sequence. Then there exists an $\epsilon>0$ such that we can find subsequences $x_{m_k}$ and $x_{n_k}$ of $\{x_{n}\}$ such that $$\label{eq3}
m_s (x_{n_k} ,x_{m_k} ,x_{m_k} )-m_{sx_{n_k} ,x_{m_k} ,x_{m_k}} \geq \epsilon.$$ Choose $n_k$ to be the smallest integer with $n_k >m_k$ and satisfies the inequality (\[eq3\]). Hence, $m_s (x_{n_k} ,x_{m_{k-1}} ,x_{m_{k-1}} )-m_{sx_{n_k} ,x_{m_{k-1}} ,x_{m_{k-1}}} < \epsilon .$\
Now, $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon &\leq & m_s (x_{m_k} ,x_{n_k} ,x_{n_k} )-m_{sx_{m_k} ,x_{n_k} ,x_{n_k}} \\
&\leq & m_s (x_{m_k} ,x_{n_{k-1}} ,x_{n_{k-1}} )+2m_s (x_{n_{k-1}} ,x_{n_{k-1}} ,x_{n_{k-1}} )-m_{sx_{m_k} ,x_{n_{k-1}} ,x_{n_{k-1}}} \\
&\leq & \epsilon+2m_s (x_{n_{k-1}} ,x_{n_{k-1}} ,x_{n_{k-1}} ) \\
&< & \epsilon,\end{aligned}$$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Hence, we have a contradiction.\
Without lost of generality, assume that $m_{sx_n ,x_n ,x_m}= m_s (x_n ,x_n ,x_n)$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq m_{sx_n ,x_n ,x_m}-m_{sx_n ,x_n ,x_m} &\leq & M_{sx_n ,x_n ,x_m} \\
&=& m_s (x_n ,x_n ,x_n) \\
&=& m_s (Tx_{n-1},Tx_{n-1},Tx_{n-1}) \\
&\leq & m_s (x_{n-1},x_{n-1},x_{n-1})-\phi (m_s (x_{n-1},x_{n-1},x_{n-1})) \\
&\leq & m_s (x_{n-1},x_{n-1},x_{n-1}) \\
&\vdots& \\
&\leq& m_s (x_{0},x_{0},x_{0})\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}m_{sx_n ,x_n ,x_m}-m_{sx_n ,x_n ,x_m}$ exists and finite. Therefore, $\{x_{n}\}$ is an $M_s$-Cauchy sequence. Since $X$ is complete, the sequence $\{x_{n}\}$ converges to an element $x\in X$; that is, $$\begin{aligned}
0 &=&\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} m_s (x_n ,x_n ,x)-m_{sx_n ,x_n ,x} \\
&=& \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} m_s (x_{n+1} ,x_{n+1} ,x)-m_{sx_{n+1} ,x_{n+1} ,x} \\
&=& \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} m_s (Tx_n,Tx_n,x)-m_{sTx_n,Tx_n,x} \\
&=& m_s (Tx,Tx,x)-m_{sTx,Tx,x} .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to the proof of Theorem \[two\], it is not difficult to show that this implies that, $Tx=x$ and so $x$ is a fixed point.\
Finally, we show that $T$ has a unique fixed point. Assume that there are two fixed points $u,v\in X$ of $T$. If we have $m_s (u,u,v)>0$, then Condition (\[1\]) implies that $$m_s (u,u,v)=m_s (Tu,Tu,Tv)\leq m_s (u,u,v)-\phi (m_s (u,u,v))<m_s (u,u,v),$$ and that is a contradiction. Therefore, $m_s (u,u,v)=0$ and similarly $m_s (u,u,u)=M_s (v,v,v)=0$ and thus $u=v$ as desired.
In closing, is it possible to define the same space but without the symmetry condition, (i.e. $m_{s}(x,x,y)\neq m_{s}(y,y,x)?$) If possible, what kind of results can be obtained in such space?
[999]{}
M. Asadi et al., *New extension of $p$-metric spaces with some fixed point results on $M$-metric spaces,* Journal of Inequalities and Applications, (2014), [2014:18]{}. S. Matthews, *Partial metric topology,* Ann. NY. Acad. Sci., (1994) [**[728]{}**]{}, 183-197. S. Shukla: *Partial b-metric spaces and fixed point theorems,* Mediterranean Journal of Mathematics, [**[11]{}**]{}, 703-711, [2014]{}, [2014:18]{} N. Mlaiki, *A contraction principle in partial S-metric space,* Universal journal of mathematics and mathematical. [**5**]{}(2). (2014) 109-119 N. Mlaiki, *$\alpha$-$\psi$-contractive mapping on S-metric space*, Mathematical Sciences Letters, **4** (2015), 9–12.
N. Mlaiki, *Common fixed points in complex S-metric space*, Advances in Fixed Point Theory, **4** (2014), 509–524.
A. Mukheimer, *$\alpha$-$\psi$-$\phi$-contractive mappings in ordered partial $b$-metric spaces*, Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Applications, [**7**]{} (2014), 168-–179.
T. Abdeljawad, E. Karapinar and K. Taş, *A generalized contraction principle with control functions on partial metric spaces*,Computer and Mathematics with Applications, 63 (3) (2012), 716-719.
T. Abdeljawad, *Fixed points for generalized weakly contractive mappings in partial metric spaces*, Math. Comput. Modelling 54 (11-12) (2011), 2923–2927.
T. Abdeljawad, *Meir-Keeler alpha-contractive fixed and common fixed point theorems*, Fixed point theory and applications, article number 19 DOI:10.1186/1687-1812-2013-19.
T. Abdeljawad, E. Karapinar, H. Aydi, *A new Meir-Keeler type coupled fixed point on ordered partial metric spaces,* Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2012, Article ID 327273, 20 pages, 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/327273.
W. Shatanawi, and P. Ariana, *Some coupled fixed point theorems in quasi-partial metric spaces*, Fixed point theory and applications Article Number: 153 DOI: 10.1186/1687-1812-2013-153 Published: 2013.
O. Valero, *On Banach fixed point theorems for partial metric spaces,* Applied General Topology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 229-240, 2005.
I. Altun, F. Sola, and H. Simsek, *Generalized contractions on partial metric spaces,* Topology and Its Applications, vol. 157, no. 18, pp. 2778-2785, 2010.
I. Altun and A. Erduran, *Fixed point theorems for monotone mappings on partial metric spaces,* Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2011, Article ID 508730, 10 pages, 2011. doi:10.1155/2011/508730
A. Shoaib, M. Arshad, and J. Ahmad, *Fixed point results of locally contractive mappings in ordered quasi-partial metric spaces,* Scientific World Journal. 2013; 2013: 194897.
M.A. Miandaragh, M. Postolache, and S. Rezapour, *Some approximate fixed point results for generalized $\alpha$-contractive mappings,* Sci. Bull. (Politeh.) Univ. Buchar., Ser. A, Appl. Math. Phys., Vol. 75 (2), pp. 3-10, 2013.
W. Shatanawi and M. Postolache, *Some Fixed-Point Results for a G-Weak Contraction in G-Metric Spaces,* Abstract and Applied Analysis, Vol. 2012, Article ID 815870, 19 pages DOI: 10.1155/2012/815870, 2012.
W. Shatanawi, M. Postolache and Z. Mustafa, *Tripled and coincidence fixed point theorems for contractive mappings satisfying $\Phi$-maps in partially ordered metric spaces,* An. S¸t. Univ. Ovidius Constant. a, Vol. 22(3), pp. 179 - 203, 2014.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'A.S. Garkun,'
- 'V.I. Kudin,'
- 'and A.V. Minkevich'
title: 'To theory of asymptotically stable accelerating Universe in Riemann-Cartan spacetime'
---
Introduction
============
One of the most principal achievements of observational cosmology is the discovery of the acceleration of cosmological expansion at present epoch. In order to explain accelerating cosmological expansion in the framework of General Relativity Theory (GR), the notion of dark energy (or quintessence) as some hypothetical kind of gravitating matter with negative pressure was introduced. Then the explanation of cosmological acceleration in the frame of GR leads to conclusion that approximately 70% of energy in our Universe is related to dark energy.
In the frame of standard $\Lambda CDM$-model the dark energy is associated with cosmological constant $\Lambda$, which is related to the vacuum energy density of matter fields. In terms of quantum field theory the vacuum energy density diverges and can be eliminated by means of renormalization procedure. At the same time the value of cosmological constant $\Lambda$, which is introduced into gravitational equations of GR manually, is very small and close to average energy density in the Universe at present epoch.
Another situation takes place in the framework of gravitation theory in the Riemann-Cartan spacetime $U_4$ - Poincaré gauge theory of gravity (PGTG) (see [@mgkJCAP] and Refs herein). At first it should be noted that the PGTG is natural and in certain sense necessary generalization of metric gravitation theory by applying the local gauge invariance principle to gravitational interaction, if the Lorentz group is included into the gauge group which corresponds to gravitational interaction [@kibble; @brodskii; @sciama; @hehl1; @hayashi]. In the frame of PGTG the effective cosmological constant appears in cosmological equations by virtue of the most complicated structure of physical spacetime, notably by spacetime torsion [@a12; @a19]. As it was shown in [@a19], the physical spacetime in the vacuum (in absence of gravitating matter) in the frame of PGTG in general case has the structure of Riemann-Cartan continuum with de Sitter metrics, but not Minkowski spacetime. Corresponding results were obtained by analyzing isotropic cosmology built in the frame of PGTG based on general expression of gravitational Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\mathrm{g}}$ including both a scalar curvature and invariants quadratic in the curvature and torsion tensors with indefinite parameters (see [@a19; @mgkJCAP] and Refs herein). [^1] From the point of view of PGTG the effect of gravitational repulsion leading to accelerating cosmological expansion at present epoch has the vacuum origin and it is connected with the change of gravitational interaction provoked by spacetime torsion without any dark energy.
The principal change of gravitational interaction takes place also in the beginning of cosmological expansion, when the energy density $\rho$ and pressure $p$ have extremely high values: by virtue of existence of limiting energy density, close to which the gravitational interaction in the case of usual matter satisfying standard energy conditions is repulsive, isotropic cosmology is regular [@a21]. The regularity takes place not only with respect to energy density and metric characteristics (scale factor of Robertson-Walker metric, Hubble parameter with its time derivative), but also with respect to torsion and curvature functions [@a22]. It should be noted that indicated physical results were obtained by certain restrictions on indefinite parameters of gravitational Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\mathrm{g}}$ (see below). Additional restrictions on indefinite parameters can be found by investigation presented below of cosmological models for accelerating Universe.
The present paper is devoted to analysis of homogeneous isotropic models (HIM) with two torsion functions with the purpose to obtain asymptotically stable solutions for accelerating Universe. At first in Section 2 the principal relations of isotropic cosmology built in the frame of PGTG and using in this paper are given.
\[secii\]Principal relations of isotropic cosmology in Riemann-Cartan spacetime
===============================================================================
In the framework of PGTG the role of gravitational field variables play the tetrad $h^i{}_\mu$ and the Lorentz connection $A^{ik}{}_\mu$; corresponding field strengths are the torsion tensor $S^i{}_{\mu\nu}$ and the curvature tensor $F^{ik}{}_{\mu\nu}$ defined as $$S^i{}_{\mu \,\nu } = \partial _{[\nu } \,h^i{}_{\mu ]} - h_{k[\mu }
A^{ik}{}_{\nu ]}\,,$$ $$F^{ik}{}_{\mu\nu } = 2\partial _{[\mu } A^{ik}{}_{\nu ]} + 2A^{il}{}_{[\mu }
A^k{}_{|l\,|\nu ]}\,,$$ where holonomic and anholonomic space-time coordinates are denoted by means of greek and latin indices respectively.
We will consider the PGTG based on gravitational Lagrangian given in the following general form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lagr}{\cal L}_{\mathrm{g}}= f_0\,
F+F^{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}\left(f_1\:F_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}+f_2\:
F_{\alpha\mu\beta\nu}+f_3\:F_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\right)+
F^{\mu\nu}\left(f_4\:F_{\mu\nu}+f_5\:
F_{\nu\mu}\right) \nonumber \\
+f_6\:F^2+S^{\alpha\mu\nu}\left(a_1\:S_{\alpha\mu\nu}+a_2\:
S_{\nu\mu\alpha}\right)
+a_3\:S^\alpha{}_{\mu\alpha}S_\beta{}^{\mu\beta}, $$ where $F_{\mu\nu}=F^{\alpha}{}_{\mu\alpha\nu}$, $F=F^\mu{}_\mu$, $f_i$ ($i=1,2,\ldots,6$), $a_k$ ($k=1,2,3$) are indefinite parameters, $f_0=(16\pi
G)^{-1}$, $G$ is Newton’s gravitational constant (the velocity of light in the vacuum is equal to 1). Gravitational equations of PGTG obtained from the action integral $ I = \int {\left({\cal L}_{\mathrm{g}} + {\cal L}_{\mathrm{m}}
\right) \,} h\,d^4 x$, where $h=\det{\left(h^i{}_\mu\right)}$ and ${\cal
L}_{\mathrm{m}}$ is the Lagrangian of gravitating matter, contain the system of 16+24 equations corresponding to gravitational variables $h^i{}_\mu$ and $A^{ik}{}_\mu$. By using minimal coupling of gravitational field with matter the sources of gravitational field in PGTG are the energy-momentum and spin momentum tensors.
In the framework of PGTG the dynamics of any HIM is described by means of three functions of time $t$: the scale factor of Robertson-Walker metrics $R$ and two torsion functions $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ determining the curvature tensor. The system of gravitational equations of PGTG for HIM in considered case is reduced to 4 equations, which allow to obtain the generalization of Friedmann cosmological equations and equations for torsion functions [@a19; @mgkJCAP]. In general case these equations contain five indefinite parameters – two parameters connected with terms of ${\cal L}_{\mathrm{g}}$ quadratic in the torsion tensor ($ a = 2a_1 + a_2 + 3a_3$, $b = a_2 - a_1$) and three combinations of parameters $f_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
f = f_1 + \frac{{f_2 }} {2} + f_3 + f_4 + f_5 + 3f_{6}\, ,
\nonumber\\
q_1 = f_2 - 2f_3 + f_4 + f_5 + 6f_{6}, \qquad q_2 = 2f_1 - f_2 .
$$ Indefinite parameters have to obey some restrictions under physical and mathematical reasons. In accordance with [@hayashi] gravitational equations of PGTG based on gravitational Lagrangian (1) satisfy the correspondence principle with GR and lead in linear approximation in metric and torsion functions to Einstein gravitational equations, if the following conditions are satisfied: $a=0$, $4(f_1+\frac{f_2}{2}+f_3)+f_4+f_5=0$ and $\alpha T \ll 1$, where $\alpha =\frac {f}{3f_0^2}$ ($f>0$) and $T$ is the trace of canonical energy-momentum tensor [@a23; @a24]. The first two conditions are necessary to exclude higher derivatives of metrics from gravitational equations and the third condition in the form of inequality is valid for usual gravitating systems, if the parameter $\alpha$ having inverse dimension of energy density corresponds to extremely high energy densities. [^2] In the frame of isotropic cosmology the condition $a=0$ was used previously in order to exclude higher derivatives of the scale factor $R$ from cosmological equations. [^3] Then cosmological equations and equations for torsion functions contain four parameters: $b$ and parameters (2.2), which appear in the following combinations: $\alpha$, $\varepsilon =\frac{q_2}{f}$ and $\omega= \frac {2f -
q_1 - q_2} {f}$. The investigation of physical and mathematical consequences of isotropic cosmology allows to obtain some restrictions on these parameters. If the value of $\alpha^{-1}$ corresponds to the scale of extremely high energy densities, the explanation of accelerating cosmological expansion at present epoch together with the effect of existence of limiting energy density lead to the following conditions [@a23; @a24]: $|\varepsilon|\ll 1$, $0<1-\frac{b}{f_0}\ll 1$, $0<\omega<4$.
For further analysis, we transform cosmological equations (Eqs (3.1)-(3.2) in Ref. [@mgkJCAP]) to dimensionless form by introducing dimensionless units for all variables and parameter $b$ entering these equations and denoted by means of tilde: $$\label{dimless}
\begin{array}{lcl}
t\to\tilde{t}=t/\sqrt{6 f_0 \alpha},& {}
& R\to\tilde{R}=R/\sqrt{6f_0 \alpha},\\
\rho\to\tilde{\rho}=\alpha\,\rho, & & p\to\tilde{p}=\alpha\,p,\\
S_{1,2}\to\tilde{S}_{1,2}=S_{1,2}\sqrt{6f_0 \alpha}, & &
b\to\tilde{b} = b/f_0, \\
H\to\tilde{H}=H\sqrt{6f_0 \alpha}, & &
\end{array}$$ where dimensionless Hubble parameter $\tilde{H}$ is defined by usual way $\tilde{H}=\tilde{R}^{-1}\frac{d \tilde{R}}{d \tilde{t}}$. As result cosmological equations take the following dimensionless form, where the differentiation with respect to dimensionless time $\tilde{t}$ is denoted by means of the prime and the sign of $\tilde{}$ is omitted below: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gcfe1}
\frac{k}{R^2} + (H-2S_1)^2 &=& \frac{1} {Z}
\left[
{\rho +\left(Z- b\right) S_2^2
+ \frac{1}{4} \left( {\rho - 3p - 2bS_2^2 } \right)^2 }
\right]
\nonumber\\
&&- \frac{\varepsilon}{2Z}
\left[
{\left( {HS_2 + S_2' } \right)^2
+ 4\left( {\frac{k}{{R^2 }} - S_2^2 } \right)S_2^2 }
\right],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gcfe2}
H' &+& H^2 - 2HS_1 - 2S_1' = -\frac{1} {2Z}
\left[
\rho + 3p - \frac{1 } {2} \left( {\rho - 3p - 2bS_2^2 } \right)^2
\right]
\nonumber\\
& - & \frac{\varepsilon }{Z}\left( {\rho - 3p - 2bS_2^2 } \right)S_2^2
+ \frac{{\varepsilon }} {2Z}
\left[ {\left( {HS_2 + S_2' } \right)^2
+ 4\left( {\frac{k}{{R^2 }} - S_2^2 } \right)S_2^2 }
\right], $$ $$\left(Z \equiv 1+\rho - 3p - 2\left( {b + \varepsilon } \right)S_2^2\right).\nonumber$$ The torsion function $S_{1}$ (Eq. (3.3) in Ref. [@mgkJCAP]) in dimensionless form in equations (\[gcfe1\])–(\[gcfe2\]) is $$\label{S1expr}
S_1 = -\frac{3}{4Z} \left\{
H\left[\left(\rho+p\right) \left(3\frac{dp}{d\rho}-1 \right) + 2(\varepsilon + \frac{\omega}{3}) S_2^2\right]
-\frac{2}{3}\left( 2b - ({\varepsilon}+ \omega) \right) S_2 \, S_2'
\right\}$$ and dimensionless torsion function $S_{2}$ (Eq. (3.4) in Ref. [@mgkJCAP]) satisfies the following differential equation of the second order: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gcfe3} & &
\varepsilon \left[ S_2'' + 3H S_2' + 3H' S_2 - 4\left(S_1' - 3 HS_1
+ 4S_1^2\right) S_2 \right]
- 2\left(1-\frac{\omega}{2}\right) \left( {\rho - 3p - 2bS_2^2 } \right)S_2
\nonumber \\
& &
- 2\left( {1 - b}\right)S_2 - 2\omega \left[\frac{k}{R^2} + (H-2S_1)^2 - S_2^2 \right]S_2 = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$ The conservation law for gravitating matter in dimensionless units has the usual form $$\label{conslaw} \rho'+3H\left(\rho+p\right)=0.$$
\[seciii\]Critical points analysis
==================================
The system of equations (\[gcfe2\]) – (\[gcfe3\]) together with conservation law (\[conslaw\]) completely determine the dynamics of HIM, if the equation of state of matter is given. The composition of gravitating matter and its equation of state change by cosmological evolution. By analysis of HIM at asymptotics we will consider further flat model ($k=0$) filled with matter with barotropic equation of state $p=w\rho$ $(w=const)$. The aforementioned system of equations can be represented in the form of four first order differential equations for $H$, $S_2$, $U=S_2'$ and $\rho$: $$\label{firstordersyst}
M_0 \mathbf{Y}'=\mathbf{F},$$ where the matrix $M_0$ is $$M_0=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1-2\frac{{\partial}S_1}{{\partial}H} & -2\frac{{\partial}S_1}{{\partial}S_2} & -2\frac{{\partial}S_1}{{\partial}U} & -2\frac{{\partial}S_1}{{\partial}\rho}
\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0
\\
3 \varepsilon S_2 - 4\varepsilon\frac{{\partial}S_1}{{\partial}H}S_2 & - 4\varepsilon\frac{{\partial}S_1}{{\partial}S_2}S_2
& \varepsilon (1- 4\frac{{\partial}S_1}{{\partial}U}S_2)
& - 4\varepsilon\frac{{\partial}S_1}{{\partial}\rho}S_2
\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right)$$ and $$\mathbf{Y}=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
H\\
S_2\\
U\\
\rho
\end{array}
\right), \qquad
\mathbf{F}=\left(
\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{F}_1\\
\mathcal{F}_2\\
\mathcal{F}_3\\
\mathcal{F}_4
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\mathcal{F}_i$ ($i=1,2,3,4$) are the following functions of $H,S_2,U,\rho$: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}_1 & = & -H^2 + 2HS_1
-\frac{1} {2Z}
\left\{
\left(1+3w\right)\rho - \frac{1 } {2} \left[ \left(1-3w\right)\rho - 2bS_2^2 \right]^2
\right\}
\nonumber\\
& & - \frac{\varepsilon }{Z}\left[ \left(1-3w\right)\rho - 2\left(b-1\right)S_2^2 \right]S_2^2
+ \frac{{\varepsilon }} {2Z}
\left( {HS_2 + U } \right)^2,\\
\mathcal{F}_2 & = & U,\\
\mathcal{F}_3 & = & - \varepsilon \left[3H U + 4\left(3 H
- 4S_1\right) S_1 S_2 \right]
+ 2\left(1-\frac{\omega}{2}\right)\left[\left(1-3w\right) \rho - 2bS_2^2 \right]S_2
\nonumber \\
& &
+ 2\left( 1 - b\right)S_2
+ 2\omega \left[(H-2S_1)^2 - S_2^2\right]S_2 ,\\
\mathcal{F}_4 & = & -3 \left(1+w\right)\rho H\end{aligned}$$ and the function $S_1$ takes the form as $$\label{S1expr2}
S_1 = -\frac{3}{4Z} \left\{
H\left[\left(1+w\right) \left(3w-1 \right)\rho + 2(\varepsilon + \frac {\omega}{3})S_2^2\right]
-\frac{2}{3}\left( {2b - ({\varepsilon}+ \omega) } \right) S_2 U
\right\},$$ $$\left(Z = 1+\rho (1- 3w) - 2\left( {b + \varepsilon } \right)S_2^2\right).\nonumber$$
Critical points $P_i=P_i(H_\mathrm{c}, S_{2\mathrm{c}}, U_\mathrm{c},
\rho_\mathrm{c})$ of the first order system of differential equations (\[firstordersyst\]) can be obtained by setting $H'$, $S_2'$, $S_1'$, $\rho'$ to zero [@agarwal; @arnold], i.e. by solving the following system of equations: $$\label{specpoint}
\mathcal{F}_i(H, S_2, U, \rho)=0 \qquad \left(i=1,\ldots,4\right).$$ From (3.4) follows that $U_\mathrm{c}=0$. In the case of considering flat model solutions of (\[specpoint\]) have to satisfy (\[gcfe1\]) with $k=0$.
Obviously, the point $P_0$ with vanishing values of $H_\mathrm{c},
S_{2\mathrm{c}}, \rho_\mathrm{c}$ satisfies (\[specpoint\]). Appropriate solution with vanishing $S_2$-function at asymptotics appears at specific choice of parameters and does not have physical interest [@a19]. Analogously to GR this point is the point of complicated equilibrium. To analyze the stability of other critical points $P(H_\mathrm{c},S_{2\mathrm{c}},0,\rho_\mathrm{c})$ satisfying (\[specpoint\]) it is necessary to build linearized form of the system (\[firstordersyst\]). Near the critical point the variables can be written in the form $H=H_\mathrm{c}+\Delta H$, $S_2=S_{2\mathrm{c}}+\Delta S_2$, $U=\Delta
U$, $\rho=\rho_\mathrm{c}+\Delta\rho$ and the linearization of the system (\[firstordersyst\]) takes the following relation $$\label{firstordersystapprox}
\Delta\mathbf{Y}'=M_0^{-1}M_1\,\Delta\mathbf{Y},$$ where the matrix $M_0^{-1}$ is taken on the point $P$ and the components of the matrix $M_1$ are given by $$M_{1,ij}=\left.\left(\frac{{\partial}\mathcal{F}_i}{{\partial}Y_j}\right)\right|_{P}.$$ Stability of the point $P$ is determined by the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ of the matrix $M_0^{-1}M_1$ [@agarwal; @arnold]. Characteristic equation $\det\left(M_1-\lambda M_0\right)=0$ leads to quartic expression with respect to $\lambda$, which can be written as $$\label{charactereq}
\lambda^4+c_1\lambda^3+c_2\lambda^2+c_3\lambda+c_4=0,$$ where $c_i$ ($i=1,2,3,4$) are some functions of indefinite parameters. If the real parts of all $\lambda_i$ are negative, then the critical point $P$ is stable and the gravitational equations (\[gcfe2\]) – (\[conslaw\]) have solution with asymptotics to this point $H\to H_\mathrm{c}$, $S_2\to
S_{2\mathrm{c}}$, $S'_2 \to 0$, $\rho \to \rho_\mathrm{c}$ at $t\to +\infty$.
According to the Routh-Hurwitz theorem all $\lambda_i$ will have negative real parts if the main minors of the matrix $$\label{RHmatrix}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
c_1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
c_3 & c_2 & c_1 & 1\\
0 & c_4 & c_3 & c_2 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & c_4
\end{array}
\right)$$ are positive [@agarwal], i.e. $$\label{stabilityineq}
c_1>0,\qquad c_1c_2-c_3>0,\qquad c_1c_2c_3-c_1^2c_4-c_3^2>0\qquad \text{and}\qquad c_4>0.$$
The equation $\mathcal{F}_4(H_\mathrm{c},S_{2\mathrm{c}}, 0,\rho_\mathrm{c})=0$ is satisfied if at least one of possibilities is fulfilled: $H_\mathrm{c}=0$ or $\rho_\mathrm{c}=0$. Simultaneous fulfillment of these conditions leads to trivial solutions with $S_{2\mathrm{c}}=0$. Because the energy density in the case of considering flat model tends at asymptotics to zero, the physical interest assume critical points with non-vanishing Hubble parameter and vanishing energy density.
If $\rho_\mathrm{c}=0$ the system (\[specpoint\]) is reduced to the system of two algebraic equations $$\begin{aligned}
& & -H^2 + 2HS_1
+\left[b^2 + 2\varepsilon\left(b-1\right)\right]\frac{S_2^4}{Z}
+ \frac{{\varepsilon }} {2Z} H^2S_2^2=0,
\label{specpoint2a}\\
& & \left[2\varepsilon \left(3 HS_1 - 4S_1^2\right) + 2 b(1-\frac{\omega}{2}) S_2^2
-\omega ( (H-2S_1)^2-S_2^2) - \left(1 - b\right)\right]S_2 = 0,
\label{specpoint2b}\end{aligned}$$ where the functions $S_1$ and $Z$ can be represented in the following form $$\label{S1expr2st1}
S_1 = -\frac{3}{2Z}(\varepsilon + \frac{\omega}{3}) H S_2^2
\qquad \text{and} \qquad
Z = 1 - 2\left( {b + \varepsilon } \right)S_2^2.$$ Neglecting the case $S_2=0$ and by using (\[S1expr2st1\]) the system of equations (\[specpoint2a\])–(\[specpoint2b\]) can be rewritten in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
& &
H^2=\frac{b^2-2{\varepsilon}\left(1-b\right)}{1+\left(\frac{1}{2}{\varepsilon}+\omega-2b\right)S_2^2} S_2^4
\qquad
\left( 1+\left(\frac{1}{2}{\varepsilon}+\omega-2b\right)S_2^2\neq 0\right),
\label{specpoint2a1}\\
& &
9\varepsilon (\varepsilon+\frac{\omega}{3})\left[1-2(b-\frac {\omega}{3})S_2^2\right]H^2S_2^2
+\omega H^2 [1+(\varepsilon -2b +\omega) S_2^2]^2
\nonumber \\
& &
-[1 - 2\left( {b + \varepsilon } \right)S_2^2]^2 \left[S_2^2(\omega (1-b)+2b)-(1-b)\right] = 0.
\label{specpoint2b1}\end{aligned}$$ Then Eqs.(\[specpoint2a1\]) – (\[specpoint2b1\]) allow to obtain the equation for $S_2$ in closed form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S2closed}
& &
\left[ 1-(2 b+\omega+4\varepsilon )S_2^2\right]
\nonumber \\
& & \times
\left\{2 \left[2 b^3 (\omega -4)
+b^2 \left(-\omega ^2+4 \omega (\varepsilon +1)+\varepsilon (9 \varepsilon +2)\right)
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. \left. \phantom{\times}
-2 b (\omega +2) \varepsilon (\omega +2 \varepsilon )
+2 \omega \varepsilon (\omega +2 \varepsilon )\right] S_2^6
+ \left(-8 b^3+2 b^2 (\omega +\varepsilon +12)
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. \left. \phantom{\times}
-4 b \left(\omega (\varepsilon +2)+2 \varepsilon ^2+\varepsilon \right)
+4 \varepsilon (\omega +2 \varepsilon )\right) S_2^4
\right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. \phantom{\times}
+ \left(8 b^2-b (2 \omega +\varepsilon +12)+2 \omega +\varepsilon \right) S_2^2
-2 (b-1)\right\}=0,\end{aligned}$$ and also the equation for $H$ in closed form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{criticalH}
& &
\varepsilon (\omega +2 \varepsilon ) \left[2 b^3 (\omega -4)+b^2 \left(-\omega ^2+4 \omega (\varepsilon +1)
+\varepsilon (9 \varepsilon +2)\right)
\right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. \phantom{\left\{ \right\} }
-2 b (\omega +2) \varepsilon (\omega +2 \varepsilon )
+2 \omega \varepsilon (\omega +2 \varepsilon )\right] H^6
+\left[-2 b^4 \left(\omega ^2+2 \omega (\varepsilon -2)+2 (\varepsilon -2) \varepsilon \right)
\right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. \phantom{\left\{ \right\} }
+b^3 \left(2 \omega ^3+\omega ^2 (\varepsilon-8)-2 \omega \varepsilon (5 \varepsilon +9)
-\varepsilon ^2 (17 \varepsilon +22)\right)
\right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. \phantom{\left\{ \right\} }
+b^2 \left(\omega ^3 (4 \varepsilon -2)+\omega^2 (\varepsilon (18 \varepsilon -1)+8)
+2 \omega \varepsilon (\varepsilon (18 \varepsilon +11)+12)
+\varepsilon ^2 (\varepsilon (32 \varepsilon +41)+34)\right)
\right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. \phantom{\left\{ \right\} }
-4 b \varepsilon (\omega +2 \varepsilon ) \left(2 \omega ^2+5 \omega \varepsilon
+\varepsilon (8 \varepsilon +3)\right)
+2 \varepsilon (\omega +2 \varepsilon ) \left(2 \omega ^2+5 \omega \varepsilon +8 \varepsilon ^2\right)
\right] H^4
\nonumber \\
& & \phantom{\left\{ \right\} }
-2 \left(b^2+2 (b-1) \varepsilon \right) \left[4 b \left(b^2-b \omega +\omega
\right)+(b-1) \varepsilon (b (b-4 \omega -2)+4 \omega )-8 (b-1)^2 \varepsilon
^2\right] H^2
\nonumber \\
& & \phantom{\left\{ \right\} }
+2 (b-1)^2 \left(b^2+2 (b-1) \varepsilon \right)^2=0.\end{aligned}$$
Approximate analysis in the case $ 0<1-b\ll 1 $
-----------------------------------------------
Analytic analysis of stable points determined by the system (\[specpoint2a1\])–(\[specpoint2b1\]) is possible approximately only if $1-b\to +0$ and $\varepsilon\to 0$. In other cases it is necessary to use numerical methods. By supposing that values of dimensionless functions $S_2$ and $H$ at asymptotics in (\[specpoint2a1\])–(\[specpoint2b1\]) are small ($|S_2|\ll 1$, $|H|\ll 1$) it is easy to obtain the following approximate solution of equations (\[specpoint2a1\]) – (\[specpoint2b1\]) if $0<1-b\ll
1$ and $|\varepsilon|\ll 1$: $$H_\mathrm{c}= \frac{1-b}{2\sqrt{b}}, \qquad
S_{2\mathrm{c}}=\sqrt{\frac{1-b}{2b}}.$$ This solution was obtained initially in ref. [@a12]. The stability of the critical point $P_1\approx\left(\frac{1-b}{2\sqrt{b}},
\sqrt{\frac{1-b}{2b}},0,0\right)$ can be analyzed analytically. The matrix $M_0$ and $M_1$ in this case according to their definition have the following form: $$M_0=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
1+\frac{1}{2}(1-b) \left(\omega+3 \varepsilon \right) & \quad &
0 & \quad & \sqrt{\frac{1-b}{2}} (\omega +\varepsilon -2) & \quad &
-\frac{3}{4}(1+w) (1-3w) (1-b) \\
0 & & 1 && 0 && 0 \\
3\sqrt{\frac{1-b}{2}}\varepsilon && 0 && \varepsilon +(1-b) \left(\varepsilon ^2+\omega \varepsilon -2 \varepsilon \right) && 0 \\
0 && 0 && 0 && 1
\end{array}
\right),$$ $$M_1=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
-(1-b) & \quad & 0 & \quad & 0 & \quad & -\frac{3}{2}w-(1-b) (\varepsilon +1)-\frac{1}{2} \\
0 && 0 && 1 && 0 \\
0 && -4 (1-b) && -\frac{3}{2} (1-b) \varepsilon && -\sqrt{\frac{1-b}{2}} (\omega -2) (1-3 w) \\
0 && 0 && 0 && -\frac{3}{2} (1-b) (w +1)
\end{array}
\right)$$
As result we obtain the characteristic polynomial (\[charactereq\]) in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon\left[\lambda+\frac{3}{2}(1+w)(1-b)\right]
\left[\lambda^3+\frac{5}{2}(1-b)\lambda^2+4\frac{1-b}{\varepsilon}\lambda+4\frac{(1-b)^2}{\varepsilon}\right]=0,\end{aligned}$$ where higher order terms in powers of $(1-b)$ are omitted. Due to factorization of this equation the analysis of real parts of $\lambda$ is reduced to the analysis of cubic equation $\lambda^3+c_1\lambda^2+c_2\lambda+c_3=0$. The Routh-Hurwitz theorem in this case requires: $c_1>0$, $c_1c_2-c_3>0$ and $c_3>0$. As result we obtain: $$\varepsilon>0, \quad w>-1.$$
Numerical analysis of stability
-------------------------------
As an exact analytic expression for solution of the system (\[specpoint2a1\])–(\[specpoint2b1\]) does not exist in general case, it is necessary to use numerical methods to analyze stability of the critical points. The procedure of the numerical analysis of the stability is following.
1. For given values of $\varepsilon$ and $\omega$, the system (\[specpoint2a1\])–(\[specpoint2b1\]) is solved numerically for the set of values $b$.
2. For every real solution of the system (\[specpoint2a1\])–(\[specpoint2b1\]) at given values of $\varepsilon$, $\omega$ and $b$ characteristic equation $\det\left(M_1-\lambda M_0\right)=0$ has to be solved with respect to $\lambda$.
3. The real parts of obtained $\lambda_i$ have to be tested for negativity.
For example, the results of this procedure for $\varepsilon=0.001$ and $\omega=2.5$ are given in figure \[figstable1\]. The calculation are performed for $b$ varying from $0{.}01$ to $1{.}2$ with a step $\Delta b=0.05$. In the right panel of figure \[figstable1\] the curves for $S_2$ determined by (\[S2closed\]) are imposed. In the left panel of this figure the curves for $H$ determined by (\[criticalH\]) are imposed.
From figure \[figstable1\] one can see, that there is minimal value of $b$ assuming nontrivial solution of eqs. (\[specpoint2a1\])–(\[specpoint2b1\]). As numerical analysis shows, this value depends on parameter $\varepsilon$ and weakly depends on $\omega$. It follows from (\[specpoint2a1\]) that for sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}$ and positive values of $\omega$ we have $b^2-2{\varepsilon}(1-b)>0$. As result we obtain the following restriction on $b$ $$b>-\varepsilon+\sqrt{\varepsilon\left(2+\varepsilon\right)}.$$
Among various cosmological solutions of PGTG with stable asymptotics there are solutions which can correspond to observable Universe at present epoch. Such solutions we obtain by using the following restrictions on indefinite parameters: $0<\varepsilon\ll 1$, $0<1-b\ll 1$ and the parameter $\omega$ has to satisfy the condition $0< \omega <4$ [@a23; @a24]. It should be noted that there are two different solutions at such restrictions on parameters, and only one of these solutions with small values of $S_2^2$ and $H$ is physically acceptable [@a21].
Late-time approximation of cosmological solution {#nintsec}
================================================
Now we will analyze the late-time behaviour of the solution of the system (\[gcfe2\])–(\[conslaw\]). To make comparison with $\Lambda CDM$-model of GR we will perform numerical integration of the system of the gravitational equations for dust matter ($w=0$). To simulate late-time behaviour the initial conditions will be taken at the point $t_0=0$, which belongs to epoch of accelerating cosmological expansion. The total procedure includes the following steps.
1. For given acceptable values of $\varepsilon$, $\omega$ and $b$ algebraic system (\[specpoint2a1\])–(\[specpoint2b1\]) is solved numerically and all critical points $P_i(H_\mathrm{c}, S_{2\mathrm{c}},0,0)$ are found. Only real solutions are considered.
2. For every critical point, the stability analysis is carried out according to the previous subsection and stable point with minimal positive $H_\mathrm{c}$ and positive (or negative) $S_{2\mathrm{c}}$ is selected.[^4]
3. The torsion function $S_2$ and the Hubble parameter $H$ at late-time approximation can be represented in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hsubst1}\label{Happrox}
& & H^2=H_\mathrm{c}^2+y_1\,\rho,\\
\label{S2subst2}
& & S_2^2=S_{2\mathrm{c}}^2+y_2\,\rho,
\end{aligned}$$ with some coefficients $y_1$ and $y_2$. As the stable point is selected, then $\rho$ tends to zero at $t\to +\infty$. Keeping linear terms in $\rho$ the conservation law (\[conslaw\]) can be written as $$\label{conslawapprox}
\rho'=-3H_{\mathrm{c}}\rho.$$ Substitution of (\[Hsubst1\])–(\[conslawapprox\]) into (\[gcfe2\])–(\[gcfe3\]) together with keeping terms linear in $\rho$ gives two algebraic equations for determination of $y_1$ and $y_2$. Numerical solution of these algebraic equations for given $\varepsilon$, $\omega$, $b$, $H_\mathrm{c}$ and $S_{2\mathrm{c}}$ gives $y_1$ and $y_2$.
4. Positivity of obtained values of $y_1$ and $y_2$ is considered as applicability of the late-time approximation (\[Hsubst1\])–(\[S2subst2\]) and successful choice of stable critical point made in step 2 of current procedure. Further steps are performed only if $y_1>0$ and $y_2>0$.
5. Initial condition for $\rho_0=\rho(t_0)$ is taken from the following equation $$\frac{H^2(t_0)}{H_\mathrm{c}^2}\equiv\frac{H_\mathrm{c}^2+y_1\rho_0}{H_\mathrm{c}^2}=\frac{1}{\Omega_\Lambda},$$ as result we have $H_0=H(t_0)=\sqrt{H_{\mathrm{c}}^2+y_1\,\rho_0}$ and $S_{20}=S_2(t_0)=\sqrt{S_{2\mathrm{c}}^2+y_2\,\rho_0}$. Here $\Omega_\Lambda$ is an additional free parameter that specifies initial conditions.
6. Initial condition for $S_{20}'=S_2'(t_0)$ is obtained from (\[gcfe1\]) with $k=0$. The minimal in modulus value of $S_{20}'$ is taken as the initial value.
7. For this choice of the parameters $\varepsilon$, $\omega$, $b$ and initial conditions $\rho_0$, $H_0$, $S_{20}$ and $S_{20}'$ the system of differential equations (\[gcfe2\])–(\[conslaw\]) is integrated numerically.
As an example let us consider the numerical solution at the following parameters and initial conditions: ${\varepsilon}=0.001$, $\omega=2.5$, $b=0.98$, $H_0=0.0118$, $S_{20}=0.1006$, $S'_{20}=-9.5\times 10^{-6}$, $\rho_0=0.000043$. This choice of the initial conditions gives $H^2(t_0)/H^2(\infty)=1/\Omega_\Lambda=1/0{.}7$. Figures 2–3 show the characteristic behaviour of Hubble parameter $H$, torsion function $S_2$, acceleration parameter $q=R''R/{R'}^2$ and energy density of dust matter $\rho$ for late-time phase of flat cosmological model. As one can see from Figure 3 for acceleration parameter, there was in the past the moment when $q=0$ and the transition from deceleration to acceleration of cosmological expansion took place.
Obtained numerical solution for the Hubble parameter and energy density is close to that of standard $\Lambda CDM$-model. Certain distinction appears in the behaviour of acceleration parameter $q$ because of its small oscillations which reduce by decreasing of parameter ${\varepsilon}$ and disappear if ${\varepsilon}=0$.
Conclusion
==========
As follows from our analysis, isotropic cosmology built in the framework of the Poincaré gauge theory of gravity based on general expression of gravitational Lagrangian leads by certain restrictions on indefinite parameters to asymptotically stable cosmological solutions for flat homogeneous isotropic models filled by dust matter, which can describe the stage of accelerated cosmological expansion of the Universe at present epoch without any dark energy. The spacetime in asymptotics in obtained solutions has the structure of Riemann-Cartan continuum with de Sitter metrics and non-vanishing torsion that demonstrates the dynamical role of the physical vacuum in the frame of PGTG .
This work was supported by a grant from the Belarusian Republican Foundation for Fundamental Research.
[99]{} A.V. Minkevich, A.S. Garkun, V.I. Kudin, *On some physical aspects of isotropic cosmology in Riemann-Cartan spacetime,* *Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics* 03 (2013) [**040**]{} \[arXiv:1302.2578\]. T.W.B Kibble, *Lorentz Invariance and the Gravitational Field,* [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} **2** (1961) 212. A.M. Brodskii, D.D. Ivanenko, H.A. Sokolik, *A New Conception of the Gravitational Field,* [*Zhurnal Eksper. Theor. Fiz.*]{} **41** (1961) 1307. D.W. Sciama, In [*Recent Developments in GR*]{}, Pergamon Press and PMN, Warsaw-New York (1962). F.W. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G.D. Kerlik, and J.M. Nester, *General relativity with spin and torsion: Foundations and prospects,* *Rev. Mod. Phys.* [**48**]{} (1976) 393. K. Hayashi and T. Shirafuji, *Gravity from Poincaré Gauge Theory of the Fundamental Particles. I — General Formulation,* [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} **64** (1980) 866; *Gravity from Poincaré Gauge Theory of the Fundamental Particles. II — Equations of Motion for Test Bodies and Various Limits,* [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} **64** (1980) 883; *Gravity from Poincaré Gauge Theory of the Fundamental Particles. III — Weak Field Approximation,* [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} **64** (1980) 1435; *Gravity from Poincaré Gauge Theory of the Fundamental Particles. IV — Mass and Energy of Particle Spectrum,* [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} **64** (1980) 2222.
A.V. Minkevich, A.S. Garkun and V.I. Kudin, *Regular accelerating Universe without dark energy in Poincaré gauge theory of gravity,* [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} **24** (2007) 5835 \[arXiv:0706.1157\]. A.V. Minkevich, *De Sitter Spacetime with Torsion as Physical Spacetime in the Vacuum and Isotropic Cosmology,* [*Mod. Phys. Lett. A*]{} **26** (2011) 259 \[arXiv:1002.0538\]. A.V. Minkevich, *Limiting Energy Density and a Regular Accelerating Universe in Riemann-Cartan Spacetime,* [*JETP Letters*]{} **94** (2011) 831. A.V. Minkevich, *On theory of regular accelerating Universe in Riemann-Cartan spacetime,* [*Mod. Phys. Lett. A*]{} **28**, No. 21 (2013) 1350090 \[arXiv:1309.6075\]. A.V. Minkevich, *Poincaré gauge theory of gravity, gravitational interaction and regular accelerating Universe,* [*Proceedings of International Seminar “Nonlinear fields in gravitation theory and cosmology” and Russian school “Mathematical and computer modelling of fundamental objects and fenomena”*]{}, Kazan, 2013, p. 69-73 (in rus.). A.V. Minkevich, *Gauge approach in theory of gravity, gravitational interaction and relativistic cosmology,* [*Proceedings of International School on Gravitation and Cosmology GRACOS-2014*]{}, Kazan, Kazan Federal University, 2014, p. 25-46 (in rus.). A.V. Minkevich, *Generalised Cosmological Friedmann Equations without Gravitational Singularity,* *Phys.Lett. A* **80** (1980) 232. A.V. Minkevich, *Gauge Approach to Gravitation and Regular Big Bang theory,* [*Gravitation&Cosmology*]{}, **12** (2006) 11 \[gr-qc/0506140\]. A.V. Minkevich, A.S. Garkun and V.I. Kudin, *Comment on “Torsion Cosmology and the Accelerating Universe”*, arXiv:0811.1430.
G. Chee, Y. Guo, *Torsion and accelerating expansion of the universe in quadratic gravitation,* *Class. Quantum Grav.* **29** (2012) 235022 \[arXiv:1205.5419\]. G. Chee, Y. Guo, *Dynamics of quadratic gravitation theory with pseudoscalar torsion and its cosmological perturbations,* arXiv:1401.2585. G.-Y. Qi, *Stable de Sitter critical points of the cosmology in quadratic gravitation with torsion,* arXiv:1110.3449. R. Agarwal, D. O‘Regan, *An Introduction to Ordinary Differential Equations*, Springer, New York (2008). V.I. Arnol’d, *Ordinary Differential Equations*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1992).
[^1]: Similar results were discussed later in [@chee1; @chee2; @qi] by using the gravitational Lagrangian simplified in comparison with [@a12; @a19].
[^2]: In the case of HIM with the only torsion function the value of $\alpha^{-1}$ determines the limiting energy density in the beginning of cosmological expansion at a bounce [@minkPL80; @a9].
[^3]: It should be noted that isotropic cosmology with $a \neq 0$ possesses some principal problems [@a20].
[^4]: These values of $H_\mathrm{c}$ and $S_{2\mathrm{c}}$ correspond to the vacuum as de Sitter spacetime with torsion [@a19; @a21].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present atomistic simulations of the $D^0$ to $D^-$ charging energies of a gated donor in silicon as a function of applied fields and donor depths and find good agreement with experimental measurements. A self-consistent field large-scale tight-binding method is used to compute the $D^-$ binding energies with a domain of over 1.4 million atoms, taking into account the full bandstructure of the host, applied fields, and interfaces. An applied field pulls the loosely bound $D^-$ electron towards the interface and reduces the charging energy significantly below the bulk values. This enables formation of bound excited $D^-$ states in these gated donors, in contrast to bulk donors. A detailed quantitative comparison of the charging energies with transport spectroscopy measurements with multiple samples of arsenic donors in ultra-scaled FinFETs validates the model results and provides physical insights. We also report measured $D^-$ data showing for the first time the presence of bound $D^-$ excited states under applied fields.'
author:
- 'R. Rahman\*'
- 'G. P. Lansbergen'
- 'J. Verduijn'
- 'G. C. Tettamanzi'
- 'S. H. Park'
- 'N. Collaert'
- 'S. Biesemans'
- 'G. Klimeck'
- 'L. C. L. Hollenberg'
- 'S. Rogge'
title: 'Electric field reduced charging energies and two-electron bound excited states of single donors in silicon'
---
I. Introduction
===============
A single gated donor atom in silicon has attracted considerable attention over the last decade as a promising quantum information processing unit in solid-state [@Kane1]. Among other factors, such donor qubits benefit from exceptionally long spin coherence times [@Tryshkin], compatibility with the complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) technology, and accessibility to controllable atomic physics in the solid-state. Some promising proposals for donor qubits are based on encoding quantum information in the nuclear [@Kane1] or electronic spin [@Vrijen; @Hill; @architecture], or in the molecular charge states of two phosphorus donors [@Hollenberg1]. Besides applications in quantum computing, discrete dopants are becoming increasingly important in nanoscale electronics, as they strongly affect the sub-threshold current-voltage characteristics of ultra-scaled MOSFETs [@Sanquer3; @Asenov]. Other applications of dopants in nanoelectronics are also emerging, such as the proposal for classical logic devices based on resonant tunneling through the donor states [@Rogge2; @Rogge3].
It is well-known that Group V donors in silicon can bind either 1 electron and form a neutral $D^0$ state, or bind 2 electrons and form a negatively charged $D^-$ state. In bulk donors, the $D^-$ ground state is a singlet weakly bound at 1.7-2.0 meV below the conduction band (CB) edge, corresponding to a charging energy (CE) of about 43 meV for a phosphorus (P) impurity and 52 meV for an arsenic (As) impurity [@dminus]. Recently, resonant tunneling through the $D^0$ ground and excited states has been observed in different experiments [@Rogge; @Sanquer3; @Dzurak2] with devices fabricated from both top-down [@Jamieson] and bottom-up [@Schofield] approaches. Most of the measurements of the D- state in gated devices show a significantly reduced charging energy in the range of 25-35 meVs, a conundrum still largely unresolved although some progress has been made using effective mass treatments [@Tucker; @Hollenberg2; @Calderon; @Peeters]. In this work, we compute the $D^-$ charging energy of a donor under applied fields using self-consistent field tight-binding (TB) including over 1 million atoms in the spatial simulation domain. We compare the computed CEs with measured data on single dopants in seven FinFET devices by simulating the atomic environment of the devices. Despite being a mean-field technique, this method enables an accurate quantitative description of the charging energies as it captures the details of confinement geometries and valley-orbit interaction from a full bandstructure technique. The method solves the Poisson equation iteratively with the atomistic TB Hamiltonian for charge self-consistency, and represents an advancement over general TB as computational hurdles had to be overcome to solve million atom systems in reasonable time.
Although no excited $D^-$ states have ever been observed in bulk samples [@dminus], our measurement shows for the first time the presence of bound excited states including a triplet state, which can be ascertained by the phenomena of lifetime enhanced transport [@dminus_rogge; @eriksson]. This is a consequence of the applied electric field that lowers the charging energy and enables an excited manifold to form below the CB. A two-electron bound triplet state may enable easier ways to perform spin readout through spin blockade between a donor electron and an electron from a local reservoir (2DEG) state. Previous proposals of donor based spin readout have relied on using either Group VI donors [@Kane2; @Calderon2] or a pair of Group V donors [@Hollenberg2], systems in which two-electron triplet states exist. Our result shows such spin readout may be feasible with the more conventional P/As donor species under strong applied fields. With the recent demonstration of single shot spin readout of a single electron in silicon [@Andrea], this has become even more significant in the context of quantum computing.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we describe the theoretical method for computing the charging energy in detail. We also elaborate on the experimental technique employed to measure the $D^-$ charging energies and excited states in FinFETs. In Section III, we discuss the computed results and how they compare to the measurements. Section IV concludes this work.
II. Method
==========
A. Theoretical Model
--------------------
In the atomistic TB method employed here, the Hamiltonian is represented in a basis of 10 localized atomic orbitals per atom with the sp$^3$d$^5$s\* nearest neighbor model [@slater; @Harrison]. The Hamiltonian parameters of the host material have been optimized using genetic algorithm with analytically derived constraints to fit critical features of the host band structure [@Klimeck1; @boykin]. Once the TB model parameters of the host are obtained, they are generally transferable to a whole range of device simulations, as benchmarked in a number of earlier works [@Klimeck2; @Rahman2; @kharche]. The full TB Hamiltonian of more than a million silicon atoms is diagonalized using a parallel Lanczos algorithm to obtain any number of lowest lying eigenvalues and wavefunctions.
The TB Hamiltonian of the host and the donor in an applied electric field $\vec{F}$ is given by,
$$H = H_0-V_{\rm D}+e\vec{F}\cdot(\vec{r}-\vec{r_0})+V_{\rm SCF}
\label{eq1}$$
where $H_0$ is the TB Hamiltonian of the host material silicon, and $V_{\rm D}$ is the central-cell corrected Coulomb potential energy of the donor. The 3rd term in eq (\[eq1\]) is that of a constant electric field, whereas the last term $V_{\rm SCF}$ is the potential energy due to electron-electron repulsion. Central-cell correction represents the deviation of the donor potential from its $1/r$ form near the donor core [@Kohn], and is responsible for the different $D^0$ binding energies of different Group V donor species [@Ramdas]. The central-cell corrected singular-like potential near the donor core produces coupling between the six conduction band (CB) minima Bloch states, and results in a splitting of the orbital ground state of the donor from the excited states. This is commonly known in literature as the ‘valley-orbit’ splitting [@VO]. The potential energy of the donor to first order in our model is given by,
$$V_{\rm D}(\vec{r} \neq \vec{r_0})=\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_{Si}|\vec{r}-\vec{r_0}|}, V_{\rm D}(\vec{r_0})= U_0
\label{eq2}$$
where $\vec{r_0}$ is the location of the donor, $e$ the electronic charge, $\epsilon_{Si}$ the dielectric constant of silicon, and $U_0$ is a cut-off potential representative of the central-cell correction to the first order. A detailed model of impurities in TB can be found in Ref [@shaikh].
$V_{\rm SCF}$ is the potential due to a bulk charge density $n(\vec{r})$, and has to be computed self-consistenly from a reduced Poisson equation as shown below. In the first iteration, $V_{\rm SCF}$ is set to zero to obtain the $D^0$ states of the donor. The solution of $H\psi=E\psi$ yields a set of energies $E=\lbrace E_i \rbrace$ and wavefunctions $\psi=\lbrace \psi_i \rbrace$, where $E_1$ and $\psi_1$ are the ground state energy and wavefunction of a donor respectively. For a bulk P donor at zero field, the above method yields $D^0$ binding energy $E_1$ of 45.6 meV below the CB minimum. For an As donor, it is 54 meV [@Ramdas]. To obtain the $D^-$ orbital energy, we assume the ground state is filled by exactly one electron, described by an electron density $n(\vec{r})=|\psi_1(\vec{r})|^2$. $V_{\rm SCF}$ is then given by,
$$V_{\rm SCF}(\vec{r}) = \int \frac{e^2 n(\vec{r'})}{4 \pi \epsilon_{Si}|\vec{r}-\vec{r'}|} \mathrm{d}\vec{r'}
\label{eq3}$$
With the new $V_{\rm SCF}$ eq (\[eq1\]) is solved for a new set of eigenstates and vectors. The process is repeated until $E_1$ and $n(\vec{r})$ both converge. Since eq (\[eq1\]) with a converged $V_{\rm SCF}$ represents an impurity in silicon with a bound electron, the converged orbital energy $E_1$ represents the binding energy of the second electron below the CB minimum. This method is also described in detail in Ref [@Datta].
This technique makes use of a density functional approximation, as the electron-electron interaction potential is expressed as a function of the electron density. Since the $D^-$ ground state resides in a closed-shell singlet, there is no exchange energy between the two electrons. The repulsive Coulomb energy evaluated self-consistently thus offers a good description of the binding energy. However, the method is still an approximate one, as higher order exchange-correlation corrections are ignored.
An exact way to solve this problem is a full configuration interaction (CI) method, in which the exact 2e Hamiltonian is diagonalized in a basis of Slater Determinants describing anti-symmetric 2e configurations built from a complete set of single particle states [@SOR]. However, such a method requires a large number $D^0$ orbitals to represent the spatial extent, symmetry, spin and valley configuration of the $D^-$ states making it both impractical and computationally intractable. In other words, the $D^-$ state is not well-represented with a basis comprising of the low lying $D^0$ states, suggesting the need for a self-consistent method to iteratively improve the basis states. Furthermore, the six-fold valley degeneracy in silicon makes the $D^0$ orbital basis set six times as large. Moreover, evaluating a large number of coulomb and exchange integrals with atomistic wavefunctions spanning over a million atoms becomes a computational challenge. On the other hand, atomistic wavefunctions are required for a highly accurate description of the single particle basis functions to capture details of bandstrucuture, geometry and interfaces, all of which are critical for a proper description of impurities in silicon [@Rahman1].
The mean-field method presented here thus serves as an intermediate theory that combines a highly accurate single particle basis states with a mean-field description of the Coulomb interaction, while ignoring exchange-correlation corrections associated with the 2e system. Although this method cannot capture the exact 2e wavefunctions, it provides a very good description of the $D^-$ binding energies, and the $n(\vec{r})$ associated with the added electron, as we describe in the Section III.
As a benchmark of the method, we computed the $D^-$ binding energy of a bulk P donor in silicon. Photoluminescence experiments have measured this energy to be 2.0 meV below the CB minimum [@dminus], which corresponds to a CE of 43.6 meV. In comparison, the SCF TB method described here yields a binding energy of 3.4 meV for a bulk P donor, corresponding to a CE of 42.2 meV. The difference of 1.4 meV from the experimental value can be regarded as a limitation of the theory due to neglecting exchange-correlation corrections and due to the fact that the TB method only considers point charges on an atomistic zincblende lattice. Typical simulation times of the 1e donor states from the TB Hamilton for 1.4 million atoms is about 2-3 hours on 40 processors. The computation of $V_{\rm SCF}$ requires 0.5 hours on 40 processors. Typical $D^-$ energies were found to converge in between 10 to 20 iterations of eq (\[eq1\]) and eq (\[eq3\]) [@Hoon; @Sunhee].
Most other works on the $D^-$ donor state have been based on describing the weakly bound 2e wavefunction with variational envelope wavefunction in a single valley picture [@Tucker; @Hollenberg2; @Calderon; @Peeters]. One exception is Ref [@MonteCarlo], in which a Quantum Monte Carlo approach was used to compute the bulk $D^-$. Two recent works have treated the effect of screening on the $D^-$ energies in the presence of metallic gates and hetero-interfaces using an effective mass approach [@Calderon; @Peeters], and have provided qualitative trends. However, the field and depth dependence of the donors that are directly relevant in measurements need to be investigated in detail from a more quantitative approach.
B. Experimental Technique
-------------------------
{width="3in"}
\[fi1\]
The measurements presented in this work were performed on single As donors in silicon FinFETs, consisting of a silicon nanowire with a gate covering three faces of the body (Fig. 1(a)). A thin nitrided oxide layer separates the gate from the channel. In some devices, a single As donor was found in the channel within 5 nm of the oxide interface. We measured the low-temperature sub-threshold current voltage characteristics of about a 100 devices, and selected 7 devices where the transport characteristics are dominated by a single donor atom in the channel. The other devices either showed no sub-threshold signal or a complicated pattern associated with Coulomb interaction between several donors in the channel. The experimental technique is detailed in our earlier works [@Rogge; @Sellier; @VO]. Fig. 1(b) shows the source-drain current of device GLG14 [@Rogge] at low bias as a function of gate voltage. At any gate voltage where a localized state in the channel is within the bias window defined by source/drain, it gives a contribution to the transport and a peak in the current occurs. As such, we can perform spectroscopy, with the gate voltage being a measure for the energy of the level ($E = \alpha V_{\rm G}$ where $\alpha$ is the electrostatic coupling between the gate and the level). Based on the aforementioned criteria, we identify the first two resonances as the D$^0$ and $D^-$ charge states of a single As donor. The resonances indicated by QD$^n$ are due to a localized state which is confined by the gate electric field and two barriers in the access regions between source/drain and the channel [@Sanquer1; @Sanquer2; @SellierAPL].
The inset of Fig. 1(b) shows a 1D schematic of the potential of a donor close to the interface at a high E-field. The field transforms the confining potential to a (hybridized) mix between the donors Coulomb potential and a triangular well at the interface. This system is thus essentially a gated donor where the donor-bound electrons are partly pulled toward the Si/SiO$_2$ interface. Due to the proximity of the donor to the interface ($<$ 5 nm), it is possible to apply a high E-field without fully ionizing the donor electron to the interface well. As the E-field is increased, the donor electron hybridizes with interface states, and makes a smooth transition to the interface well, in contrast to a bulk donor, where the ionization process is rather abrupt and occurs at much lower fields [@Rahman1]. In our previous work, we combined data from excited state spectroscopy of the $D^0$ state with a large-scale tight-binding analysis, to verify the species of the donor [@iedm], their locations and the E-fields they experienced [@Rogge]. In this work, we focus on the $D^-$ charging energies for those six devices, as well as a new device sample, to show the trends in charging energies, as well as to show bound excited 2e states in the spectrum.
III. Results and Discussions
============================
A donor located close to the oxide-silicon interface [@Smit; @Martins; @Calderon2; @Rahman1] has been proposed as an important variant of the Kane qubit architecture [@Kane1] based on deeply buried donors. In contrast to bulk donors, it is possible to adiabatically pull the donor electron to the interface, and hence to perform precise quantum control and wavefunction engineering by means of an applied gate bias. Hybrid architectures have also been proposed in which electrons from surface bound quantum dots can be selectively shuttled to nearby donor to preserve their spin coherence for longer time-scales [@Calderon3].
{width="3in"}
\[fi1\]
In Fig. 2, we show the $D^0$ and $D^-$ regions of the stability diagram of a newly measured device with a gated As donor. Although the CE of a bulk As donor is 52 meV, the measured CE in this sample is 30 meV. We will show that this is a consequence of the applied field that pulls the electron cloud away from each other. Conductance traces through excited states can be observed in both the $D^0$ and $D^-$ regions. While the existence of bound excited states of the $D^0$ are well established [@Rogge], bound $D^-$ excited states are a novel phenomena reported here for the first time. This a consequence of the reduced CE that cause excited manifolds to form below the conduction band. Fig. 3(a) shows the 1D potential schematic of the system for various field strengths. As shown in Fig. 1(b), the potential in this system is a superposition of the Coulomb potential of the donor and a linear potential due to the applied E-field. At low field strengths (Fig. 3(a)(i)), the Coulomb potential dominates, and both electrons are bound in the Coulomb well of the donor. This is a bulk-like system with high CE with both electrons confined to a very small region of space. Hence, the electron density around the donor core is high, and the electrostatic repulsion between the electrons stronger, resulting in a higher CE. As the E-field is increased, a triangular well forms at the interface, and the electrons are gradually pulled towards it. At one point, one electron resides in a strongly hybridized state relative to the other, a state which is more delocalized in space, as shown in Fig. 3(a)(ii). The reduced electron densities result in a reduced Coulomb interaction, and the CE decreases. At larger E-fields, both electrons are pulled towards the interface (Fig. 3(a)(iii)), and spreads out more laterally in space.
{width="3in"}
Fig. 3(b) shows the binding energies of $D^0$ and the $D^-$ states as a function of the E-field for an As donor at 3.8 nm from the oxide interface. The energies are expressed relative to the Stark shifted conduction band at the donor site. The difference between the two binding energies is the charging energy, CE. At low fields, corresponding to regime (i) of Fig. 3(a), both electrons are at the donor, and the $D^-$ state is loosely bound below the CB, reminiscent of a bulk-like system. However, the electronic wavefunctions are influenced by the extra confinement due to the nearby interface, and the states are pushed up in energy. As a result, the $D^-$ binding energy in this case is even less than the bulk value of 2 meV below the CB.
As the E-field is increased, the system gradually moves to the regime (ii) of Fig. 3(a). The electrons begin to hybridize with the interface well states, and both the $D^0$ and $D^-$ binding energies are pushed downwards with applied field, as shown in Fig. 3(b). This orbital Stark effect for the $D^0$ electron has been described in detail in Ref [@Rahman1]. In the 2e system, the added electron hybridizes with the interface states sooner than the other electron. As the electron density spreads out more in space, the CE decreases as shown by the decreasing gap between the two energies in Fig 3(b).
At higher fields, the interface well is occupied by both electrons, as described by regime (iii) of Fig. 3(a). The electronic densities are more laterally extended than before, resulting in a further decrease in CE, which is represented by a constant energy gap between $D^0$ and $D^-$ states, as shown in the region (iii) of Fig. 3(b). However, the electrons are still laterally bounded by the Coulomb potential of the donor, which prevents them from forming a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG). The lateral confinement potential is stronger for shallower donors. This makes the charge density larger, and the electronic repulsion stronger. Therefore, the CE is expected to increase with decreasing donor depths, as the electrons are pulled into the interface well. In regime (iii), any increase in the vertical field does not influence the electronic wavefunctions significantly, and the CE becomes insensitive to the applied field.
Fig. 3(c) shows the charging energy as a function of field for three different donor depths. For a specific depth, the CE makes a smooth transition from a bulk-like value of above 50 meV to about 20-30 meV representative of an interfacial confinement regime. Once the electrons are interface bound, the CE becomes field independent. However, due to the lateral Coulomb potential of the donor, the CE values still increase as the donor depth decreases.In the intermediate field regime, any CE value from about 50 to 30 meV is possible due to hybridization of the donor states with the interface well states [@Rahman1]. For smaller donor depths, the transition from the bulk-like CE value to the interface-like CE value is smoother because the tunnel coupling between the two wells is stronger. For a bulk donor, an abrupt step-like transition is expected, as the electrons are ionized without any further confinement. Although we have ignored the exact effect of screening in this work, we can qualitatively understand its effect on the $D^-$ binding energies and CEs from Fig. 3(b) and 3(c). Screening essentially modifies the value of the applied E-field due to dielectric mismatch at the silicon-oxide and the gate-oxide interfaces, which results in image charges. If the net screening is dominated by the gate electrode, then the induced image charges would be of opposite polarity to the negatively charged $D^-$ system. As a result, the effective field will be reduced. Since we have used the E-field as a free parameter to investigate the $D^-$ energy over a wide range of field values, the effect of screening can be deduced to first order. For example, if a sample is at 25 MV/m field in Fig. 3(b) and (c), a metallic screening will essentially move the sample to the left of this point in the curve. If the net screening is dominated by the insulating oxide layer, then the induced charges are of the same polarity as the $D^-$ state [@Rahman1]. This results in an increased field, which shifts the sample to the right in Fig. 3(b) and 3(c).
However, to obtain an exact quantitative description of screening, the full Poisson equation has to be solved numerically in 3D including the oxide layer and the metal gate, and also self-consistently with the TB Hamiltonian over the whole domain. However, this poses a problem because the atomistic TB Hamiltonian has to be solved over silicon only, as the oxide layer is amorphous in nature and lacks a regular structure. One way to side-step this is to assume a virtual crystal (VC) model of the oxide, and to extend the TB Hamiltonian to include this region, however VC models of SiO$_2$ are still not well-established in literature [@Kim; @Saraiva]. Although a truncated TB Hamiltonian over the silicon region can be iterated with the Poisson equation over the whole domain, there could be issues relating to charge inconsistencies which would affect the convergence. We have therefore neglected an exact quantitative description of gate screening, and have used the field as the free parameter to investigate its effects approximately. Although some of these limitations can be overcome in principle, this is out of the scope of the present work.
![Colormap of the modeled charging energy as a function of gate electric field ($F$) and donor depth ($d$). The black traces indicate the region where the modeled charging energy is between 29 and 35 meV, as we also find experimentally. The black data points indicate the positions of the samples in the F-d plane, as determined in a previous publication [@Rogge] from their $D^0$ level spectrum. ](Fig4new.png){width="2.5in"}
\[fi1\]
In Fig. 4, we show a 2D colormap of the CEs over a range of donor depths (horizontal axis) and E-fields (vertical axis). At high E-fields, the CEs are between 20-25 meV, as indicated by the blue region. This corresponds to interfacial confinement. At low E-fields, the CEs are about 50 meVs, marked by the red region, corresponding to donor bound $D^-$ states. The green and the yellow regions show the intermediate field hybridized regimes. If the donor depth from the interface is large, it takes a smaller field to detune the two wells. Hence, ionization to the interface well takes effect at a lower field value. This is why the blue region of interface-like CEs grow in area from left to right of the plot.
We now compare the measured CEs of six device samples with the computed values. The fields ($F$) and the depths ($d$) of these samples were determined from the $D^0$ excited state transport spectroscopy in our earlier work [@Rogge]. We can map these samples on Fig. 4 based on these extracted $F$ and $d$. These data points are marked as black squares. This shows that the $D^-$ energies of these samples were close to the border between the hybridized regime (Fig. 3(a)(ii)) and the interface-bound regime (Fig. 3(a)(iii)), which explains their CEs in the range 29-35 meV. Ideally, all samples should lie between the two black lines plotted in Fig. 4. We attribute the small discrepancy to the fact that we have neglected the exact nature of screening for the $D^-$ state, as discussed above.
IV. Conclusion
==============
We have shown through transport spectroscopy measurements on gated As donors in silicon that the charging energies of these donors can be significantly reduced below the bulk values in the presence of an applied E-field. As a consequence, bound excited states are observed for the first time in the $D^-$ spectrum of the donors. This opens up the prospect of performing spin-readout through spin-to-charge conversion between interface and donor bound states using the same Group V donors as the qubits. We present a large-scale self-consistent tight-binding method to compute the charging energies in these nanostructures, taking into account the atomistic details and potentials. The simulations show that the charging energies of the donors are reduced with applied fields, as the electrons hybridize with interface states and delocalize. At low fields, high CEs of above 50 meVs are expected, while at high ionizing fields, the CEs can decrease to about 20-30 meVs. As single donor devices are being fabricated from both top-down and bottom-up approaches, our technique can be used to model the $D^-$ binding energies in a variety of realistic devices.
We acknowledge financial support from the EC FP7 FET-proactive NanoICT projects MOLOC (215750) and AFSiD (214989), the Dutch Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie FOM, the Australian Research Council, the Australian Government, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and the Army Research Office (ARO) under Contract No. W911NF-04-1-0290. This research was conducted by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology (Project number CE110001027). NEMO 3D was initially developed at JPL, Caltech under a contract with the NASA. Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract No. DE-AC04-94AL85000. NSF funded NCN/nanoHUB.org computational resources were used.
Electronic address: [email protected]
[100]{} B. E. Kane, Nature, [**[393]{}**]{}, 133 (1998).
A. M. Tyryshkin, S. A. Lyon, A. V. Astashkin, and A. M. Raitsimring, Phys. Rev. B [**[68]{}**]{}, 193207 (2003).
Rutger Vrijen, Eli Yablonovitch, Kang Wang, Hong Wen Jiang, Alex Balandin, Vwani Roychowdhury, Tal Mor, and David DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A [**[62]{}**]{}, 012306 (2000).
C. D. Hill, L. C. L. Hollenberg, A. G. Fowler, C. J. Wellard, A. D. Greentree, and H.-S. Goan, Phys. Rev. B [**[72]{}**]{}, 045350 (2005).
L. C. L. Hollenberg, A. D. Greentree, A. G. Fowler, and C. J. Wellard, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 045311 (2006).
L. C. L. Hollenberg, A. S. Dzurak, C. Wellard, A. R. Hamilton, D. J. Reilly, G. J. Milburn, and R. G. Clark, Phys. Rev. B [**[69]{}**]{}, 113301 (2004).
M. Pierre, R. Wacquez, X. Jehl, M. Sanquer, M. Vinet, and O. Cueto, Nature Nanotechnology [**5**]{}, 133 (2010).
Scott Roy and Asen Asenov, Science Vol. [**309**]{}, 388-390 (2005).
M. Klein, J. A. Mol, J. Verduijn, G. P. Lansbergen, S. Rogge, R. D. Levine, and F. Remacle, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**[96]{}**]{}, 043107 (2010).
Yonghong Yan, J. A. Mol, J. Verduijn, S. Rogge, R. D. Levine, and F. Remacle, J. Phys. Chem. C, [**[114]{}**]{}, 20380 (2010).
M. Taniguchi and S. Narita, Solid State Communications, Vol. 20, Issue 2, Pages 131-133 (1976).
G. P. Lansbergen, R. Rahman, C. J. Wellard, I. Woo, J. Caro, N. Collaert, S. Biesemans, G. Klimeck, L. C. L. Hollenberg, and S. Rogge, Nature Physics [**[4]{}**]{}, 656 (2008).
Kuan Yen Tan, Kok Wai Chan, Mikko Mottonen, Andrea Morello, Changyi Yang, Jessica van Donkelaar, Andrew Alves, Juha-Matti Pirkkalainen, David N. Jamieson, Robert G. Clark, and Andrew S. Dzurak, Nano Lett. [**10**]{}, 11 (2010).
D. N. Jamieson, C. Yang, T. Hopf, S. M. Hearne, C. I. Pakes, S. Prawer, M. Mitic, E. Gauja, S. E. Andresen, F. E. Hudson, A. S. Dzurak, and R. G. Clark, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**[86]{}**]{}, 202101 (2005).
S. R. Schofield, N. J. Curson, M. Y. Simmons, F. J. Rue§, T. Hallam, L. Oberbeck, and R. G. Clark, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[91]{}**]{}, 136104 (2003).
A. Fang, Y. C. Chang, and J. Tucker, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 155331 (2002).
L. C. L. Hollenberg, C. J. Wellard, C. I. Pakes, and A. G. Fowler, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 233301 (2004).
M. J. Calderon, J. Verduijn, G. P. Lansbergen, G. C. Tettamanzi, S. Rogge, and Belita Koiller, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 075317 (2010).
Y. L. Hao, A. P. Djotyan, A. A. Avetisyan, and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 035329 (2009).
G. P. Lansbergen, R. Rahman, J. Verduijn, G.C. Tettamanzi, N. Collaert, S. Biesemans, G. Klimeck, L.C.L. Hollenberg, S. Rogge, arXiv: 1008.1381v1 (2010).
Nakul Shaji, C. B. Simmons, Madhu Thalakulam, Levente J. Klein, Hua Qin, H. Luo, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, A. J. Rimberg, R. Joynt, M. Friesen, R. H. Blick, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, Nature Physics [**4**]{}, 540 - 544 (2008).
B. E. Kane, N. S. McAlpine, A. S. Dzurak, R. G. Clark, G. J. Milburn, He Bi Sun, and Howard Wiseman, Phys. Rev. B [**[61]{}**]{}, 2961 (2000).
M. J. Calderon, Belita Koiller, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B [**[75]{}**]{} 161304 (2007).
Andrea Morello, Jarryd J. Pla, Floris A. Zwanenburg, Kok W. Chan, Kuan Y. Tan, Hans Huebl, Mikko Mšttšnen, Christopher D. Nugroho, Changyi Yang, Jessica A. van Donkelaar, Andrew D. C. Alves, David N. Jamieson, Christopher C. Escott, Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg, Robert G. Clark, and Andrew S. Dzurak, Nature, [**[467]{}**]{}, 687 (2010).
W. A. Harrison, [*Electronic structure and the properties of solids: the physics of the chemical bond*]{} (Dover Publications Inc. , 1989).
J. C. Slater and G. F. Koster, Phys. Rev. [**94**]{}, 1498 (1954).
Gerhard Klimeck, Fabiano Oyafuso, Timothy B. Boykin, R. Chris Bowen, and Paul von Allmen, Computer Modeling in Engineering and Science (CMES) Volume 3, No. 5 pp 601-642 (2002), ISSN: 1526-1492.
B. Boykin, G. Klimeck, and F. Oyafuso, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 115201 (2004).
Rajib Rahman, Cameron J. Wellard, Forrest R. Bradbury, Marta Prada, Jared H. Cole, Gerhard Klimeck, and Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg, Phys Rev. Lett. [**[99]{}**]{}, 036403 (2007).
Gerhard Klimeck, Shaikh Ahmed, Hansang Bae, Neerav Kharche, Steve Clark, Benjamin Haley, Sunhee Lee, Maxim Naumov, Hoon Ryu, Faisal Saied, Marta Prada, Marek Korkusinski, Timothy B. Boykin, Rajib Rahman, IEEE Trans. Electron Dev. [**[54]{}**]{}, 2079-2089 (2007).
N. Kharche, M. Prada, T. B. Boykin, and G. Klimeck, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**90**]{}, 092109 (2007).
W. Kohn and J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. [**[98]{}**]{}, 915 (1955).
A. K. Ramdas and S. Rodriguez, Rep. Prog. Phys., Vol. [**[44]{}**]{} (1981).
R. Rahman, J. Verduijn, N. Kharche, G. P. Lansbergen, G. Klimeck, L. C. L. Hollenberg, and S. Rogge, Phys. Rev. B [**[83]{}**]{}, 195323 (2011).
S. Ahmed, N. Kharche, R. Rahman, M. Usman, S. Lee, H. Ryu, H. Bae, S. Clark, B. Haley, M. Naumov, F. Saied, M. Korkusinski, R. Kennel, M. McLennan, T. B. Boykin, and G. Klimeck, ÒMultimillion Atom Simulations with NEMO 3-DÓ, Springer Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, edited by Robert A. Meyers Springer-Verlag GmbH, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 5745, ISBN: 978-0-387-75888-6.
S. Datta, [*Quantum Transport : Atom to Transistor*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Szabo A., and Ostlund, N.S. in [*Modern Quantum Chemistry-Introduction to Advanced Electronic Structure Theory*]{} (Dover Publications Inc.,1989).
Rajib Rahman, G. P. Lansbergen, Seung H. Park, J. Verduijn, Gerhard Klimeck, S. Rogge, and Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg, Phys. Rev. B, [**[80]{}**]{} 165314 (2009).
Hoon Ryu, Sunhee Lee, and Gerhard Klimeck, IEEE proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Computational Electronics (IWCE), Tsinghua University, Beijing, May 27-29, 2009, pg 1-4, ISBN: 978-1-4244-3925-6. DOI: 10.1109/IWCE.2009.5091082.
Sunhee Lee, Hoon Ryu, Zhengping Jiang, and Gerhard Klimeck, IEEE proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Computational Electronics (IWCE), Tsinghua University, Beijing, May 27-29, 2009, pg 1-4, ISBN: 978-1-4244-3925-6. DOI: 10.1109/IWCE.2009.5091117.
Jun-ichi Inoue, Jun Nakamura, and Akiko Natori, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 125213 (2008).
H. Sellier, G. P. Lansbergen, J. Caro, and S. Rogge, N. Collaert, I. Ferain, M. Jurczak, and S. Biesemans, Phys Rev. Lett. [**[97]{}**]{}, 206805 (2006).
F. Boeuf, X. Jehl, M. Sanquer, and T. Skotnicki, IEEE Trans. Nanotechnology [**2**]{}, 144 (2003).
X. Jehl, M. Sanquer, G. Bertrand, G.Guegan, S. Deleonibus, and D. Fraboulet, IEEE Trans. Nanotechnology [**2**]{}, 308 (2003).
H. Sellier, G. P. Lansbergen, J. Caro, S. Rogge, N. Collaert, I. Ferain, M. Jurczak, and S. Biesemans, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**90**]{}, 073502 (2007).
G. P. Lansbergen, R. Rahman, C. J. Wellard, J. Caro, N. Collaert, S. Biesemans, G. Klimeck, L. C. L. Hollenberg, and S. Rogge, ÒTransport-based dopant metrology in advanced FinFETsÓ, IEEE IEDM, San Francisco, December 15Ð17, 2008.
G. D. J. Smit, S. Rogge, J. Caro, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. B [**[70]{}**]{}, 035206 (2004).
A. S. Martins, R. B. Capaz, and Belita Koiller, Phys. Rev. B [**[69]{}**]{}, 085320 (2004).
M. J. Calderon, Belita Koiller, Xuedong Hu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[96]{}**]{}, 096802 (2006).
S. Kim, A. Paul, M. Luisier, T. B. Boykin, G. Klimeck, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices Vol: PP, Issue [**[99]{}**]{}, 1-10 (2011).
A. L. Saraiva, Belita Koiller, and Mark Friesen, Phys. Rev. B [**[82]{}**]{}, 245314 (2010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
In a recent letter [@SZVD], we demonstrated that there exists a nontrivial correction, arising from the viscosity of the electron liquid, to the conductance of nanoscale junctions calculated within the adiabatic local-density approximation (ALDA) to time-dependent density-functional theory (DFT). This dynamical correction cannot be captured by any static DFT functional, even the exact one. We showed that the effect of the viscosity on the conductance can be analytically predicted, in a qualitative way, using time-dependent current-density functional theory in the zero-frequency and linear-response regime [@VUC]. Indeed, in the DC limit, we found that these viscous effects increase the resistance. In order to provide an estimate of these effects, we derived Eq. (14) for the dynamical viscous resistance, and evaluated that expression by employing the viscosity of bulk electrodes.
Jung [*et al.*]{} have used our Eq. (14) to calculate the dynamical resistance of two infinite jellium electrodes separated by a vacuum gap [@JBG]. By using the local-density dependent formula for the viscosity coefficient as reported in Ref. [@CV] they conclude that the dynamical resistance is negligibly small in the specific cases they consider. Here we argue that their calculations do not preclude the possibility that the viscosity contribution to the conductance be large in realistic nanoscale structures, the systems of interest in Ref. [@SZVD]. Two main points support this statement.
1\) Our Eq. (14) is an approximate formula, derived under certain physical assumptions (see below) in order to provide a qualitative understanding of the viscous effects in nanostructures. As noted in Ref. [@SZVD], Eq. (14) was derived assuming homogeneous density in the transverse direction [*and*]{} homogeneous current density in both transverse and longitudinal directions. The only contribution to the correction we included in Eq. (14) comes from density variations along the longitudinal direction. It is on the ground of these assumptions that we adopted the viscosity of the bulk electrodes in the model calculations. We did not claim any quantitative accuracy of our estimates in Ref. [@SZVD].
In realistic nanoscale structures, the current density may vary rapidly in the transverse direction due to a decrease of velocity from the center of the channel to the sides of the conductors. The transverse density and current density gradients can thus contribute significantly to the dissipation effects. The contribution can be further enhanced in the presence of turbulent eddies near the contacts [@SBHD; @DD]. To capture these gradient contributions, one needs to evaluate the dissipation power $dE/dt = - \int e
\vec{j}\cdot\vec{E}_{xc}d\vec r$ directly (and the associated resistance as $R^{dyn}=(dE/dt)/I^2$, with $I$ the total current), because the nonconservative nature of the dynamical xc field makes it, in general, ambiguous to evaluate a line integral as in Ref. [@SZVD]. If, once again, the current density and viscosity are assumed constant, the correction to the resistance evaluated from the power dissipated is given by $R^{dyn} =
\frac{\eta}{e^2A^2}\int \left[\frac{4}{3}(\partial_z n^{-1})^2 +
(\partial_\perp n^{-1})^2\right]d\vec r$, where $\perp$ represents the transverse direction, $\eta$ the (constant) viscosity, and $A$ is the cross section of the nanostructure. This expression contains a positive transverse density gradient term that has been neglected in Eq. (14) of Ref. [@SZVD]. This term thus increases the dynamical effects evaluated in Ref. [@SZVD]. More generally, the transverse density and current density gradients and the spatial variation of the viscosity must all be taken into account when evaluating the viscous resistance. For a general current-carrying nanoscale system, therefore, a quantitative evaluation of these corrections requires knowledge of their microscopic current and density distributions [@SBHD], and the dissipation power (and associated resistance) must be evaluated numerically.
2\) To calculate the viscosity coefficient, Jung [*et al.*]{} have applied the Conti-Vignale formula, Eq. (4.10) of Ref. [@CV]. This formula is more accurate than the high-density formula we have used in [@SZVD]. However, unlike what Jung [*el al.*]{} suggest, the Conti-Vignale formula does [*not*]{} interpolate between the high-density and low-density limits of the homogeneous electron liquid. The simple reason for this is that the [*exact*]{} low-density limit of the viscosity of the electron gas is [*unknown*]{}. The formula instead comes from a fit to numerical results of Nifosí [*et al.*]{}, which are based on mode-mode coupling theory [@NCT]. This theory is certainly not exact in the low-density limit [@CV]. Indeed, due to the strong correlation effects in the low-density electron gas, where the electrons are on the verge of crystallization, it is reasonable to suspect that the relative viscosity $\eta/n$ might increase well above Eq. (4.10) of [@CV] with decreasing density.
We conclude that the comment of Jung [*et al.*]{}, while interesting, should not be taken as an indication that the viscosity corrections to the conductance of real nanoscale structures are small. A more accurate treatment of the density and current density distribution and of the electronic correlations may yield much larger corrections in realistic systems.
The work was supported by Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-05ER46204.
Na Sai,$^1$ Michael Zwolak,$^2$ Giovanni Vignale,$^3$ and\
Massimiliano Di Ventra$^4$
$^1$Department of Physics, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, USA
$^3$Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA
$^2$Physics Department, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
$^4$Department of Physics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA
[99]{} N. Sai, M. Zwolak, G. Vignale and M. Di Ventra, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 186810 (2005). G. Vignale, C.A. Ullrich and S. Conti, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 4878 (1997). J.Jung, P. Bokes, and R.W. Godby, arXiv:0706.0140. S. Conti and G. Vignale, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 7966 (1999). N. Sai, N. Bushong, R. Hatcher and M. Di Ventra, [**75**]{},115410 (2007). R. D’Agosta and M. Di Ventra, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**18**]{}, 11059 (2006). R. Nifosi, S. Conti and M.P. Tosi, Phys. Rev. B, [**58**]{}, 12758 (1998).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct a density matrix whose elements are written in terms of expectation values of non-Hermitian operators and their products for arbitrary dimensional bipartite states. We then show that any expression which involves matrix elements can be reformulated by the expectation values of these non-Hermitian operators and vice versa. We consider the condition of pure states and pure product states and rewrite them in terms of expectation values and density matrix elements respectively. We utilize expectation values of these operators to present the condition for separability of ${C}^d \otimes {C}^d$ bipartite states. With the help of our separability criterion we detect entanglement in certain classes of higher dimensional bipartite states.'
author:
- |
[N. Ananth$^a$, V. K. Chandrasekar$^b$ and M. Senthilvelan$^a$ ]{}\
[$^a$Centre for Nonlinear Dynamics, School of Physics, Bharathidasan University,]{}\
[Tiruchirappalli - 620024, Tamilnadu, India]{}\
[$^b$Centre for Nonlinear Science & Engineering, School of Electrical & Electronics Engineering,]{}\
[SASTRA University, Thanjavur - 613401, Tamilnadu, India]{}
title: 'On the separability criterion of bipartite states with certain non-Hermitian operators'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
During the past two decades considerable progress has been made to characterize the pure and mixed states and their entanglement with multifaceted applications in the field of quantum computation and information [@niel2000; @peres2002]. One of the fundamental tasks in quantum information theory is to detect entanglement in quantum states. In general, an entanglement can be identified from the separability criterion. Several necessary and/or sufficient separability criteria have been proposed in the literature in order to capture the entanglement of bipartite states [@horo2009; @guhne2009; @dohe2004; @brub2002]. Among these criteria, the positive partial transpose (PPT) plays a vital role in detecting entanglement in $2\otimes2$ and $2\otimes3$ bipartite states [@peres1996; @horo1996]. The separability criterion in terms of the range of density matrix and the computable cross-norm criterion (CCNR) work efficiently for the $3\otimes 3$ and $2\otimes 4$ mixed states whereas PPT fails to detect entanglement in these states [@horo1997; @rudo2005]. Various approaches to construct Bell inequalities were also proposed for pure two qudit systems [@gisin1992] and higher dimensional bipartite systems [@collins2002; @li2010]. The diagonalization criterion and Bell-type inequalities are put forward for the separability of $M\otimes N$ and $2\otimes d$ bipartite states in Refs.[@ha2010; @zhao2011]. A class of $d\otimes d$ bipartite PPT states were proposed in [@chrus2006] in connection with the indecomposability of positive maps. However, a strong separability criteria is yet to be proposed for arbitrary dimensional bipartite states.
In the study of entanglement of bipartite states, a few works have been devoted to analyze the entanglement with the help of non-Hermitian operators. For example, Tóth et al. have derived an inequality to detect entanglement in two-mode continuous systems using number operator and mode annihilation operator [@toth2003]. Shchukin and Vogel have derived general entanglement conditions for continuous bipartite states [@shch2005]. Subsequently, Hillery and Zubairy have developed certain entanglement conditions for two-mode systems by considering mode creation and annihilation operators [@hill2006]. In a later work [@hill2006a] the same authors were given a wide range of applications of the entanglement conditions [@hill2006]. Interestingly, these conditions were further strengthened to detect entanglement not just between field modes but also between atom and field modes or between groups of atoms, see for example Ref.[@hill2009]. In addition to the above, non-Hermitian operators were also employed to demonstrate the entanglement in multipartite states [@hill2010]. The above studies reveal that non-Hermitian operators can also be utilized to characterize the quantum states in a new way.
In this paper, we detect entanglement with the help of non-Hermitian operators. The aim of this work is to derive a separability criterion in terms of expectation values of non-Hermitian operators and their products for the higher dimensional bipartite states. To achieve this goal, we construct a qudit density matrix, whose elements are replaced by the expectation values of non-Hermitian operators and their products. We then derive the same form of matrix for bipartite states by implementing a tensor product between expectation value matrices of two qudit states. Our analysis shows that higher dimensional states can easily be represented in terms of non-Hermitian operators. We then show that any expression which involves matrix elements can be reformulated by the expectation values of these non-Hermitian operators and vice versa. To demonstrate this, we rewrite the condition of pure states, Tr$(\rho^2)$$=1$, in terms of expectation values of non-Hermitian operators and their products. We then consider the condition of pure product state and reformulate it in terms of density matrix elements from the expectation value of non-Hermitian operators. We also present an operational form of partial transposition operation. Proceeding further, we formulate a separability condition to the mixed bipartite states in terms of density matrix elements using the fact that they can be rewritten in terms of expectation values. To derive separability criterion for higher dimensional bipartite states, we consider $\langle A^{\dagger} B^{\dagger} \rangle$ and $\langle A^{\dagger} B \rangle$, where the non-Hermitian operators $A$ and $B$ act on first and second subsystem respectively, from which we find the necessary elements which are suitable for the Werner-like states and Isotropic like states [@chrus2006]. We then use the relation of these elements with diagonal elements in the density matrix [@guhne2010; @gao2011] and obtain a condition for entanglement of ${C}^d \otimes {C}^d$ bipartite states in the form of an inequality. We also demonstrate the validity of our formulation by considering four different states.
We organize our work as follows. In the following section, we construct a density matrix for $M\otimes N$ bipartite states whose elements are in the form of expectation values of certain non-Hermitian operators and their products. In Sect.\[sec3\] we show the utilization of expectation value matrix for few simple cases. We then derive the separability condition for ${C}^d \otimes {C}^d$ bipartite states in Sect.\[sec4\] and demonstrate the applicability of our method by considering four different states in Sect.\[sec5\]. Finally, we summarize the conclusion in Sect.\[sec6\].
Density matrix in terms of non-Hermitian operators {#sec2}
==================================================
Let $\rho^1$ and $\rho^2$ denote the states of two subsystems on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}^1$ and $\mathcal{H}^2$ respectively. The state of the composite system is then $\rho \in \mathcal{H}^1 \otimes \mathcal{H}^2$. It is known that any separable state can be expressed in the form [@lewn2000].
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{0} \rho =& \rho^{1} ~\otimes~\rho^{2}, \\
\label{1} \rho =& \sum_{i} p_i~\rho_{i}^{1} ~\otimes~\rho_{i}^{2},\end{aligned}$$
where $p_i > 0$ and $\sum_{i} p_i = 1$, for pure and mixed state respectively. The density matrix representation of a qudit state is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3a} \rho^k=
\begin{pmatrix}
\big\langle 0|\rho^k |0 \big\rangle & \big\langle 0| \rho^k |1 \big\rangle & \big\langle 0| \rho^k |2 \big\rangle & \ldots & \big\langle 0| \rho^k |m \big\rangle \\
\big\langle 1|\rho^k |0 \big\rangle & \big\langle 1| \rho^k |1 \big\rangle & \big\langle 1| \rho^k |2 \big\rangle & \ldots & \big\langle 1| \rho^k |m \big\rangle \\
\big\langle 2|\rho^k |0 \big\rangle & \big\langle 2| \rho^k |1 \big\rangle & \big\langle 2| \rho^k |2 \big\rangle & \ldots & \big\langle 2| \rho^k |m \big\rangle \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\big\langle m|\rho^k |0 \big\rangle & \big\langle m| \rho^k |1 \big\rangle & \big\langle m| \rho^k |2 \big\rangle & \ldots & \big\langle m| \rho^k |m \big\rangle \\
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $m=d-1$ in which $d$ represents the dimension of the state and $k$ denotes the subsystem.
Let us consider certain non-Hermitian operators, $A_k^i$, $k=1,2$, $i=1,2,\ldots,$ $m,$ which act on $\rho^{k}$, are of the form [@hill2010] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3} A_k^i ={|0\rangle}_k{\langle i|},~{A_{k}^{i}}^{\dagger} ={|i\rangle}_k{\langle 0|},~{A_k^{i} A_{k}^{i}}^{\dagger} ={|0\rangle}_k{\langle 0|},
~{A_{k}^{i}}^{\dagger} {A_k^{i}} = {|i\rangle}_k{\langle i|},~k=1,2. \end{aligned}$$ We observe that every element in the density matrix (\[3a\]) can be expressed by the expectation value of the above non-Hermitian operators and their products. For example, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
$\langle A_k^{i} {A_k^{i}}^{\dagger} \rangle = \langle 0|\rho^k| 0 \rangle$, & ~~~$\langle {A_k^{i}}^{\dagger} \rangle = \langle 0|\rho^k| i \rangle$,& ~~$\langle A_k^{i}\rangle = \langle i|\rho^k| 0 \rangle$,\\
$\langle {A_k^{i}}^{\dagger} A_k^{i} \rangle = \langle i|\rho^k| i \rangle$, & $\langle {A_k^{i}}^{\dagger} A_k^{1} \rangle = \langle 1|\rho^k| i \rangle$,
& $\langle {A_k^{i}}^{\dagger} A_k^{2} \rangle = \langle 2|\rho^k| i \rangle$
\end{tabular}\end{aligned}$$ and so on. In terms of these non-Hermitian operators ($A_k^i$’s) the matrix (\[3a\]) reads
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{3b} \rho_E^k=
\begin{pmatrix}
\langle A_k^{1} {A_{k}^{1}}^{\dagger} \rangle & \langle {A_{k}^{1}}^{\dagger} \rangle & \langle {A_{k}^{2}}^{\dagger} \rangle &\ldots & \langle {A_{k}^{m}}^{\dagger} \rangle \\
\langle A_k^{1} \rangle & \langle {A_{k}^{1}}^{\dagger}A_{k}^{1} \rangle & \langle {A_{k}^{2}}^{\dagger}A_{k}^{1} \rangle &\ldots & \langle {A_{k}^{m}}^{\dagger}A_{k}^{1} \rangle \\
\langle A_k^{2} \rangle & \langle {A_{k}^{1}}^{\dagger}A_k^{2} \rangle & \langle {A_{k}^{2}}^{\dagger}A_k^{2} \rangle &\ldots & \langle {A_{k}^{m}}^{\dagger}A_k^{2} \rangle \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\langle A_k^{m} \rangle & \langle {A_{k}^{1}}^{\dagger}A_k^{m} \rangle & \langle {A_{k}^{2}}^{\dagger}A_k^{m} \rangle & \ldots& \langle {A_{k}^{m}}^{\dagger}A_k^{m} \rangle \\
\end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$
The matrix representation of a bipartite state in terms of the expectation value of the operators (\[3\]) can be constructed by making the tensor product between expectation value matrices of first and second subsystems, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3c} \rho_E=
\begin{pmatrix}
\langle A_1^{1} {A_{1}^{1}}^{\dagger} \rangle & \ldots & \langle {A_{1}^{m_1}}^{\dagger} \rangle \\
\langle A_1^{1} \rangle & \ldots & \langle {A_{1}^{m_1}}^{\dagger}A_{1}^{1} \rangle \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\langle A_1^{m_1} \rangle & \ldots& \langle {A_{1}^{m_1}}^{\dagger}A_1^{m_1} \rangle \\
\end{pmatrix}
\otimes
\begin{pmatrix}
\langle A_2^{1} {A_{2}^{1}}^{\dagger} \rangle & \ldots & \langle {A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger} \rangle \\
\langle A_2^{1} \rangle & \ldots & \langle {A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger}A_{2}^{1} \rangle \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\langle A_2^{m_2} \rangle & \ldots& \langle {A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger}A_2^{m_2} \rangle \\
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Expanding (\[3c\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3d} \rho_E =
\begin{pmatrix}
\langle A_1^{1} {A_{1}^{1}}^{\dagger} A_2^{1} {A_{2}^{1}}^{\dagger} \rangle
& \ldots & \langle A_1^{1} {A_{1}^{1}}^{\dagger}{A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger} \rangle & \ldots & \langle {A_{1}^{m_1}}^{\dagger}{A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger} \rangle \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\langle A_1^{1} {A_{1}^{1}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_2} \rangle & \ldots & \langle A_1^{1} {A_{1}^{1}}^{\dagger}{A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger}{A_{2}^{m_2}} \rangle
& \ldots & \langle {A_{1}^{m_1}}^{\dagger}{A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger}{A_{2}^{m_2}} \rangle \\
\langle A_1^{1} A_2^{1}{A_{2}^{1}}^{\dagger} \rangle & \ldots & \langle A_1^{1} {A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger}\rangle & \ldots & \langle {A_{1}^{m_1}}^{\dagger}{A_{1}^{1}}{A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger} \rangle \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\langle A_1^{1} A_2^{m_2}\rangle & \ldots & \langle A_1^{1} {A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_2} \rangle & \ldots & \langle {A_{1}^{m_1}}^{\dagger}{A_{1}^{1}}{A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger}{A_{2}^{m_2}} \rangle \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
\langle A_1^{m_1} A_2^{1}{A_{2}^{1}}^{\dagger} \rangle & \ldots & \langle A_1^{m_1} {A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger}\rangle & \ldots & \langle {A_{1}^{m_1}}^{\dagger}{A_{1}^{m_1}}{A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger} \rangle \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\langle A_1^{m_1} A_2^{m_2}\rangle & \ldots & \langle A_1^{m_1} {A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_2} \rangle & \ldots & \langle {A_{1}^{m_1}}^{\dagger}{A_{1}^{m_1}}{A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger}{A_{2}^{m_2}} \rangle
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[3d\]) is an equivalent representation of the density matrix of an $M\otimes N$ bipartite state, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rho} \rho=
\begin{pmatrix}
\rho_{1,1} & \rho_{1,2} & \rho_{1,3} & \ldots & \rho_{1,n} \\
\rho_{2,1} & \rho_{2,2} & \rho_{2,3} & \ldots & \rho_{2,n} \\
\rho_{3,1} & \rho_{3,2} & \rho_{3,3} & \ldots & \rho_{3,n} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\rho_{m,1} & \rho_{m,2} & \rho_{m,3} & \ldots & \rho_{m,n}
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$
Comparing the matrix elements in (\[3d\]) with (\[rho\]) we observe that $\langle A_1^{1} {A_{1}^{1}}^{\dagger} A_2^{1}$ ${A_{2}^{1}}^{\dagger}
\rangle $ yields $\rho_{1,1}$, $\langle {A_{1}^{m_1}}^{\dagger}{A_{2}^{m_2}}^{\dagger} \rangle$ yields $\rho_{1,n}$ and so on. In other words, all the elements in the density matrix of bipartite states can now be represented by the expectation values of non-Hermitian operators $A_k^{i}$ and ${A_{k}^{i}}^{\dagger}$ and their products. To illustrate this, let us consider a Bell state, $|\psi\rangle = a|00\rangle + b|11\rangle$ and its density operator $\rho = |a|^2|00\rangle \langle00| + ab^*|00\rangle \langle11| + a^*b |11\rangle \langle00| + |b|^2|11\rangle \langle11|$. By using the ideas given above one can get $|a|^2$ by computing $\langle A_1^1 {A_1^1}^{\dagger} A_2^1 {A_2^1}^{\dagger} \rangle $, $ab^*$ and $a^*b$ from the expectation values $\langle {A_1^1}^{\dagger} {A_2^1}^{\dagger} \rangle $ and $\langle {A_1^1} {A_2^1} \rangle $ respectively and $|b|^2$ by evaluating $\langle {A_1^1}^{\dagger}A_1^1 {A_2^1}^{\dagger}A_2^1 \rangle.$ Thus one can unambiguously represent every element in the density matrix by the expectation value of non-Hermitian operators and their products. In fact, with the aid of matrix (\[3d\]) one can extract the value of any element of an arbitrary bipartite state. One can also construct this type of matrix for multipartite states. However, in this paper we confine our attention only on bipartite states.
We mention here that one can easily obtain the reduced density matrix from equation (\[3c\]) instead of taking partial trace. It can be simply obtained by calculating all the expectation values present in any one of the susbsytems in (\[3c\]), which is required.
\[sec3\] Utilization of expectation value matrix $\rho_E$
==========================================================
To demonstrate that any expression which involves matrix elements can be reformulated by expectation values of operators, we write Tr$(\rho^2)$ in terms of matrix elements for an arbitrary dimensional bipartite states. We then rewrite this expression in terms of expectatin values of operators. We reformulate the condition for pure product state from the expectation value of non-Hermitian operators into density matrix elements. In addition to the above, we present an operational form of partial transposition by employing the operators present in (\[3c\]).
Trace
-----
Let us recall the condition $\mathrm{Tr}(\rho^2)=1$ for pure states, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{31} \textrm{Tr}(\rho^2) = \sum_{i=1}^{d_1\times d_2} \rho_{i,i}^2 + 2 \sum_{i=1}^{(d_1\times d_2)-1}~\sum_{j=i+1}^{d_1\times d_2}\rho_{i,j}~\rho_{j,i} = 1, \end{aligned}$$ where $d_1$ and $d_2$ represent the dimensions of the first and second subsystem respectively. Equation (\[31\]) can now be expressed solely in terms of the expectation values of non-Hermitian operators by comparing Eqs. (\[3d\]) with (\[rho\]). Replacing the elements by their expectation values of non-Hermitian operators $A_k^i$ and ${A_k^i}^{\dagger}$ and their products suitably we find
$$\begin{aligned}
\text{Tr}(\rho^2) =& \langle A_1^1 {A_1^1}^{\dagger} A_2^1 {A_2^1}^{\dagger} \rangle^2 + \sum_{m_2=1}^{d_2-1}\langle A_1^1 {A_1^1}^{\dagger}
{A_2^{m_2}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_2} \rangle^2 + \sum_{m_1=1}^{d_1-1}\langle {A_1^{m_1}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_1} A_2^1 {A_2^1}^{\dagger}\rangle^2 \notag\\
& + \sum_{m_1=1}^{d_1-1} \sum_{m_2=1}^{d_2-1} \langle {A_1^{m_1}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_1} {A_2^{m_2}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_2} \rangle^2
+ 2 \Bigg\{ \sum_{m_2=1}^{d_2-1} \langle {A_1^{1} A_1^{1}}^{\dagger} {A_2^{m_2}}^{\dagger} \rangle \langle {A_1^{1} A_1^{1}}^{\dagger} {A_2^{m_2}} \rangle \notag \\
& + \sum_{m_{2j}=1}^{d_2-2} \sum_{m_{2i}=m_{2j}+1}^{d_2-1} \langle A_1^{1} {A_1^{1}}^{\dagger} {A_2^{m_{2i}}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_{2j}}\rangle
\langle A_1^{1} {A_1^{1}}^{\dagger} {A_2^{m_{2j}}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_{2i}}\rangle \notag \\
&+ \sum_{m_1=1}^{d_1-1}\langle {A_1^{m_1}}^{\dagger} A_2^{1} {A_2^1}^{\dagger} \rangle \langle {A_1^{m_1}} A_2^{1}{A_2^1}^{\dagger} \rangle
+ \sum_{m_1=1}^{d_1-1}\sum_{m_2=1}^{d_2-1} \langle {A_1^{m_1}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_1} {A_2^{m_2}}^{\dagger} \rangle \langle {A_1^{m_1}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_1} {A_2^{m_2}} \rangle \notag \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
& + \sum_{m_{1j}=1}^{d_1-2} \sum_{m_{1i}=m_{1j}+1}^{d_1-1} \langle {A_1^{m_{1i}}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_{1j}}A_2^{1} {A_2^{1}}^{\dagger} \rangle
\langle {A_1^{m_{1j}}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_{1i}}A_2^{1} {A_2^{1}}^{\dagger} \rangle \notag \\
& + \sum_{m_1=1}^{d_1-1} \sum_{m_{2j}=1}^{d_2-2} \sum_{m_{2i}=m_{2j}+1}^{d_2-1} \langle {A_1^{m_1}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_1} {A_2^{m_{2i}}}^{\dagger}
A_2^{m_{2j}}\rangle \langle {A_1^{m_1}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_1} {A_2^{m_{2j}}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_{2i}}\rangle \notag \\
& + \sum_{m_2=1}^{d_2-1} \sum_{m_1=1}^{d_1-1} \langle {A_1^{m_1}}^{\dagger} {A_2^{m_2}}^{\dagger}A_2^{m_2} \rangle \langle {A_1^{m_1}} {A_2^{m_2}}^{\dagger}A_2^{m_2} \rangle\notag \\
& + \sum_{m_2=1}^{d_2-1} \sum_{m_{1j}=1}^{d_1-2} \sum_{m_{1i}=m_{1j}+1}^{d_1-1} \langle {A_1^{m_{1i}}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_{1j}} {A_2^{m_2}}^{\dagger}
A_2^{m_2}\rangle \langle {A_1^{m_{1j}}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_{1i}} {A_2^{m_2}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_2}\rangle \notag \\
&+ \sum_{m_1=1}^{d_1-1} \sum_{m_2=1}^{d_2-1} \langle {A_1^{m_1}}^{\dagger} {A_2^{m_2}}^{\dagger} \rangle \langle {A_1^{m_1}} {A_2^{m_2}} \rangle
+ \sum_{m_1=1}^{d_1-1} \sum_{m_2=1}^{d_2-1} \langle {A_1^{m_1}}^{\dagger} {A_2^{m_2}} \rangle \langle {A_1^{m_1}} {A_2^{m_2}}^{\dagger} \rangle
\notag \\
&+ \sum_{m_1=1}^{d_1-1} \sum_{m_{2j}=1}^{d_2-2} \sum_{m_{2i}=m_{2j}+1}^{d_2-1} \langle {A_1^{m_1}}^{\dagger} {A_2^{m_{2i}}}^{\dagger}
A_2^{m_{2j}}\rangle \langle {A_1^{m_1}} {A_2^{m_{2j}}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_{2i}}\rangle \notag \\
& + \sum_{m_1=1}^{d_1-1} \sum_{m_{2j}=1}^{d_2-2} \sum_{m_{2i}=m_{2j}+1}^{d_2-1} \langle {A_1^{m_1}}^{\dagger} {A_2^{m_{2j}}}^{\dagger}
A_2^{m_{2i}}\rangle \langle {A_1^{m_1}} {A_2^{m_{2i}}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_{2j}}\rangle \notag \\
& + \sum_{m_2=1}^{d_2-1} \sum_{m_{1j}=1}^{d_1-2} \sum_{m_{1i}=m_{1j}+1}^{d_1-1} \langle {A_1^{m_{1i}}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_{1j}} {A_2^{m_2}}^{\dagger} \rangle \langle {A_1^{m_{1j}}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_{1i}} {A_2^{m_2}} \rangle \notag \\
& + \sum_{m_2=1}^{d_2-1} \sum_{m_{1j}=1}^{d_1-2} \sum_{m_{1i}=m_{1j}+1}^{d_1-1} \langle {A_1^{m_{1i}}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_{1j}} {A_2^{m_2}} \rangle
\langle {A_1^{m_{1j}}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_{1i}} {A_2^{m_2}}^{\dagger} \rangle \notag \\
& + \sum_{m_{1i}=1}^{d_1-2} \sum_{m_{1j}=m_{1i}+1}^{d_1-1} \sum_{m_{2i}=1}^{d_2-2} \sum_{m_{2j}=m_{2i}+1}^{d_2-1} \langle {A_1^{m_{1j}}}^{\dagger}
A_1^{m_{1i}} {A_2^{m_{2j}}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_{2i}} \rangle \langle {A_1^{m_{1i}}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_{1j}} {A_2^{m_{2i}}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_{2j}} \rangle \notag \\
& + \sum_{m_{1i}=1}^{d_1-2} \sum_{m_{1j}=m_{1i}+1}^{d_1-1} \sum_{m_{2i}=1}^{d_2-2} \sum_{m_{2j}=m_{2i}+1}^{d_2-1} \langle {A_1^{m_{1j}}}^{\dagger}
A_1^{m_{1i}} {A_2^{m_{2i}}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_{2j}} \rangle \langle {A_1^{m_{1i}}}^{\dagger} A_1^{m_{1j}} {A_2^{m_{2j}}}^{\dagger} A_2^{m_{2i}} \rangle\Bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$
The above expression is the general form of Tr$(\rho^2)$ for an arbitrary bipartite states.
Pure separable state
--------------------
In the case of pure separable states the expectation value of a joint measurement of two operators should be equal to the product of expectation value of individual measurement of the same operators acting on the bipartite state, that is $\langle AB \rangle = \langle A\rangle \langle B\rangle$. Considering the operators that appear in the diagonal in (\[3d\]) and imposing the pure separability condition given above and comparing it with (\[rho\]), we can express the criterion of pure separable states in terms of density matrix elements. In the case of $M \otimes N$ pure product state the condition reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhokk}\rho_{k,k} = \left(\sum_{i=(a\times d_2)+1}^{(a+1)\times d_2} \rho_{i,i} \right) \times \left( \sum_{i\in B} \rho_{i,i} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $(a\times d_2)+1 \leq k \leq (a+1) \times d_2$, $a=0,1,2,...,d_1-1$, $B=\{i = (j\times d_2) +k ~|~ j=0,1,2,...,d_1-1 \}$ and $i=i-(d_1 \times d_2)$ iff $i>(d_1\times d_2)$. The value of $a$ can be determined by simply fixing the $a$ value for $k$ in the interval $(a\times d_2)+1 \leq k \leq (a+1) \times d_2$. With the known value of $a$ one can proceed to check the separability in pure arbitrary bipartite states.
If the given state does not satisfy the condition (\[rhokk\]) then it should be a pure entangled one.
Partial Transposition operation
-------------------------------
In the following, we point out how we can reformulate the partial transposition in terms of non-Hermitian operators and their products. To begin with, we consider a two qubit case and express the partial transposition operation. In this case, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rph2q1} \rho_{2\otimes 2}^{T_1} =& A_1^1 {A_1^1}^{\dagger} \rho A_1^1 {A_1^1}^{\dagger} + A_1^1 \rho A_1^1 + {A_1^1}^{\dagger} \rho {A_1^1}^{\dagger}+
{A_1^1}^{\dagger}A_1^1 \rho {A_1^1}^{\dagger}A_1^1, \\
\label{rph2q2} \rho_{2\otimes 2}^{T_2} =& A_2^1 {A_2^1}^{\dagger} \rho A_2^1 {A_2^1}^{\dagger} + A_2^1 \rho A_2^1 + {A_2^1}^{\dagger} \rho {A_2^1}^{\dagger}+
{A_2^1}^{\dagger}A_2^1 \rho {A_2^1}^{\dagger}A_2^1. \end{aligned}$$ We can rewrite the above two expressions as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rph2qk} \rho_{2\otimes 2}^{T_k} = A_k^1 {A_k^1}^{\dagger} \rho A_k^1 {A_k^1}^{\dagger} + A_k^1 \rho A_k^1 + {A_k^1}^{\dagger} \rho {A_k^1}^{\dagger}+
{A_k^1}^{\dagger}A_k^1 \rho {A_k^1}^{\dagger}A_k^1, \end{aligned}$$ where $k=1$ and $2$ represent the partial transposition with respect to first and second subsystem respectively. We note here that the operators appearing in the expressions (\[rph2q1\]) and (\[rph2q2\]) are taken from the expectation value matrix $\rho_E$ (\[3c\]) (restricted to $2\otimes 2$). In other words, we have considered all the operators in the first and second subsystems.
Equation (\[rph2qk\]) can be generalized to an arbitrary bipartite state by considering all the operators present in the corresponding expectation value matrix (\[3c\]), that is ($k=1$ and $2$ correspond to the transposition) $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{M\otimes N}^{T_k} = &A_k^1 {A_k^1}^{\dagger} \rho A_k^1 {A_k^1}^{\dagger} + {A_k^1}^{\dagger} \rho {A_k^1}^{\dagger} + {A_k^2}^{\dagger} \rho {A_k^2}^{\dagger} \notag \\
\label{ptd} & + \cdots + {A_k^{{m_k}-1}}^{\dagger} A_k^{m_k} \rho {A_k^{{m_k}-1}}^{\dagger} A_k^{m_k} + {A_k^{m_k}}^{\dagger} A_k^{m_k} \rho
{A_k^{m_k}}^{\dagger} A_k^{m_k}, \end{aligned}$$ where $m_k=d_k-1$ corresponds to the subsystem $k$. Eq.(\[ptd\]) is an operational form of partial transposition. If the eigenvalues of the density matrix $\rho_{M\otimes N}^{T_k}$ are positive then the underlying state is separable in view of PPT criterion [@peres1996].
Separability condition {#sec4}
======================
In Refs.[@guhne2010; @gao2011] the biseparability and full separability criteria for $n$-partite quantum states using elements of density matrices were derived. In this work, we derive a separability criterion applicable to $C^d\otimes C^d$ bipartite states using the ideas given in the references [@guhne2010; @gao2011]. To begin with, we consider a pure two qubit separable state $|\psi\rangle = (a |0\rangle + b |1\rangle) \otimes (c |0\rangle + d |1\rangle)$. For this state, we have $|\rho_{1,4}|= \sqrt{\rho_{1,1} \rho_{4,4}}$ or $|\rho_{1,4}|= \sqrt{\rho_{2,2} \rho_{3,3}}$ and $|\rho_{2,3}|= \sqrt{\rho_{1,1} \rho_{4,4}}$ or $|\rho_{2,3}|= \sqrt{\rho_{2,2} \rho_{3,3}}$. The first two expressions yield $$\begin{aligned}
2 |\rho_{1,4}| = \sqrt{\rho_{1,1} \rho_{4,4}} + \sqrt{\rho_{2,2} \rho_{3,3}}. \end{aligned}$$ Using the inequality of arithmetic and geometric mean, the above expression can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rho14} 4 |\rho_{1,4}| \leq& (\rho_{1,1}+\rho_{4,4}) + 2 \sqrt{\rho_{2,2} \rho_{3,3}}. \end{aligned}$$ Similarly, for the element $|\rho_{2,3}|$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rho23} 4 |\rho_{2,3}| \leq (\rho_{1,1}+\rho_{4,4}) + 2 \sqrt{\rho_{2,2} \rho_{3,3}}.\end{aligned}$$ From these two expressions, (\[rho14\]) and (\[rho23\]), we can extract the following condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1423} 4 \max \left\{|\rho_{1,4}|,|\rho_{2,3}| \right\} \leq (\rho_{1,1}+\rho_{4,4}) + 2 \sqrt{\rho_{2,2} \rho_{3,3}}.\end{aligned}$$ One may also come across this type of inequalities in the partially separable multiqubit states [@seevinck2008].
Now we generalize the above condition to ${C}^d \otimes {C}^d$ bipartite states. In the two qubit case, we have derived the separability condition using the elements $|\rho_{1,4}|$ and $|\rho_{2,3}|$. In the higher dimensional case, we have a difficulty with which elements are to be measured. To choose the relevant elements, we consider expectation value of joint measurement opertors $A^{\dagger} B^{\dagger} / A B$ and its partially transposed and conjugated operator $ A^{\dagger} B / A B^{\dagger} $. We note here that to extract the required elements, we consider only $\langle A^{\dagger} B^{\dagger} \rangle$ and $\langle A^{\dagger} B \rangle$ which in turn provide non-zero off diagonal elements in Werner and isotropic classes of states [@chrus2006].
Before demonstrating how to extract the required elements by substituting the non-Hermitian operators $A$ and $B$, we justify the proposed expectation values, that is $\langle A^{\dagger} B^{\dagger} \rangle$ and $\langle A^{\dagger} B \rangle$, by considering two qubit states. Substituting the non-Hermitian operator $A=|0\rangle\langle 1|$, with $A=B$ and comparing the matrix (\[3d\]) with (\[rho\]), we can prove that the operators $\langle A^{\dagger} B^{\dagger} \rangle$ and $\langle A^{\dagger} B \rangle$ give the matrix elements $|\rho_{1,4}|$ and $|\rho_{2,3}|$ respectively. One may note that only these two elements appear in the entanglement condition (\[1423\]). With this verification now we proceed to construct separability condition for the higher dimensional states.
To begin with, we constitute the separability condition for the two qutrit state. We then generalize it to the two qudit states. In the two qutrit $(|\psi\rangle = (a |0\rangle + b |1\rangle + c |2\rangle) \otimes (d |0\rangle + e |1\rangle + f |2\rangle))$ separable case, we consider non-Hermitian operators $A$ and $B$ are of the form $|0\rangle \langle 1|, |0\rangle \langle 2|,$ and $|1\rangle
\langle 2|$ which are the possible operators in $|0\rangle, |1\rangle, |2\rangle$ bases. Considering $A=B$ and substituting $|0\rangle \langle 1|, |0\rangle \langle 2|$ and $|1\rangle \langle 2|$ in $\langle A^{\dagger} B^{\dagger} \rangle$ and comparing the matrix (\[3d\]) with (\[rho\]), we find that $\langle A^{\dagger} B^{\dagger} \rangle$ produces the matrix elements $|\rho_{1,5}|$, $|\rho_{1,9}|$ and $|\rho_{5,9}|$. In the present case, the underlying inequalities read $$\begin{aligned}
2 |\rho_{1,5}| \leq \frac{\rho_{1,1}+\rho_{5,5}}{2} + \sqrt{\rho_{2,2} \rho_{4,4}}, \notag \\
2 |\rho_{1,9}| \leq \frac{\rho_{1,1}+\rho_{9,9}}{2} + \sqrt{\rho_{3,3} \rho_{7,7}}, \notag \\
2 |\rho_{5,9}| \leq \frac{\rho_{5,5}+\rho_{9,9}}{2} + \sqrt{\rho_{6,6} \rho_{8,8}}. \end{aligned}$$ Adding and simplifying the above expressions, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tqt1} 2 \left( |\rho_{1,5}|+|\rho_{1,9}|+|\rho_{5,9}| \right) \leq &~\rho_{1,1}+\rho_{5,5}+\rho_{9,9} \notag \\
&~+ \left(\sqrt{\rho_{2,2} \rho_{4,4}} + \sqrt{\rho_{3,3} \rho_{7,7}} + \sqrt{\rho_{6,6} \rho_{8,8}} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Repeating the above analysis for the case $\langle A^{\dagger} B \rangle$ we end up with the following inequality, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tqt2}2 \left( |\rho_{2,4}|+|\rho_{3,7}|+|\rho_{6,8}| \right) \leq &~\rho_{1,1}+\rho_{5,5}+\rho_{9,9} \notag \\
&~+ \left(\sqrt{\rho_{2,2} \rho_{4,4}} + \sqrt{\rho_{3,3} \rho_{7,7}} + \sqrt{\rho_{6,6} \rho_{8,8}} \right). \end{aligned}$$ Combining the equations (\[tqt1\]) and (\[tqt2\]) suitably we obtain the separability condition for the two qutrit states in the form $$\begin{aligned}
2 \max &\left\{\left( |\rho_{1,5}|+|\rho_{1,9}|+|\rho_{5,9}| \right),\left( |\rho_{2,4}|+|\rho_{3,7}|+|\rho_{6,8}| \right)\right\} \notag \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \leq (\rho_{1,1}+\rho_{5,5}+\rho_{9,9}) + \big(\sqrt{\rho_{2,2} \rho_{4,4}} \notag \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad + \sqrt{\rho_{3,3} \rho_{7,7}} + \sqrt{\rho_{6,6} \rho_{8,8}} \big).\end{aligned}$$
Now we generalize the above conditions to the two qudit states. Substituting the non-Hermitian operators $|a_1\rangle\langle a_2|$, $|a_1\rangle\langle a_3|$, …, $|a_1\rangle\langle a_n|$, $|a_2\rangle\langle a_3|$, …, $|a_2\rangle\langle a_n|$, …, and $|a_{n-1}\rangle\langle a_n|$, which are in the $|a_1\rangle$, $|a_2\rangle$, $|a_3\rangle$, …, $|a_n\rangle$ bases, in the above expectation values of operators and following the procedure given above, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cond} 2 \times &\max \left\{ \sum_{0\leq i < j \leq (d-1)} |\rho_{i(d+1)+1,~j(d+1)+1}|, \sum_{0\leq i < j \leq (d-1)} |\rho_{id+j+1,~jd+i+1}| \right\} \notag \\
& \qquad \qquad \quad \leq\frac{(d-1)}{2} \sum_{i=0}^{d-1} \rho_{i(d+1)+1, i(d+1)+1} \notag \\
& \qquad \qquad \quad \quad+ \left( \sum_{0\leq i < j \leq (d-1)} \sqrt{\rho_{id+j+1,~id+j+1} \times \rho_{jd+i+1,~jd+i+1} } \right), \end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{p,q}$ represents the density matrix element in $p^{\text{th}}$ row and $q^{\text{th}}$ column and $d$ represents the dimension of a qudit state in ${C}^d \otimes {C}^d$ bipartite states. Using some simple algebras and Cauchy inequality we can extend the condition (\[cond\]) to mixed bipartite states as given in Ref.[@gao2011]. The inequality (\[cond\]) holds for mixed separable states and violation of this inequality implies that the state is entangled. As we have seen in Sect.\[sec3\], any expression involves density matrix elements can be reformulated by the expectation values given in (\[3d\]). Therefore, the experimental accessibility of the criterion (\[cond\]) also becomes possible [@toth2003; @guhne2010; @thew2002; @pati2014].
Examples {#sec5}
========
In this section, we illustrate the above ideas by considering various mixed states.\
1. We consider a $d \otimes d$ Werner state parametrized by $\eta \in \mathbb{R}$ [@werner1989; @jones2007]. $$W_d^{\eta} = \left(\frac{d-1+\eta}{d-1}\right) \frac{I}{d^2} - \left(\frac{\eta}{d-1} \right) \frac{V}{d}, \label{wer}$$ where $I$ is the identity operator, $ V=\sum_{i,j}^d |ij\rangle \langle ji|$ is the flip operator, $d$ is the dimension and $0\leq \eta\leq 1$. For $\eta = 0$, it becomes a separable state. Werner states are entangled for $\eta >1/(d+1)$ [@werner1989; @jones2007]. To identify the entangled regions of the above $d\otimes d$ Werner states for various $d$ values, we derive the following general function, $$\begin{aligned}
p =& \bigg[\frac{d-1+\eta-\eta d}{2 d} +\left(\sum_{i=1}^d (d-i)\right) \times \left(\frac{d-1+\eta}{(d-1)d^2}\right)\bigg] \notag\\
&\times \left(\frac{1}{2\left(\sum_{i=1}^d (d-i)\right)\times \frac{\eta}{(d-1)d}}\right), \end{aligned}$$ by applying the inequality (\[cond\]) on (\[wer\]). We plot the outcome in fig.1(a). For a given dimension, the value of this function is less than one, that is $p<1$, then the state is entangled. We also employ this function to study the higher dimensional Werner states (not included in figure). Our result shows that the entangled region keep on decreasing upto dimension $d =134$ and above this dimension, the entangled region becomes constant which in turn lies between $\eta=0.665$ and $\eta=1$.\
{width="85.00000%"}
2\. The isotropic states, which were introduced in Ref. [@horo1999], can be written as the mixtures of the maximally mixed state and maximally entangled state $|\psi_{+}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_{i=0}^{d-1} |ii\rangle$, that is $$\label{rhalp}\rho_{\alpha} = \frac{(1-\alpha)}{d^2} I + \alpha |\psi_+\rangle \langle \psi_+|,$$ where $0\leq \alpha \leq 1$ and $d$ is the dimension of states. Here also we aim to identify the entangled region of isotropic states. As we did in the previous case, we construct a function $$\begin{aligned}
q = \bigg[\frac{(d-1)d}{2}\times\left(\frac{1-\alpha}{d^2}+\frac{\alpha}{d}\right) + \left(\sum_{i=1}^{d}(d-i)\right)\times\frac{1-\alpha}{d^2}\bigg]\times \frac{1}{2\times\left(\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{d}(d-i)\right)\frac{\alpha}{d}}\end{aligned}$$ from the inequality (\[cond\]) for the $d\otimes d$ isotropic states (\[rhalp\]) and depict the result in fig.1(b). If $q<1$, then the state is entangled. We have also evaluated the function $q$ for higher dimensions $(d >1000)$ and observed that the entangled region of (\[rhalp\]) keep on increasing but the states are not entangled at $\alpha=0$.\
\
3. We consider another state [@li2012], which is a mixture of PPT entangled state and maximal entangled state, namely $$\label{pptme}\rho_p = (1-p) \rho_a + p P_+ ,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pptex}\rho_a = \frac{8a}{8a+1} \rho_{\mbox{insep}} + \frac{1}{8a+1} P_{\Phi_a}, \end{aligned}$$ $\rho_{\mbox{insep}} = \frac{3}{8} P_{\Psi} + \frac{1}{8} Q$, $\Phi_a = e_3 \otimes \left( \sqrt{\frac{1+a}{2}} e_1 + \sqrt{\frac{1-a}{2}} e_3 \right)$, $Q = I \otimes I - \big( \sum_{i=1}^3 P_{e_i}$ $\otimes P_{e_i} + P_{e_3} \otimes P_{e_1} \big)$, $\Psi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} (e_1 \otimes e_1 + e_2 \otimes e_2 + e_3 \otimes e_3)$, $0\leq a\leq 1 $ and $P_{+} = |\psi_+\rangle \langle\psi_+|$, $|\psi_+\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \sum_{i=0}^2 |ii\rangle$. The separability criterion in terms of the range of the density matrix detects the entanglement in (\[pptex\]) for $a\neq 0,1$ [@horo1997], in which $\rho_{\mbox{insep}}$ violates the condition (\[cond\]), indicating that the state is inseparable. The inequalities proposed in Ref.[@li2012] detects the entanglement for the whole region of $0<p\leq 1$ at $a=0.236$ for (\[pptme\]). Our inequality (\[cond\]) detects the entanglement for $0<a<1$ and $0<p\leq 1$. It also shows that while the parameter value $a$ increases, minimum value of $p$, to be entangled, is decreasing.\
\
4. Finally, we consider a state which is a mixture of $3\times 3$ state (form a Unextendible Product Bases) and the maximal entangled singlet [@li2012], that is $$\label{upbp}\rho_p = (1-p) \rho + p P_+,$$ where ${\displaystyle \rho = \frac{1}{4} \left( I - \sum_{i=0}^4 |\xi_i\rangle\langle \xi_i|\right)}$, $|\xi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |0\rangle (|0\rangle - |1\rangle)$, $|\xi_1\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|0\rangle - |1\rangle) |2\rangle$, $|\xi_2\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |2\rangle (|1\rangle - |2\rangle)$, $|\xi_3\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|1\rangle - |2\rangle) |0\rangle$ and $|\xi_4\rangle = \frac{1}{3} (|0\rangle +|1\rangle +|2\rangle)(|0\rangle +|1\rangle +|2\rangle)$ [@bennett1999], which is entangled according to the realignment criterion [@chen2003]. For the state (\[upbp\]), the Bell inequality [@li2010] detects the entanglement for $0.57602 \leq p \leq 1$ and inequality given in Ref.[@li2012] detects the entanglement for $0.18221 \leq p \leq 1$. Our condition (\[cond\]) detects the entanglement for $0.44 \leq p \leq 1$.
\[sec6\]Conclusion
==================
In this paper, we have exploited the utility of non-Hermitian operators to characterize the bipartite states. We have constructed a new form of density matrix whose elements are expressed in terms of expectation values of non-Hermitian operators and their products from which we have shown that the condition which involves matrix elements can be reformulated in terms of expectation values of operators and vice versa. We then derived the separability condition for ${C}^d \otimes {C}^d$ bipartite states in terms of density matrix elements using non-Hermitian operators and it can be reformulated in the form of expectation values of non-Hermitian operators and their products. We have utilized our condition to detect entanglement in $d\otimes d$ Werner states, $d\otimes d$ Isotropic states, $3\otimes 3$ PPT entangled state and Unextendible product bases mixed with maximally entangled state. Through this work we have brought out the utility of non-Hermitian operators in identifying each and every element of the given state and demonstrated how they are useful in detecting entanglement. The application of this procedure to multipartite states is under progress.
Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000) Peres, A.: Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York (2002)
Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., Horodecki, K.: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{}, 865 (2009) Gühne, O., Tóth, G.: Phys. Rep. [**474**]{}, 1 (2009) Doherty, A.C., Parrilo, P.A., Spedalieri, F.M.: Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 022308 (2004) Bruß, D.: J. Math. Phys. [**43**]{}, 4237 (2002)
Peres, A.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 1413 (1996) Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, R.: Phys. Lett. A [**223**]{}, 1 (1996) Horodecki, P.: Phys. Lett. A [**232**]{}, 333 (1997) Rudolph, O.: Quantum Inf. Pro. [**4**]{}, 219 (2005)
Gisin, N., Peres, A.: Phys. Lett. A [**162**]{}, 15 (1992)
Collins, D., Gisin, N., Linden, N., Massar, S., Popescu, S.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 040404 (2002)
Li, M., Fei, S.M.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 240502 (2010)
Ha, K-C.: Phys. Rev. A [**82**]{}, 014102 (2010) Zhao, M.J., Ma, T., Fei, S.M., Wang, Z.X.: Phys. Rev. A [**83**]{}, 052120 (2011)
Chruściński, D., Kossakowski, A.: Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 022308 (2006)
Tóth, G., Simon, C., Cirac, J.I.: Phys. Rev. A [**68**]{}, 062310 (2003)
Shchukin, E., Vogel, W.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 230502 (2005)
Hillery, M., Zubairy, M.S.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 050503 (2006)
Hillery, M., Zubairy, M.S.: Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 032333 (2006) Hillery, M., Dung, H.T., Niset, J.: Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 052335 (2009)
Hillery, M., Dung, H.T., Zheng, H.: Phys. Rev. A [**81**]{}, 062322 (2010)
Gühne, O., Seevinck, M.: New J. Phys. [**12**]{}, 053002 (2010)
Gao, T., Hong, Y.: Eur. Phys. J. D [**61**]{}, 765 (2011)
Lewenstein, M., Bruß, D., Cirac, J.I., Kraus, B., Kus, M., Samsonowicz, J., Sanpera, A., Tarrach, R.: J Mod. Opt. [**47**]{}, 2481 (2000)
Seevinck, M., Uffink, J.: Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 032101 (2008)
Thew, R.T., Nemoto, K., White, A.G., Munro, W.J.: Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{}, 012303 (2002)
Pati, A.K., Singh, U., Sinha, U.: arxiv:1406.3007
Werner, R.F.: Phys. Rev. A [**40**]{}, 4277 (1989)
Jones, S.J., Wiseman, H.M., Doherty, A.C.: Phys. Rev. A [**76**]{}, 052116 (2007)
Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P.: Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 4206 (1999)
Li, M., Yan, T.J., Fei, S.M.: J. Phys. A : Math. Theor. [**45**]{}, 035301 (2012)
Bennett, C.H., DiVincenzo, D.P., Mor, T., Shor, P.W., Smolin, J.A., Terhal, B.M.: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 5385 (1999)
Chen, K., Wu, L.A.: Quantum Inform. Comput. [**3**]{}, 193 (2003)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'First-principles total-energy calculations are carried out for (001) surfaces of the cubic perovskite ATiO$_3$ compounds PbTiO$_3$, BaTiO$_3$, and SrTiO$_3$. Both AO-terminated and TiO$_2$-terminated surfaces are considered, and fully-relaxed atomic configurations are determined. In general, BaTiO$_3$ and SrTiO$_3$ are found to have a rather similar behavior, while PbTiO$_3$ is different in many respects because of the partially covalent character of the Pb–O bonds. PbTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$ are ferroelectrics, and the influence of the surface upon the ferroelectric distortions is studied for the case of a tetragonal ferroelectric distortion parallel to the surface. The surface relaxation energies are found to be substantial, i.e., many times larger than the bulk ferroelectric well depth. Nevertheless, the influence of the surface upon the ferroelectric order parameter is modest, and is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different for the two materials. Surface energies and electronic properties are also computed. It is found that for BaTiO$_3$ and SrTiO$_3$ surfaces, both AO-terminated and TiO$_2$-terminated surfaces can be thermodynamically stable, whereas for PbTiO$_3$ only the PbO surface termination is stable.'
address: 'Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-0849'
author:
- 'B. Meyer, J. Padilla, and David Vanderbilt'
date: 'March 1, 1999'
title: 'Theory of PbTiO$_3$, BaTiO$_3$, and SrTiO$_3$ Surfaces'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The surfaces of insulating cubic perovskite materials such as PbTiO$_3$, BaTiO$_3$, and SrTiO$_3$ are of interest from several points of view. First, some of these materials (notably SrTiO$_3$) are very widely used as substrates for growth of other oxide materials (e.g., layered high-$T_c$ superconductors and “colossal magnetoresistance” materials). Second, this class of materials is of enormous importance for actual and potential applications that make use of their unusual piezoelectric, ferroelectric, and dielectric properties (e.g., for piezoelectric transducers, non-volatile memories, and wireless communications applications, respectively). Many of these applications are increasingly oriented towards thin-film geometries, where surface properties are of growing importance. Third, the bulk materials display a variety of structural phase transitions; the ferroelectric (FE) structural phases are of special interest, but antiferroelectric (AFE) or antiferrodistortive (AFD) transitions can also take place.[@lines] It is then of considerable fundamental interest to consider how these structural distortions couple to the surface, e.g., whether the presence of the surface acts to enhance or suppress the structural distortion. The ferroelectric properties are well known to degrade in thin-film[@tsai] and particulate[@niepce] geometries, and it is very important to understand whether such behavior is intrinsic to the presence of a surface, or whether it arises from extrinsic factors such as compositional non-uniformities or structural defects in the surface region. Finally, the cubic perovskites can serve as model systems for the study of transition-metal oxide surfaces more generally.[@cox]
In the last decade, there has been a surge of activity in the application of first-principles computational methods based on density-functional theory (DFT) to the study of the bulk properties, and especially the ferroelectric transitions, in bulk perovskite oxides. (For a recent review, see Ref. or .) The importance of these methods was recently underlined by the award of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Walter Kohn, the primary originator of DFT. In the materials theory community, these methods have been widely used for two decades to predict properties of semiconductors and simple metals. However, recent advances in computational algorithms and computer power now allow these methods to be applied to more complex materials (e.g., perovskites) and more complex geometries (e.g., defects and surfaces). In particular, pioneering studies of BaTiO$_3$ [@cohen1; @cohen2; @pad-ba] and SrTiO$_3$ [@kimura; @pad-sr; @li-et-al] surfaces have recently appeared.
Experimental investigations of the surface structure of cubic perovskites have not been very extensive. Such studies are hindered by the difficulties of preparing clean and defect-free surfaces, and of overcoming charging effects associated with many experimental probes. Even for SrTiO$_3$, the best-studied of these surfaces, there is a disappointing level of agreement among experimental results [@hikita; @bickel; @naito; @kita] and between experiment and theory.[@pad-sr] We are not aware of comparable studies of BaTiO$_3$ and PbTiO$_3$ surfaces.
The purpose of the present contribution is to present new theoretical work on the structural properties of the PbTiO$_3$ (001) surface, and to compare and contrast these results with the previous work of our group on BaTiO$_3$ and SrTiO$_3$ surfaces.[@pad-ba; @pad-sr] As regards bulk properties, lead-based compounds such as PbTiO$_3$ and PbZrO$_3$ are known to behave quite differently from alkaline-earth based perovskites such as BaTiO$_3$ and SrTiO$_3$. Previous theoretical work has shown that the FE distortion is typically larger and that Pb atoms participate much more strongly in (and sometimes even dominate) the FE distortion, compared with non-Pb perovskites.[@coh-nature; @coh-krak-2; @king; @gar-pr; @rabe-pbzr] Moreover, the Pb-based compounds are generally more susceptible to more complex AFD and AFE instabilities involving tilting of the oxygen octahedra,[@gar-pr; @rabe-pbzr; @z-sr; @singh-pbzr] and the ground-state structures often involve the formation of some quite short Pb–O bonds.[@singh-pbzr; @lb-pzt; @lb-hetero; @egami] All of these effects point to a strong and active involvement of the Pb atoms in the bonding, most naturally interpreted in terms of the formation of partially covalent Pb–O bonds with the closest oxygen neighbors. Finally, a focus on Pb-based materials is motivated by the fact that these are the leading candidates for many practical piezoelectric and switching applications, especially in the form of solid solutions such as PZT (PbZr$_x$Ti$_{1-x}$O$_3$), PMN (PbMg$_{1/3}$Nb$_{2/3}$O$_3$), and PZN (PbZn$_{1/3}$Nb$_{2/3}$O$_3$).
The manuscript is organized as follows. Section II contains a brief account of the technical details of the work, including the theoretical methods used, the slab geometries studied, and the formulation of the surface energy. In Sec. III we present the computed structural relaxations of the PbTiO$_3$ surfaces, and compare these to the previous results on BaTiO$_3$ and SrTiO$_3$ surfaces. Additionally, we discuss the surface energetics (surface energies and surface relaxation energies), and point out some characteristic differences in the surface electronic structure of the three compounds. Finally, the paper ends with a summary in Sec. \[sec:summary\].
Preliminaries
=============
Theoretical Methods
-------------------
We carried out self-consistent plane-wave pseudopotential calculations within Kohn-Sham density-functional theory using a conjugate-gradient technique.[@king] Exchange and correlation were treated using the Ceperley-Alder form.[@ceper] Vanderbilt ultrasoft pseudopotentials were employed,[@vand-usp] with semicore Pb $5d$, Ba $5s$ and $5p$, Sr $4s$ and $4p$, and Ti $3s$ and $3p$ orbitals included as valence states. A plane-wave cutoff of 25 Ry has been used throughout. Relaxations of atomic coordinates are iterated until the forces are less than 0.01 eV/Å. Justification of the convergence and accuracy of this approach can be found in the previously published work.[@pad-ba; @pad-sr; @king]
Surface and Slab Geometries {#sec:geometry}
---------------------------
In this work we consider only II-IV cubic perovskites, i.e., ABO$_3$ perovskites in which atoms A and B are divalent and tetravalent, respectively. In this case, two non-polar (001) surface terminations are possible: the AO–terminated surface, and the BO$_2$–terminated surface.
$\phantom{dummy}$ =3.0in
We have studied both types of surface termination for all three materials (PbTiO$_3$, BaTiO$_3$, and SrTiO$_3$) using a repeated slab geometry. The slabs are symmetrically terminated and typically contain seven layers (17 or 18 atoms), as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:slab\]. The vacuum region was chosen to be two lattice constants thick. The calculations were done using a (4,4,2) Monkhorst-Pack mesh,[@mesh] corresponding to three or four k-points in the irreducible Brillouin zone for cubic and tetragonal surfaces respectively. The convergence of the calculations has been very carefully checked for PbTiO$_3$ by repeating some of the calculations with asymmetrically terminated eight-layer slabs and symmetrically terminated nine-layer slabs. Additionally, we have enlarged the vacuum region to a thickness of three lattice constants, and we have checked the convergence of the Brillouin zone integration by going to a (6,6,2) k-point mesh. In all cases, the results for the structural properties of the surfaces given in the Tables \[tab:relaxI\] to \[tab:fedist\] change by less than 0.2%.
For all three materials, we first computed the relaxations for the “cubic” surface, i.e., for the case where there is no symmetry lowering relative to a slab of ideal cubic material. In this case we preserved $M_x$, $M_y$, and $M_z$ mirror symmetries relative to the center of the slab, and set the lattice constants in the $\widehat{x}$ and $\widehat{y}$ directions equal to those computed theoretically for the corresponding bulk material (3.89 Å, 3.95 Å, and 3.86 Å for PbTiO$_3$, BaTiO$_3$, and SrTiO$_3$, respectively). The symmetry-allowed displacements of the atoms in the $z$ (surface-normal) direction were then fully relaxed.
Each of the three materials studied displays a different sequence of structural phase transitions from the cubic paraelectric phase as the temperature is lowered.[@lines] PbTiO$_3$ undergoes a single transition into a tetragonal ferroelectric (FE) phase at 763K and then remains in this structure down to zero temperature. BaTiO$_3$ displays a series of three transitions to tetragonal, orthorhombic, and rhombohedral FE phases at 403K, 278K, and 183K, respectively. SrTiO$_3$ remains cubic down to 105K, at which point it undergoes an antiferrodistortive transition involving rotation of the oxygen octahedra and doubling of the unit cell. The material nearly goes ferroelectric at about $T=30$K, but is evidently prevented from doing so by quantum zero-point fluctuations.[@zhong-qsr]
Because we are primarily interested in the room-temperature structures of these materials and their surfaces, we have chosen to focus on the tetragonal FE phases of PbTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$ for our surface studies. We consider only the case of the tetragonal $c$ axis (i.e., polarization) lying [*parallel*]{} to the surface, since polarization normal to the surface is strongly suppressed by the depolarization fields that would arise from the accumulated charge at the surfaces.[@zhong-loto] We take the tetragonal axis to lie along $\widehat{x}$, and relax the $M_x$ symmetry while retaining the $M_y$ and $M_z$ symmetries with respect to the center of the slab. For PbTiO$_3$, which is tetragonal at $T=0$, this will indeed be the ground-state structure of the slab. For BaTiO$_3$, on the other hand, the $M_y$ symmetry is artificially imposed so that the theoretical $T=0$ calculation will mimic the experimental room-temperature surface structure. In both cases, the slab lattice constants in the $\widehat{x}$ and $\widehat{y}$ directions were set equal to the corresponding theoretical equilibrium lattice constants computed for the bulk tetragonal phase: $c$=4.04 Å and $a$=3.86 Å for PbTiO$_3$, and $c$=3.99 Å and $a$=3.94 Å for BaTiO$_3$.
Surface Energies {#sec:surfenergy}
----------------
A comparison of the relative stability of the AO and TiO$_2$ surface terminations is problematic because the corresponding surface slabs contain different numbers of AO and TiO$_2$ formula subunits. We treat this problem by introducing chemical potentials $\mu_{\rm AO}$ and $\mu_{\rm TiO_2}$ for these subunits, defined in such a way that $\mu_{\rm AO}=0$ and $\mu_{\rm TiO_2}=0$ correspond to thermal equilibrium with bulk crystalline AO and TiO$_2$, respectively. We have computed the cohesive energies $E_{\rm AO}$ and $E_{\rm TiO_2}$ of crystalline PbO, BaO, SrO, and TiO$_2$ using the same first-principles pseudopotential method in order to provide these reference values. The grand potential for a given surface structure can then be computed as $$F_{\rm surf} = {1\over 2} [ E_{\rm slab}
- N_{\rm TiO_2} ( E_{\rm TiO_2} + \mu_{\rm TiO_2} )
- N_{\rm AO} ( E_{\rm AO} + \mu_{\rm AO} ) ] \;,$$ where $N$ is the number of formula subunits contained in the slab, and the factor of $1/2$ accounts for the fact that each slab contains two surfaces. Assuming that the surface of the ATiO$_3$ is in equilibrium with its own bulk, it follows that $$\mu_{\rm AO} + \mu_{\rm TiO_2} = -E_{\rm f} \;,$$ where $E_{\rm f}$ is the heat of formation of bulk ATiO$_3$ from bulk AO and bulk TiO$_2$. The two chemical potentials are thus not independent, and we choose to treat $\mu_{\rm TiO_2}$ as the independent variable when presenting our results. Accordingly, $\mu_{\rm TiO_{2}}$ is allowed to vary over the range $$-E_{\rm f} \le \mu_{\rm TiO_{2}}\le 0 \;,$$ the lower and upper limit corresponding to the precipitation of particulates of AO and TiO$_2$ on the surface, respectively.
Results and Discussions {#sec:results}
=======================
Structural relaxations {#sec:structure}
----------------------
We begin by presenting our new results on the structural properties of the PbTiO$_3$ (001) surfaces. The equilibrium atomic positions for both surface terminations in the two phases were obtained by starting from the ideal structures of the surfaces and then relaxing the atomic positions while preserving the symmetries described in section \[sec:geometry\]. The results for the fully relaxed geometries are summarized in Table \[tab:relaxI\] and \[tab:relaxII\]. By symmetry, there are no forces along $\widehat{x}$ and $\widehat{y}$ for the cubic surface, and no forces along $\widehat{y}$ for the tetragonal surface.
Tables \[tab:relaxI\] and \[tab:relaxII\] show for both surfaces a substantial inward contraction towards the bulk for the uppermost surface layers, whereas for the second layers we find an outward relaxation of the atoms relative to the positions of the atoms on the ideal surface. Generally, the metal and the oxygen atoms move in the same direction, but the relaxations of the metal atoms are much larger, leading to a rumpling of the layers. The single exception is the surface layer of the tetragonal TiO$_2$–terminated surface, where one of the two oxygen atoms moves in the opposite direction to the metal atom. Therefore we can see here a significant asymmetry between the O atoms with respect to their positions perpendicular to the surface. This asymmetry between the oxygen atoms in the topmost surface layer of the tetragonal TiO$_2$–terminated surface was also found for BaTiO$_3$ but with a much smaller amplitude. As expected, we find the largest relaxations for the surface–layer atoms, but the displacement of the Pb atom in the second layer of the TiO$_2$–terminated surface is of the same magnitude.
In order to compare these results with previous calculations for SrTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$, we have calculated the changes in the interlayer distances $\Delta d_{ij}$ and the amplitudes of the rumpling $\eta_i$ of the layers in the surface slabs for all three perovskites. The results for both surface terminations and the different phases are given in the Tables \[tab:surfI\] and \[tab:surfII\]. We denote the change in the $z$ position of a
[lddd]{} Atom & $\delta_z(C)$ & $\delta_x(T)$ & $\delta_z(T)$\
Pb(1) & $-$4.36 & $-$3.44 & $-$2.38\
O$_{\rm III}$(1) & $-$0.46 & $+$11.85 & $-$1.17\
Ti(2) & $+$2.39 & $+$3.62 & $+$1.15\
O$_{\rm I}$(2) & $+$1.21 & $+$9.27 & $+$0.81\
O$_{\rm II}$(2) & $+$1.21 & $+$11.45 & $+$0.06\
Pb(3) & $-$1.37 & $+$0.00 & $-$0.81\
O$_{\rm III}$(3) & $-$0.20 & $+$11.14 & $-$0.17\
Ti(4) & 0 & $+$3.86 & 0\
O$_{\rm I}$(4) & 0 & $+$9.60 & 0\
O$_{\rm II}$(4) & 0 & $+$10.98 & 0\
[lddd]{} Atom & $\delta_z(C)$ & $\delta_x(T)$ & $\delta_z(T)$\
Ti(1) & $-$3.40 & $+$3.62 & $-$3.47\
O$_{\rm I}$(1) & $-$0.34 & $+$9.27 & $-$1.60\
O$_{\rm II}$(1) & $-$0.34 & $+$11.45 & $+$0.79\
Pb(2) & $+$4.53 & $+$0.00 & $+$4.06\
O$_{\rm III}$(2) & $+$0.43 & $+$11.14 & $+$0.17\
Ti(3) & $-$0.92 & $+$3.86 & $-$0.79\
O$_{\rm I}$(3) & $-$0.27 & $+$9.60 & $-$0.03\
O$_{\rm II}$(3) & $-$0.27 & $+$10.98 & $-$0.06\
Pb(4) & 0 & $-$3.44 & 0\
O$_{\rm III}$(4) & 0 & $+$11.85 & 0\
metal atom relative to the ideal unrelaxed structure as $\delta_z({\rm M})$, and $\delta_z({\rm O})$ is the same for the oxygen atom in the same layer (defined as $[\delta_z({\rm O_I}) + \delta_z({\rm O_{II}})]/2$ for a TiO$_2$ layer). We then define the change of the interlayer distance $\Delta d_{ij}$ as the difference between the averaged atomic displacements $[\delta_z({\rm M})+\delta_z({\rm O})]/2$ of layer $i$ and $j$, and the rumpling $\eta_i$ is defined as the amplitude of these displacements $|\delta_z({\rm M}) - \delta_z({\rm O})|$. From Tables \[tab:surfI\] and \[tab:surfII\] we can see that, for all three perovskites and for both terminations, the surfaces display a similar oscillating relaxation pattern with a reduction of the interlayer distance $d_{12}$, an expansion of $d_{23}$ and again a reduction for $d_{34}$. However, compared to BaTiO$_3$ and SrTiO$_3$, the amplitudes of the relaxations in PbTiO$_3$ are significantly increased.
$\phantom{dummy}$ =0.5
[l|d|dd|dd]{} & SrTiO$_3$ & &\
& & & & &\
$\Delta d_{12}$ & $-$3.4 & $-$2.8 & $-$2.8 & $-$4.2 & $-$2.6\
$\Delta d_{23}$ & $+$1.2 & $+$1.1 & $+$1.1 & $+$2.6 & $+$1.3\
$\Delta d_{34}$ & $-$0.6 & $-$0.4 & $-$0.4 & $-$0.8 & $-$0.5\
$\eta_1$ & 5.8 & 1.4 & 1.5 & 3.9 & 1.2\
$\eta_2$ & 1.2 & 0.4 & 0.5 & 1.2 & 0.7\
$\eta_3$ & 1.1 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 1.2 & 0.6\
[l|d|dd|dd]{} & SrTiO$_3$ & &\
& & & & &\
$\Delta d_{12}$ & $-$3.5 & $-$3.1 & $-$2.9 & $-$4.4 & $-$4.1\
$\Delta d_{23}$ & $+$1.6 & $+$0.9 & $+$1.2 & $+$3.1 & $+$2.5\
$\Delta d_{34}$ & $-$0.6 & $-$0.6 & $-$0.4 & $-$0.6 & $-$0.4\
$\eta_1$ & 1.8 & 2.3 & 2.5 & 3.1 & 3.1\
$\eta_2$ & 3.0 & 1.9 & 2.1 & 4.1 & 3.9\
$\eta_3$ & 0.2 & 0.4 & 0.4 & 0.7 & 0.8\
The second interesting feature of Tables \[tab:surfI\] and \[tab:surfII\] is that for BaTiO$_3$, there is almost no difference in the relaxations of the surface layers between the cubic and the tetragonal phase. The same is true for the TiO$_2$–terminated surface of PbTiO$_3$. For the PbO–terminated surface, in contrast, the changes in the interlayer distances and the layer rumplings are strongly reduced in the tetragonal phase. We will come back to this point at the end of the next subsection.
Influence of the surface upon ferroelectricity {#sec:fe}
----------------------------------------------
We turn now to the question of whether the presence of the surface has a strong effect upon the near–surface ferroelectricity. To analyze whether the ferroelectric order is enhanced or suppressed near the surface, we introduce average ferroelectric distortions $\delta_{\rm FE}$ for each layer of the surface slabs:
[c|dd|dd|dd|dd]{} & &\
& & & &\
layer & $\delta_{\rm FE}$(BaO) & $\delta_{\rm FE}$(TiO$_2$) & $\delta_{\rm FE}$(PbO) & $\delta_{\rm FE}$(TiO$_2$) & $\delta_{\rm FE}$(BaO) & $\delta_{\rm FE}$(TiO$_2$) & $\delta_{\rm FE}$(PbO) & $\delta_{\rm FE}$(TiO$_2$)\
1 & 1.6 & & 15.3 & & & 4.4 & & 5.7\
2 & & 1.8 & & 6.8 & 1.4 & & 7.0 &\
3 & 1.3 & & 11.1 & & & 3.4 & & 6.3\
4 & & 2.6 & & 6.4 & 1.7 & & 9.7 &\
bulk & 1.5 & 3.2 & 10.4 & 6.4 & 1.5 & 3.2 & 10.4 & 6.4\
$$\begin{array}{rcll}
\delta_{\rm FE} & = &
| \delta_x({\rm A}) - \delta_x({\rm O_{III}})| &
\mbox{for AO planes and} \\
\delta_{\rm FE} & = &
| \delta_x({\rm Ti}) - [\delta_x({\rm O_{I}}) + \delta_x({\rm O_{II}})]/2|
\qquad &
\mbox{for TiO$_2$ planes.}
\end{array}$$
The calculated values of $\delta_{\rm FE}$ for BaTiO$_3$ and PbTiO$_3$ are given in Table \[tab:fedist\]; the last row of the table gives the bulk values for reference.
For the PbO–terminated surface of PbTiO$_3$, one can see a clear increase in the average ferroelectric distortions $\delta_{\rm FE}$ when going from the bulk values to the surface layer. On the other hand, for the TiO$_2$–terminated surface, the average distortions are slightly decreased at the surface. Surprisingly, this is just the opposite of what one observes for BaTiO$_3$, where one sees a reduction of the ferroelectric distortions for the BaO–terminated surface and a moderate enhancement for the TiO$_2$–terminated surface. (Of course, the distortions are also much smaller for BaTiO$_3$ surfaces, as they are in the bulk, compared to PbTiO$_3$.) These results tend to confirm that Pb is a much more active constituent in PbTiO$_3$ than is Ba in BaTiO$_3$, presumably because of the partially covalent nature of the Pb–O bonds as discussed in Sec. \[sec:introduction\].
In any case, the present results again confirm that the presence of the surface does not lead to any drastic suppression of the ferroelectric order near the surface, supporting the view that extrinsic effects must be responsible for degradation of ferroelectricity in thin-film geometries.
$\phantom{dummy}$ =0.6
Finally, we note that there are interesting signs of interplay between the relaxations parallel and perpendicular to the surface for PbTiO$_3$. In particular, the relaxations perpendicular to the surface are substantially reduced (by a factor of $\sim$3) on the PbO-terminated surface when going from the cubic to the tetragonal case. This can be rationalized as follows. Because of the partial covalency of the Pb–O bonds, there is a tendency to reduce the Pb–O bond length (this length is 2.75, 2.51, and 2.30 Å in cubic PbTiO$_3$, tetragonal PbTiO$_3$, and PbO, respectively). For the cubic surface, by symmetry, the only possibility to shorten this bond length is by a strong movement of the Pb atom towards the bulk and a strong movement upwards of the O atoms in the second layer. This leads to the strong rumpling and the decrease of $d_{12}$. But in the tetragonal phase there is also the possibility to enlarge the ferroelectric distortion in order to shorten the Pb–O bond length. Evidently, the enlargement of the ferroelectric distortion is preferred to the relaxation perpendicular to the surface.
Surface energies {#surface-energies}
----------------
In this section we discuss the surface energetics of the three perovskite compounds. In order to compare the relative stability of the AO– and TiO$_2$–terminated surfaces, we have calculated the grand thermodynamic potential $F_{\rm surf}$ (as introduced in Sec. \[sec:surfenergy\]) for the different surfaces as a function of the chemical potential $\mu_{\rm TiO_2}$. The results for the tetragonal surfaces of BaTiO$_3$ and PbTiO$_3$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:fsurf\]. The graphs of the grand thermodynamic potentials for the SrTiO$_3$ surfaces are very similar to those of BaTiO$_3$ and are therefore not shown separately.
Figure \[fig:fsurf\] shows a very different behavior for the BaTiO$_3$ and PbTiO$_3$ surfaces. First of all, the formation energy $E_{\rm f}$ of PbTiO$_3$ (when formed from bulk PbO and TiO$_2$) is 0.36 eV, much lower than the formation energies of SrTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$ which are about 3.2 eV. This leads to a much smaller range for the chemical potential $\mu_{\rm TiO_2}$ for which PbTiO$_3$ surfaces can grow in thermodynamic equilibrium. Second, for BaTiO$_3$ the two different surfaces have a comparable range of thermodynamic stability, indicating that either BaO–terminated surfaces or TiO$_2$–terminated surfaces could be formed depending on whether growth occurs in Ba–rich or Ti–rich conditions. In contrast, for PbTiO$_3$ only the PbO–terminated surface can be obtained in thermodynamic equilibrium.
[l|d|dd|dd]{} & SrTiO$_3$ & &\
& & & & &\
$E_{\rm f}$ & 3.2 & 3.20 & 3.23 & 0.30 & 0.36\
$E_{\rm surf}$ & 1.26 & 1.24 & 1.24 & 0.97 & 0.97\
$E_{\rm relax}$ & 0.18 & 0.13 & & 0.21 & 0.22\
To get a quantity describing the surface energetics that is independent of the chemical potential $\mu_{\rm TiO_2}$ and therefore allows a more direct comparison of the three compounds, we define the average surface energy per surface unit cell $$E_{\rm surf} = \frac{1}{4} \Big( E_{\rm slab}^{\rm AO} +
E_{\rm slab}^{\rm TiO_2} - 7\, E_{\rm bulk} \Big) \;,$$ which is equal to the average of the grand thermodynamic potential $F_{\rm surf}$ for the two kinds of surfaces. Again, the results for $E_{\rm surf}$ shown in Table \[tab:energies\] are very similar for SrTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$, whereas the value for PbTiO$_3$ is significantly lower.
Finally we have computed the average relaxation energy $E_{\rm relax}$ of the three perovskite compounds. $E_{\rm relax}$ is defined as the difference between the average surface energy $E_{\rm surf}$ of the ideal surface without relaxation of the atoms, and the fully relaxed surfaces. The largest and smallest value for $E_{\rm relax}$ (see Table \[tab:energies\]) were found for PbTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$, respectively, which is in agreement with the observation that the atomic relaxations are largest in PbTiO$_3$ and smallest in BaTiO$_3$.
For all three compounds the average relaxation energy $E_{\rm relax}$ is many times larger than a typical bulk ferroelectric well depth, which is approximately 0.03 eV for BaTiO$_3$ and 0.05 eV for PbTiO$_3$. This would indicate that the surface is capable of acting as a strong perturbation on the ferroelectric order. As we have shown in Sec. \[sec:fe\], this is not the case for BaTiO$_3$ and PbTiO$_3$. One reason why the ferroelectric order is not as strongly affected by the surface as one might have thought has been pointed out in Ref. : the soft phonon eigenmode, which is responsible for the ferroelectric distortion, is only one of three zone center modes having the same symmetry. By looking at how strongly the surface relaxations are related to each of these zone center modes it has turned out that the distortions induced by the presence of the surface are to a large extent of non–ferroelectric character.
Surface band structure
----------------------
For all three perovskite compounds we have carried out LDA calculations of the bulk and the surface electronic structure for our various surface slabs. It is well known that the LDA is quantitatively unreliable regarding excitation properties such as band gaps. Since we are in the following only looking at differences between band structures, we think that our conclusions drawn from the LDA results are nevertheless qualitatively correct.
As has already been shown in Ref. , the bulk band structures of SrTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$ are very similar, whereas PbTiO$_3$ shows some significant differences. In SrTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$ the upper edge of the valence band is very flat throughout the Brillouin zone. On the other hand, in PbTiO$_3$ the shallow $6s$ semicore states of the Pb atoms hybridize with the $2p$ states of the O atoms, leading to a lifting of the upper valence band states near the X point of the Brillouin zone.
[l|d|dd|dd]{} & SrTiO$_3$ & &\
& & & & &\
AO-term. & 1.86 & 1.80 & 2.01 & 1.53 & 2.12\
TiO$_2$-term. & 1.13 & 0.84 & 1.18 & 1.61 & 1.79\
bulk & 1.85 & 1.79 & 1.80 & 1.54 & 1.56\
This fact is responsible for a different behavior of the PbTiO$_3$ surface band structure compared to SrTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$. If we look at the calculated band gaps in Table \[tab:bdgap\], we see that for TiO$_2$–terminated surfaces the band gap is significantly reduced for SrTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$, whereas for PbTiO$_3$ the band gap is almost unchanged. The reduction of the band gap in SrTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$ is mainly due to an upward intrusion of the upper valence band states near the M point into the lower part of the band gap (as pointed out in Ref. , this is caused by the suppression of the hybridization of certain O $2p$ and Ti $3d$ orbitals in the surface layer). In PbTiO$_3$ we find the same upward movement of the upper valence band states near the M point, but these states stay just below the highest valence states at the X point, and so the band gap is almost unchanged.
On the other hand, for the AO–terminated surfaces we see no reduction of the band gap for any of the three perovskite compounds. Even here, however, there is a subtle difference between PbTiO$_3$ and the other materials, this time concerning the conduction band edge. According to our calculations, the Pb $6p$ states overlap the Ti $3d$ states to some degree in bulk PbTiO$_3$, and this effect is accentuated at the $\Gamma$ point of the surface Brillouin zone on the Pb–O terminated surface, where the lowest Pb $6p$ state falls just below the lowest Ti $3d$ state. We thus suggest that the conduction band minimum may actually have Pb $6p$ character at this surface, although the effect is too small to affect the band gaps in Table \[tab:bdgap\] substantially. This might be an interesting target of investigation for future spectroscopic experimental studies.
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
In summary, we have calculated structural and electronic properties of PbTiO$_3$ (001) surfaces using a first-principles density-functional approach. The results are compared and contrasted with corresponding previous calculations on BaTiO$_3$ and SrTiO$_3$ surfaces. We observe qualitatively different behavior of the PbTiO$_3$ surfaces in several respects. First, within the narrow range of PbO and TiO$_2$ chemical potentials permitted by bulk thermodynamics, we find that the TiO$_2$-terminated surface is never thermodynamically stable. Thus, the PbO-terminated surface is expected to be the one observed experimentally. Second, the interaction between the ferroelectric distortion and the presence of the surface is quite different for PbTiO$_3$, compared to BaTiO$_3$. In particular, the ferroelectricity is strongly enhanced at the AO-terminated surface and suppressed at the TiO$_2$-terminated surface, just the opposite of the behavior found for BaTiO$_3$. Moreover, the ferroelectric distortion at the surface allows for a drastic reduction of the rumpling of the surface layer on the PbO-terminated surface, an effect which is not seen on the BaO-terminated of BaTiO$_3$. Third, the surface electronic band structure is qualitatively modified in the case of PbTiO$_3$ by the presence of Pb $6s$ and $6p$ states in the upper valence and lower conduction regions.
This work was supported by the ONR grant N00014-97-1-0048.
M.E. Lines and A.M. Glass, [*Principles and Applications of Ferroelectrics and Related Materials,*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977); F. Jona and G. Shirane, [*Ferroelectric Crystals,*]{} (Dover Publications, New York, 1993).
F. Tsai and J.M. Cowley, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**65**]{}, 1906 (1994).
J.C. Niepce, [*Surface and Interfaces of Ceramic Materials,*]{} edited by L.C. Dufour (Kluver Academic Publishers, 1989), p. 521.
V.E. Henrich and P.A. Cox, [*The Surface Science of Metal Oxides,*]{} (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1994).
D. Vanderbilt, Current Opinions in Solid State and Materials Science [**2**]{}, 701 (1997).
D. Vanderbilt, in [*Proceedings of the Ninth International Meeting on Ferroelectrics,*]{} Journal of the Korean Physical Society [**32**]{}, S103-S106 (1998).
R.E. Cohen, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [**57**]{}, 1393 (1996).
R.E. Cohen, Ferroelectrics [**194**]{}, 323 (1997).
J. Padilla and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 1625 (1997).
S. Kimura [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 11049 (1995).
J. Padilla and D. Vanderbilt, Surface Science [**418**]{}, 64 (1998).
Z.-Q. Li, J.-L. Zhu, C.Q. Wu, Z. Tang, and Y. Kawazoe, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 8075 (1998).
R.E. Cohen, Nature [**358**]{}, 136 (1992).
R.E. Cohen and H. Krakauer, Ferroelectrics [**136**]{}, 65 (1992).
R.D. King-Smith and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 5828 (1994).
A. García and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 3817 (1996).
U.V. Waghmare and K.M. Rabe, Ferroelectrics [**194**]{}, 135 (1997).
W. Zhong and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 2587 (1995).
D.J. Singh, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 12559 (1995).
L. Bellaiche, J. Padilla, and D. Vanderbilt, in [*First-Principles Calculations for Ferroelectrics: Fifth Williamsburg Workshop*]{}, R.E. Cohen, ed. (AIP, Woodbury, New York, 1998), p. 11.
L. Bellaiche, J. Padilla and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 1834 (1999).
T. Egami, W. Domowski, M. Akbas, and P.K. Davies, in [*First-Principles Calculations for Ferroelectrics: Fifth Williamsburg Workshop*]{}, R.E. Cohen, ed. (AIP, Woodbury, New York, 1998), p. 1.
T. Hikita, T. Hanada and M. Kudo, Surface Science, [**287/288**]{}, 377 (1993).
N. Bickel [*et al.*]{}, Vacuum [**41**]{}, 46 (1990); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2009 (1989).
M. Naito, H. Sato, Physica C [**229**]{}, 1 (1994).
K. Kitahama, Q. R. Feng, T. Kawai and S. Kawai, Bulletin of Fall Meeting of Japanese Applied Physics Society [**2**]{}, 494 (1992).
D.M. Ceperley and B.J. Alder, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**45**]{}, 566 (1980).
D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 7892 (1990).
H.J. Monkhorst and J.D. Pack, Phys. Rev. B [**13**]{}, 5188 (1976).
W. Zhong and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 5047 (1996).
W. Zhong, R. D. King-Smith and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 3618 (1994).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a persistent random walk model with finite velocity and self-reinforcing directionality, which explains how exponentially distributed runs self-organize into superdiffusive Lévy walks observed in active intracellular transport by Chen et. al. \[*Nat. mat.*, 2015\]. We derive the non-homogeneous in space and time, hyperbolic PDE for the probability density function (PDF) of particle position. This PDF exhibits a bimodal density (aggregation phenomena) in the superdiffusive regime, which is not observed in classical linear hyperbolic and Lévy walk models. We find the exact solutions for the first and second moments and criteria for the transition to superdiffusion.'
author:
- Daniel Han
- 'Marco A. A. da Silva'
- Nickolay Korabel
- Sergei Fedotov
bibliography:
- 'real.bib'
title: 'Self-reinforcing directionality generates Lévy walks without the power-law assumption'
---
*Introduction.* Transport in biology is crucial on multiple scales to maintain life and deviations from normal movement are hallmarks of disease and ageing [@murray2007mathematical; @*murray2001mathematical; @okubo2013diffusion]. From organisms to sub-cellular molecules, their motion is usually described by persistent random walks with finite velocities (run and tumble models) [@othmer1988models; @hillen2002hyperbolic; @tailleur2008statistical; @thompson2011lattice; @mendez2010reaction]. The preference for these velocity jump models over space jump random walks arise due to the physical constraints of organisms not instantaneously jumping in space and an inertial resistance to changes in direction. In recent years, the Lévy walk [@zaburdaev2015levy] attracted attention in modelling movement patterns of living things [@reynolds2018current], from sub-cellular [@chen2015memoryless; @song2018neuronal; @fedotov2018memory; @*korabel2018non] to organism [@raichlen2014evidence; @ariel2015swarming] scales.
Until now, Lévy walks have been mostly described by coupled continuous time random walks (CTRW) [@zaburdaev2015levy], various fractional PDEs [@compte1997generalized; @sokolov2003towards; @meerschaert2002governing; @baeumer2005space; @becker2004limit; @uchaikin2011fractional; @magdziarz2015limit] and integro-differential equations [@fedotov2016single; @taylor2016fractional]. These approaches require power-law distributed running times with divergent first and second moments as an *ab initio* assumption. However, in many cases this assumption is difficult to justify, leading to ongoing discussions about the origin of power-law distributed runs and the Levy walk observed in nature [@jansen2012comment; @wosniack2017evolutionary; @reynolds2018current]. It is worth noting that there are a few examples where the power-law assumption has not been used as a starting point. Anomalous superdiffusion of ultracold atoms can be described by a Langevin equation with a nonlinear friction force [@kessler2012theory; @barkai2014area]. Another example is superdiffusion of a random walk driven by an ergodic Markov process with switching [@fedotov2007superdiffusion]. Furthermore, persistent random walks with exponentially distributed runs [@tejedor2012optimizing] are competing with the Lévy foraging hypothesis [@viswanathan1999optimizing] as optimal searching strategies. Specifically for active cargo transport in cells, it was discovered that the motion is composed of multiple short runs that self-organize into longer, power-law distributed uni-directional flights, typical of Lévy walks [@chen2015memoryless]. Explanations for this phenomenon have been attempted in terms of *self-reinforcing directionality* generated by co-operative motor protein transport [@chen2015memoryless], cumulative inertia and Lévy walks [@fedotov2018memory]. Yet, the question remains, can a persistent random walk model generate superdiffusion without power-law distributed runs through the self-organization of exponentially distributed runs?
In this paper, we propose a new, spatially and temporally non-homogeneous model that generates super-diffusive Lévy walks through self-reinforced directionality without the standard assumption of power-law distributed runs. In addition, this new model allows us to find exact solutions for moments $\langle x^n(t) \rangle$ that can be compared with experiments. Furthermore, simulated densities of uni-directional flight lengths from this model show excellent agreement with existing experiments [@chen2015memoryless]. *Self-reinforcing directionality.* Consider a particle moving to the right and left in 1D with constant speed $\nu$ and exponentially distributed running time with rate $\lambda$. In the standard alternating case, the particle would change directions with probability $1$. To consider the case when there is a probability that the particle continues in the same direction as the previous run, we introduce the transition probability matrix [@coxmillertextbook]:
$$\pmb{Q} =
\begin{bmatrix}
q_{+} & 1-q_{+}\\
1-q_{-} & q_{-}\\
\end{bmatrix},
\label{transitionmatrix}$$
where $q_{+}$ is the conditional transition probability that the particle will continue in the positive direction given it was moving in the positive direction before. Similarly, $q_{-}$ corresponds to the particle moving in the negative direction. The standard alternating case corresponds to $q_+ = q_- = 0$.
In order to model *self-reinforcing directionality* using the matrix $\pmb{Q}$, we introduce two quantities: the relative times, $t^+/t$ and $t^-/t$, that the particle moves in the positive and negative direction, respectively, during time $t$. The key point is to define the probabilities in as $$q_{+} = w \frac{t^{+}}{t} + (1-w)\frac{t^{-}}{t}
\label{qplus}$$ and $$q_{-} = w \frac{t^{-}}{t} + (1-w)\frac{t^{+}}{t}.
\label{qminus}$$ Here we introduce the persistence probability, $w$, which parameterizes the extent that changes of direction are affected by relative times. If $w=1/2$ then the transition probabilities in both directions are the same: $q_+ = q_- = 1/2$. If $w>1/2$ then the matrix $\pmb{Q}$ has *repetition compulsion* properties: the longer a particle spends moving in the one direction, the greater the probability to maintain directionality. In other words, the particle has a tendency to repeat its past behavior. Figure \[fig:singletrajannotated\] illustrates self-organization of individual runs into long uni-directional flights. For $w=0.85$, the flight (annotated) involves 8 individual runs.
![Two realizations of the random walk with self-reinforcing directionality using the transition matrix with $q_{\pm}(x,t)$ from and . The continuous trajectories (black solid lines) are labeled according to the persistence probability $w=0.85$ and $w=0.5$. The black dots show the beginning and end of individual exponentially distributed runs. A flight and run are annotated. The parameters are $\nu = 1$ and $\lambda = 1$. The trajectory with $w=0.85$ has an initial velocity $\nu$ and $w=0.5$, $-\nu$.[]{data-label="fig:singletrajannotated"}](Figure1){width="\linewidth"}
Let us show that the conditional transition probabilities and can be expressed in terms of particle position $x= x_0+\nu\left[t^+-t^-\right]$. Since $t=t^++t^-$, the relative times can be written as $$\frac{t^{\pm}}{t} = \frac{1}{2}\left( 1\pm\frac{x-x_0}{\nu t} \right).
\label{tplus}$$ Then substituting into and , we find that the probabilities $q_{+}$ and $q_{-}$ depend on $x$ and $t$, $$q_{\pm}(x,t) = \frac{1}{2}\left[1\pm\alpha\frac{x-x_0}{\nu t}\right]\text{ with } \alpha = 2w-1.
\label{qplusxt}$$ Since our random walker is moving with finite speed $\nu$, the relation $(x-x_0)/\nu t \leq 1$ must hold. Once again, the formula shows self-reinforcing directionality since if $\alpha>0$ ($w>1/2$) then the transition probability $q_{+}(x,t)$ is an increasing function of particle position $x$ and the opposite for $q_-(x,t)$. As we will show below, transition probabilities give us a new methodology to model superdiffusive Lévy walk motion through *self-reinforcing directionality*, without the standard requirement of power-law distributed runs. In fact, we can write down a single hyperbolic partial differential equation (PDE) for particle density.
The equations for probability density functions (PDF) of particles moving right ($+$) and left ($-$), $p_{\pm}(x,t)$, can be written in terms of transition matrix $\pmb{Q}$ as $$\begin{split}
\begin{bmatrix}
p_{+}(x,t+\Delta t)\\
p_{-}(x,t+\Delta t)
\end{bmatrix}
&=(1-\lambda\Delta t)
\begin{bmatrix}
p_{+}(x-\nu\Delta t,t)\\
p_{-}(x+\nu\Delta t,t)
\end{bmatrix} \\
& +\pmb{Q}^{T}
\begin{bmatrix}
p_{+}(x,t)\\
p_{-}(x,t)
\end{bmatrix} \lambda\Delta t.
\end{split}
\label{diffeq}$$ Rearranging and taking the limit $\Delta t\rightarrow0$, we can write the equations for $p_{\pm}(x,t)$ as $$\begin{split}
\frac{\partial p_{\pm}}{\partial t}\pm\nu\frac{\partial p_{\pm}}{\partial x} = -\lambda(1-q_{\pm}(x,t)) p_{\pm}+ \lambda(1-q_{\mp}(x,t) )p_{\mp}.
\end{split}
\label{master2}$$ Using standard methods [@mendez2010reaction; @schnitzer1993theory; @thompson2011lattice] and equation , we can obtain the equations for total density $p(x,t) = p_{+}+p_{-}$ and flux $J(x,t) = \nu p_+-\nu p_-$: $\partial p/\partial t = -\partial J/\partial x$ and $\partial J/\partial t = -\nu^2 \partial p/\partial x -\lambda (J - \alpha (x-x_0) p/t )$. The initial conditions for the total density and flux are $$\begin{split}
p(x,0) = \delta(x-x_0), \text{ } J(x,0) = \nu (2u-1) \delta(x-x_0),
\label{initialconditions}
\end{split}$$ where $u \in [0,1]$ is the probability that the intial velocity is $\nu$. Finally, we can find the hyperbolic PDE with a non-homogeneous in space and time advection term $$\begin{split}
\frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial t^2} + \lambda\frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = \nu^2 \frac{\partial^2 p}{\partial x^2} - \frac{ \lambda\alpha}{t} \frac{\partial ((x-x_0) p)}{\partial x}, \text{ } t>0.
\end{split}
\label{master}$$
The advection term of Eq. is unconventional because it depends on the initial position $x_0$. Furthermore, if the initial conditions are symmetric, $u=1/2$ (see ), then the average drift is zero. Clearly, is a modification of the classical telegraph or Cattaneo equation [@kac1974stochastic; @schnitzer1993theory; @mendez2010reaction], with a time and space dependent advection term. In what follows, we will show that this additional term generates superdiffusion. In fact, a generalized Cattaneo equation generating superdiffusion has been formulated using the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative [@compte1997generalized]. The advantage of Eq. over fractional PDEs is that it is far simpler and does not require integral operators in time. To the authors’ knowledge, the hyperbolic PDE is the first formulation of Lévy walks without integral operators [@fedotov2016single]. It is interesting to observe that in the diffusive limit, when $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$ and $\nu\rightarrow\infty$ such that $\nu^2/\lambda$ is a constant, then becomes the governing advection-diffusion equation for the continuous approximation of the elephant random walk [@schutz2004elephants; @*paraan2006exact; @*da2013non; @*da2020non].
Now, we show that the variance for the underlying random process, $x(t)$, exhibits superdiffusive behavior: $\text{Var}\{x(t)\} = \langle \left[ \langle x(t) \rangle - x(t)\right]^2 \rangle \propto t^{2\alpha}$ with $1/2<\alpha<1$. Superdiffusion is observed in intracellular experiments characterizing endosome movement [@chen2015memoryless; @fedotov2018memory] and we can empirically estimate the persistence probability, $w = (\alpha +1) /2$ through measurement of the anomalous exponent $2\alpha$.
*Moment analysis.* The moments of random walk position, $\mu_n(t) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}x^np(x,t)dx$, can be found from as $$\begin{split}
\frac{d^2 \mu_n(t)}{dt^2} - \nu^2 n (n-1) \mu_{n-2}(t) + \lambda \frac{d\mu_n(t)}{dt} \\- \frac{\lambda\alpha n}{t}\mu_n(t) = 0.
\end{split}
\label{momentmaster}$$ The first moment, $\mu_1(t)$, obeys $$\frac{d^2\mu_1(t)}{dt^2} + \lambda \frac{d\mu_1(t)}{dt} - \frac{\lambda\alpha}{t}\mu_1(t) = 0
\label{firstmoment}$$ and the second moment, $\mu_2(t)$, $$\frac{d^2 \mu_2(t)}{dt^2} + \lambda \frac{d\mu_2(t)}{dt}- \frac{2\lambda\alpha}{t}\mu_2(t) = 2\nu^2.
\label{secondmoment}$$ In order to find the exact analytical solutions to and , we use the initial conditions to obtain $$\begin{split}
\mu_1(0) &= \mu_2(0) = 0,\\
\frac{d\mu_1(0)}{dt} = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} J(x,0)dx &=\nu(2u-1), \text{ } \frac{d\mu_2(0)}{dt}= 0.
\end{split}$$ We take the Laplace transform of and , which gives us differential equations for $\hat{\mu}_n(s) = \int_{0}^{\infty}\mu_n(t)e^{-st}dt$, for $n=1$ $$\frac{d\hat{\mu}_1(s)}{ds} = -\frac{2s + \lambda + \lambda \alpha}{s^2 + \lambda s}\hat{\mu}_1(s)
\label{laplacefirstmoment}$$ and $n=2$ $$\frac{d\hat{\mu}_2(s)}{ds} = -\frac{2s + \lambda + 2\lambda \alpha}{s^2 + \lambda s}\hat{\mu_2}(s) - \frac{2\nu^2}{s^2(s^2+\lambda s)}.
\label{laplacesecondmoment}$$ Then, solving and with initial conditions we obtain, $$\hat{\mu}_1(s) = \nu(2u-1) s^{-1-\alpha}(s+\lambda)^{\alpha-1}
\label{laplacefirstmomentsoln}$$ and $$\hat{\mu}_2(s) = \frac{2\nu^2}{\lambda(2\alpha-1)}\left[ s^{-1-2\alpha}(s+\lambda)^{2\alpha-1}-s^{-2} \right].
\label{laplacesecondmomentsoln}$$ The inverse Laplace transform of and gives $$\mu_1(t) = \nu(2u-1)t \prescript{}{1}{F}_1(1-\alpha,2,-\lambda t)
\label{firstmomentsoln}$$ and $$\mu_2(t) = \frac{2\nu^2 t}{\lambda (2\alpha -1)}\left[\prescript{}{1}{F}_1(1-2\alpha,2,-\lambda t) -1 \right],
\label{secondmomentsoln}$$ where $\prescript{}{1}{F}_1(a,b,z)$ is the Kummer confluent hypergeometric function.
In the long time limit ($s\rightarrow0$), we obtain from and $$\mu_1(t) \simeq \frac{\nu \lambda^{\alpha-1}(2u-1)}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}t^{\alpha}
\label{firstmomentsolnasymp}$$ and $$\mu_2(t) \simeq
\begin{cases}
\frac{2\nu^2}{\lambda(1-2\alpha)} t, & 0<\alpha<1/2 \\
\frac{2\nu^2\lambda^{2\alpha-2}}{(2\alpha-1)\Gamma(2\alpha+1)}t^{2\alpha}, & 1/2<\alpha <1
\end{cases}
\label{secondmomentsolnasymp}$$ Clearly, the random walk exhibits superdiffusive behavior for $1/2<\alpha<1$. The variance, $\text{Var}\left\{x(t)\right\} = \mathbb{E}\left[(x(t)-\mu_1(t)^2\right] = \mu_2(t) - \mu_1(t)^2$, is $$\text{Var}\left\{x(t)\right\} \simeq
\begin{cases}
-\frac{2\nu^2}{\lambda(1-2\alpha)}t, & 0<\alpha<1/2 \\
A\nu^2\lambda^{2\alpha-2} t^{2\alpha}, & 1/2<\alpha <1
\end{cases}
\label{varianceasymp}$$ where $A = \frac{2}{(2\alpha -1)\Gamma(2\alpha+1)} - \left(\frac{(2u-1)}{\Gamma(\alpha+1)}\right)^2$. Results of Monte Carlo simulations are in perfect agreement with and (see Appendix).
It is interesting to note that the system of equations with transition rates can be mapped to the hyperbolic model for chemotaxis [@hillen2000hyperbolic] with an unorthodox external stimulus $S(x,t)$ obeying the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for free particle. Equation with can be written in terms of turning rates, $\mu_{\pm}$, that depend on the gradient of external stimulus, $S_x = \partial S/\partial x$, as $$\begin{split}
\frac{\partial p_{\pm}}{\partial t}\pm\nu\frac{\partial p_{\pm}}{\partial x} = -\mu_{\pm}\left(S_x\right)p_{\pm}+ \mu_{\mp}\left(S_x\right)p_{\mp},
\end{split}
\label{chemotaxismaster}$$ where $$\mu_{\pm}\left(S_x \right) = \frac{\lambda}{2} \left[1\mp\frac{1}{\nu} \frac{\partial S}{\partial x}\right]\text{, with }S(x,t) = \frac{\alpha(x-x_0)^2}{2t}.
\label{externalstimulus}$$ Then the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the external stimulus is $\partial S/\partial t + \frac{1}{2} \left(\partial S/\partial x\right)^2 = 0$. Equations and provides insight into how the external stimulus, $S$, generates superdiffusion rather than the conventional ballistic motion. *Experimental data and numerical simulations.* Superdiffusive Lévy walk behavior is observed experimentally in intracellular transport [@chen2015memoryless]. This superdiffusion is reported to arise from the self-organization of exponentially distributed runs, $x_i$, into uni-directional flights, $x_f$ [@chen2015memoryless]. The example trajectory from numerical simulations in Fig. \[fig:singletrajannotated\] demonstrates 8 individual runs forming a uni-directional flight. Until now, there had been no governing PDE like and underlying persistent random walk to describe this phenomenon.
![The PDFs, $p(x_{f})$, of uni-directional flight lengths, $x_{f}$ from experimental measurements (crosses) taken from [@chen2015memoryless] and simulation of underlying random walk with $w=0.925$ (solid black). Each simulation had $N=10^5$ particles running for $t=10^2$ with $\nu=$ and $\lambda=$. The tail of the PDF was fitted with a power-law (red dashed), $p(x_f)\propto x_f^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma = 2.13$. []{data-label="fig:flightdisp_histo"}](Figure2.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Experimentally, the authors [@chen2015memoryless] report power-law tails in the flight-length density, $p(x_f)\propto x_f^{-2}$. Figure \[fig:flightdisp\_histo\] demonstrates that numerical simulations of our persistent random walk with $q_{\pm}(x,t)$ in are able to generate the power-law tails for flight length density and emulate the experimental data for $x_f\sim10^0-10^1$ [@chen2015memoryless]. The agreement of flight length densities between the numerical simulations and experimental endosome trajectories are found for reasonable parameters. Although our current model does not include pauses by particles observed experimentally, this can be done by introducing another distribution for rest times with rate $\lambda_r$. Even in the experimental analysis of endosomes [@chen2015memoryless], pauses are neglected to focus on the tails of the flight densities. Furthermore, the parameters of our new model, such as persistence probability $w$ or $\alpha$, rate $\lambda$ and speed $\nu$ can be easily found by comparing the exact analytical formula with experimental mean squared displacements.
*Bimodal densities in the superdiffusive sub-ballistic regime.* Surprisingly, our Lévy walk model in the long-time limit leads to bimodal densities in the superdiffusive regime ($1/2<\alpha<1$). This phenomenon does not exist for classical superdiffusive Lévy walks. Bimodal densities (Lamperti distributions) only appear in the ballistic regime for Lévy walks with a divergent first moment for running times [@uchaikin2009statistical; @klafter2011first; @uchaikin2011fractional; @zaburdaev2015levy; @froemberg2015asymptotic]. In the superdiffusive case, the density for Lévy walks is Gaussian in the central part with power-law tails [@klafter2011first]. The bimodal densities for classical ballistic Lévy walks are completely different from those generated by in the superdiffusive regime. Density peaks for the density in occur at $|x|<\nu t$. In Fig. \[poshistogram\], the histograms of particle positions from the persistent random walk approximate the PDF $p(x,t)$ governed by PDE . It shows the emergence of a bimodal density for $t=10^2$ and $w>w_c$, where $w_c=3/4$. The density $p(x,t)$ exhibits two distinct long-time behaviors: it is Gaussian for $\alpha<1/2$ ($w<w_c$) and bimodal for $\alpha>1/2$ ($w>w_c$). The form of the PDF also shows a non-equilibrium phase transition (see Appendix). Our theory can be tested further experimentally by calculating the density of random walkers at sufficiently long times (unfortunately, trajectories from [@chen2015memoryless] were not available).
Note that similar bimodal densities are observed in velocity random walks with interacting particles. These interactions are usually described by non-local, density dependent turning rates and speeds [@lutscher2002emerging; @fetecau2010investigation; @carrillo2014non; @fedotov2017emergence]. Our hyperbolic PDE leads to the formation of a bimodal density with non-interacting walkers. Figure \[poshistogram\] clearly shows that interactions between walkers are not necessary in the presence of self-reinforcing directionality (i.e. $w\rightarrow1$). In other words, initial conditions and strong self-reinforcement can generate aggregation and separation within a population in the same way as interactions [@fedotov2017emergence; @lutscher2002emerging; @tailleur2008statistical; @fetecau2010investigation] or environment sensing [@stevens1997aggregation; @hillen2000hyperbolic].
![The PDF $p(x,t)$ for particle positions $x$ at the end of simulation time $t=10^2$ for varying values of $w$. The parameters of simulation were $N=10^5$ particles, $u=0.5$, $\lambda=1$, $\nu=1$. The initial density was $p(x,0) = \delta(x)$.[]{data-label="poshistogram"}](Figure3.eps){width="\linewidth"}
*Self-reinforced directionality in endosome movement.* Now, the question remains: what is the underlying biological mechanism explaining self-reinforced directionality in intracellular transport? To answer this question, let us consider endosomal motility, which is governed by the adaptor complexes on its membranes, the most notable being Rab GTPases [@stenmark2009rab]. These adaptors facilitate attachment to dynein and kinesin motors [@urnavicius2018cryo] and, therefore, dictate the positioning and motility of endosomes in the cell [@stenmark2009rab; @gindhart2009lysosome]. To simplify this vastly complex process, consider that the endosome contains a number, $n_-$, of adaptor proteins that attach to kinesin leading to transport towards the cell periphery. Similarly, $n_+$ is the number of adaptor proteins that attach to dynein and facilitate transport towards the cell nucleus. Since these motors exclusively travel along microtubules, we are able to model movement of endosomes in quasi-1D. Then, when an endosome happens to attach to a microtubule, the simplest assumption about probabilities $q_+$ and $q_-$ in would be $q_+= n_{+}/(n_++n_-)$ and $q_-= n_{-}/(n_++n_-)$. However, due to the complexity of endosomal transport we can introduce a weight, $w \in [0,1]$, such that $$q_{\pm} = w\frac{n_{\pm}}{n_++n_-} + (1-w)\frac{n_{\mp}}{n_++n_-}.$$
From the very beginning of endocytosis until degradation, endosomes undergo a maturation process [@huotari2011endosome]. More importantly, the association of proteins, such as Rab5 and PI(3)K, from the the cellular cytosol to the endosomal membrane governs motility and endosome function [@huotari2011endosome]. Recent work has show that effectors of Rab5 display distinct spatial densities [@villasenor2016signal] suggesting that $n_-$ and $n_+$ are functions of the time spent running towards, $t^-$, or away, $t^+$, from the cell center. So, we assume that $n_{\pm}=n_{\pm}^0 + at^{\pm} $ with $a$ being some constant rate. In other words, the more an endosome moves in towards the nucleus, the more $n_+$ increases and vice versa. This reinforcement rule is similar to that of discrete reinforced random walks [@davis1990reinforced; @stevens1997aggregation]. Neglecting $n_{\pm}^0$, this formulation is exactly what leads to the repetition compulsion property in and , since then $n_-/(n_++n_-) = t^-/t$ and $n_+/(n_++n_-) = t^+/t$.
*Summary.* In this paper, we developed a persistent random walk model with finite velocity and self-reinforcing directionality that generates superdiffusion without the standard assumption of power-law distributed run times. Our new velocity jump model involves a conditional transition probability matrix $\pmb{Q}$ with repetition compulsion properties and . A governing hyperbolic PDE for particle probability density was derived along with exact solutions for the first and second moments, and . The theory is able to explain the experimentally observed self-organization of exponentially distributed runs into unidirectional flights leading to superdiffusive Lévy walks [@chen2015memoryless]. We showed excellent agreement between the density of flight lengths from numerical simulations and *in vivo* cargo transport experiments. In the superdiffusive regime, numerical simulations of particle densities show bimodal densities (aggregation), which is a new phenomenon not seen in the classical linear hyperbolic and Lévy walk models. Although our theory has been applied to intracellular transport, we believe that our methodology involving self-reinforced directionality, and , can be used to model a variety of superdiffusion observed in active matter, such as migrating cancer cells [@mierke2011integrin; @mierke2013integrin], T-cell motility [@harris2012generalized] and even human foraging [@raichlen2014evidence]. An extension of the model should incorporate proliferation and death of random walkers, similar to [@mendez2004front; @fedotov2015persistent] to analyze wave propagation phenomena. Another important application of our theory is the first passage time problem [@redner2001guide] for superdiffusive intracellular transport since the time for endosomes to reach a location is crucial information in cell biology [@condamin2007first; @angelani2014first]. For example, cytoplasmic transport is hijacked by viruses in reaching sites of replication and subsequent release from the infected cell [@lagache2008effective; @greber2006superhighway; @dodding2011coupling].
The authors acknowledge financial support from FAPESP/SPRINT Grant No. 15308-4 , EPSRC Grant No. EP/J019526/1 and the Wellcome Trust Grant No. 215189/Z/19/Z. We would like to thank Steve Granick for sharing with us published experimental data.
Simulations
===========
The simulations of our correlated random walk is as follows:
1. Set initial conditions $x_0=0$ and $t_0=0$. For initial velocity draw a uniformly distributed random number $U\in[0,1)$, if $U<u$ then $v_0=\nu$ and otherwise $v_0 = -\nu$.
2. Generate an exponentially distributed random time $T_0 = -1/\lambda \log(1-V)$ where $V$ is a uniformly distributed random number in $[0,1)$.
3. Update position and time to $x_1 = x_0 + v_0 T_0$, $t_1 = t_0 + T_0$ respectively. For updating velocity, draw a uniformly distributed random number $W\in[0,1)$, then
1. If $v_0=\nu$ and $W<q_-(x_1,t_1) = 1/2 - \alpha (x_1/2 \nu t_1)$ then $v_1 = -\nu$.
2. If $v_0=-\nu$ and $W<q_+(x_1,t_1) = 1/2 + \alpha (x_1/2 \nu t_1)$ then $v_1 = \nu$.
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until $t_n = t_0 +\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}T_i$ reaches the end of the simulation time $t_{end}$.
![Mean squared displacements, $\langle x^2(t)\rangle = \mu_2(t)$, from simulated trajectories (data points) compared with the analytical solutions (solid lines). Each pair is annotated with the simulation value of $w$. Each simulation, contained $N=10^5$ particles that ran for a simulation time $t=10^4$ with parameters $u=1$,$\nu=1$ and $\lambda=1$. Diffusion (dotted line), $\langle x^2(t)\rangle \sim t$, and ballistic motion (dashed line), $\langle x^2(t)\rangle \sim t^2$, are also shown.[]{data-label="secondmomentsimulations"}](FigureS1.eps){width="\linewidth"}
To verify our analytical results for $\mu_1(t)$ and $\mu_2(t)$, we performed simulations of random walks governed by (9). From these simulations, we can measure the ensemble average mean squared displacement $\langle x^2(t) \rangle = \mu_2(t)$. Figure \[secondmomentsimulations\] shows excellent agreement between the analytical solutions and numerical simulations. This clearly demonstrates the emergence of superdiffusion since for $w<3/4$ ($\alpha<1/2$), $\mu_2(t) = \langle x^2(t) \rangle \propto t$, whereas $\langle x^2(t) \rangle \propto t^{2\alpha}$ for $w>3/4$ ($\alpha>1/2$).
![*Main:* The PDF of particle positions, $P(x,t)$, for simulations of (9) at varying times with $w=0.8$. Other parameters are $N=10^5$, $u=0.5$, $\nu=1$ and $\lambda=1$ *Inset:* From the same simulation as the main figure we count the number of particles, $N(x>\nu t-\epsilon)$, out of $N=10^5$ that have position $x>\nu t -\epsilon$ with $\epsilon$ varied between $0$, $50$ and $100$. The maximum position possible is $x=\nu t$. []{data-label="poshist_vartime"}](FigureS2.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Decaying fronts at the propagation limit
========================================
The bimodal distribution of $p(x,t)$ in Fig. 3 with peaks close to the maximum position $\pm \nu t$ is reminiscent of the delta function horns at $x=\pm \nu t$ (‘chubchiks’) in Lévy walks \[26\]. They too vary similarly with the parameter $\mu$, which determines the run time PDF, $\psi(t) \propto t^{-1-\mu}$. For Lévy walks in the superdiffusive case ($1<\mu<2$), the region near the initial position is Gaussian with the tails of the distribution $|x|> \nu t$ having the distribution $p(x,t) \sim t/|x|^{1+\mu}$ \[8, 26\]. Although our correlated random walk has similarities to Lévy walks, the major difference in the asymptotic density is the continuous distribution of the bimodal peaks at positions $|x|<\nu t$ instead of the chubchiks seen in Lévy walks at $|x|=\nu t$.
In essence, the chubchiks of Lévy walks appear due to the group of particles that have been moving at the propagation velocity for the entire time $t$ and thus form a propagating front. Intriguingly, these fronts also appear for our correlated random walk but at very short times shown by Fig. \[poshist\_vartime\]. However, these propagating fronts decay exponentially with time whereas for Lévy walks they decay as $t^{1-\mu}$ ($1<\mu<2$). By $t=30$, the propagating front has completely ‘evaporated’ and the tail is now exponential with no trace of the original front. This phenomenon is intuitive since particles performing our correlated random walk take exponentially distributed runs, abeit in a persistent manner, but Lévy walks take power-law distributed runs. Exponential decay of the fronts can be seen in the inset of Fig. \[poshist\_vartime\] where the number of particles $N(\cdot)$ with position $x>\nu t -\epsilon$ is plotted as a function of time $t$.
The evaporation of the propagating front demonstrates a non-equilibrium phase transition since the PDF shows chubchiks for short times that decay into exponential tails for long times. This shows the non-stationary nature of the random walk generated by (9) and the transition from Lévy walk like behavior at short times to a completely novel distribution for long times.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'High-energy jets recoiling against missing transverse energy (MET) are powerful probes of dark matter at the LHC. Searches based on large MET signatures require a precise control of the $Z(\nu\bar\nu)+$jet background in the signal region. This can be achieved by taking accurate data in control regions dominated by $Z(\ell^+\ell^-)+$jet, $W(\ell\nu)+$jet and $\gamma+$jet production, and extrapolating to the $Z(\nu\bar\nu)+$jet background by means of precise theoretical predictions. In this context, recent advances in perturbative calculations open the door to significant sensitivity improvements in dark matter searches. In this spirit, we present a combination of state-of-the-art calculations for all relevant $V+$jets processes, including throughout NNLO QCD corrections and NLO electroweak corrections supplemented by Sudakov logarithms at two loops. Predictions at parton level are provided together with detailed recommendations for their usage in experimental analyses based on the reweighting of Monte Carlo samples. Particular attention is devoted to the estimate of theoretical uncertainties in the framework of dark matter searches, where subtle aspects such as correlations across different $V+$jet processes play a key role. The anticipated theoretical uncertainty in the $Z(\nu\bar\nu)+$jet background is at the few percent level up to the TeV range.'
author:
- 'J. M. Lindert'
- 'S. Pozzorini'
- 'R. Boughezal'
- 'J. M. Campbell'
- 'A. Denner'
- 'S. Dittmaier'
- 'A. Gehrmann-De Ridder'
- 'T. Gehrmann'
- 'N. Glover'
- 'A. Huss'
- 'S. Kallweit'
- 'P. Maierhöfer'
- 'M. L. Mangano'
- 'T.A. Morgan'
- 'A. Mück'
- 'F. Petriello'
- 'G. P. Salam'
- 'M. Schönherr'
- 'C. Williams'
bibliography:
- 'dm.bib'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: Precise predictions for $V$+jets dark matter backgrounds
---
[10cm]{}(12.5cm,-10.1cm) [ CERN-TH-2017-102, CERN-LPCC-2017-02,\
FERMILAB-PUB-17-152-T, IPPP/17/38,\
ZU–TH 12/17 ]{}
Introduction
============
The signature of missing transverse energy (MET) is one of the most powerful tools in the interpretation of data from hadron colliders. In the Standard Model (SM), MET arises from the neutrinos from the decay of $W$ and $Z$ bosons, and it can be used in their identification and study, as well as in the identification and study of Higgs bosons, top quarks and other SM particles whose decay products include $W$ or $Z$ bosons. But MET is also an almost omnipresent feature of theories beyond the SM (BSM), where it can be associated to the decay of new particles to $W$ and $Z$ bosons, or directly to the production of new stable, neutral and weakly interacting particles. Typical examples are theories with dark matter (DM) candidates, or Kaluza-Klein theories with large extra dimensions. Depending on the details, MET is accompanied by other model-discriminating features, such as the presence of a small or large multiplicity of hard jets, or of specific SM particles. The experimental search for these extensions of the SM relies on a proper modeling of the SM backgrounds to the MET signature. The determination of these backgrounds is ideally done by using data control samples, but theoretical input is often helpful, or even necessary, to extend the experimental information from the control to the signal regions, or to extend the application range of the background predictions and to improve their precision [@Bern:2011pa; @Ask:2011xf; @Malik:2013kba].
In this paper we focus on the theoretical modeling of the SM $V+$jet backgrounds to inclusive production of large MET recoiling against one or more hadronic jets. These final states address a broad set of BSM models, where the production of an otherwise invisible final state is revealed by the emission of one or more high-$p_\rT$ jets from initial state radiation, where $p_\rT$ is the momentum in the transverse plane.[^1] Recent publications by ATLAS [@Aaboud:2016tnv] and CMS [@Khachatryan:2016mdm; @Sirunyan:2017hci], relative to LHC data collected at $\sqrt{s}=13$TeV, document in detail the current experimental approaches to the background evaluation. The leading background is $Z(\nu\bar\nu)+$jet production, followed by $W(\ell\nu)+$jet (in particular for $\ell=\tau$ or when the lepton is outside of the detector).[^2] The experimental constraints on $Z(\nu\bar\nu)+$jet production at large MET can be obtained from accurate measurements of $V+$jet production processes with visible vector-boson signatures. It is quite obvious, for example, that the measurement of $Z(\ell^+\ell^-)+$jets with $\ell=e,\mu$ is the most direct and reliable proxy for $Z(\nu\bar\nu)+$jets. This control sample, however, is statistics limited, due to the smaller branching ratio of $Z$ bosons to charged leptons relative to neutrinos. To extrapolate the shape of the $Z$ spectrum to the largest $p_\rT$ values, therefore, requires a theoretical prediction. The larger statistics of $W(\ell\nu)+$jets and $\gamma+$jets events makes it possible to directly access the relevant $p_\rT$ range, but the relation between their spectra and the $Z$ spectrum needs, once again, theoretical guidance.
To put things into a concrete perspective, shows the expected event rates, and the relative statistical uncertainty, for 300fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity at 13TeV. The extrapolation to the $\ord$(100fb$^{-1}$) and $\ord$(3000fb$^{-1}$) expected from the full run 2 and at the end of the full LHC programme, respectively, is straightforward. The $Z(\ell^+\ell^-)+$jets data allow for a direct estimate of the $Z(\nu\bar\nu)+$jets rate with a statistical precision below 1% for $p_\rT$ up to about $600$GeV. Using the $W(\ell\nu)+$jets or $\gamma+$jets data could in principle extend this range up to about $900$GeV. Beyond this value, the statistical precision of the $W(\ell\nu)+$jets and $\gamma+$jets events remains a factor of two better than that of the $Z(\nu\bar\nu)+$jets signal. In order to ensure that the theoretical systematics in the extrapolation from the $W+$jets and $\gamma+$jets rates to the $Z+$jets rates remains negligible with respect to the statistical uncertainty, the former should be kept at the level of a few percent up to $p_\rT\sim 2$TeV, and around 10% up to $p_\rT\sim 2.5-3$TeV, which is the ultimate kinematic reach for the $Z(\nu\bar\nu)+$jets signal at the end of LHC data taking.
![Production rates for $V+$jet(s), for various decay channels, as a function of the minimum $p_\rT$ of the vector boson. Decays into $\ell^\pm=e^\pm,\mu^\pm$ and $\nu_e,\nu_\nu,\nu_\tau$ are included. The number of events, $N$, is normalized to 300fb$^{-1}$ of LHC data at $\sqrt{s}=13$TeV, and includes the basic selection cuts listed in the main body of the paper. The log lower panel shows the statistical uncertainties, calculated as $1/\sqrt{N}$. The gray band in the lower panel indicates the regime of 1–10% statistical uncertainty. []{data-label="fig:stats"}](all_stat){width=".48\textwidth"}
The main result of this work is to prove that, thanks to the recent theoretical advances, these goals can be met. This proof requires the analysis of a series of possible effects. On the one hand, the theoretical extrapolation to larger $p_\rT$ of the very precise $Z(\ell^+\ell^-)$+jets data requires firm control over the shape of the distribution. Several effects, from the choice of parton distribution functions (PDFs) to the choices made for the renormalisation and factorisation scales used in the calculations, can influence the extrapolation. On the other hand, the level of correlation between the $W$, $\gamma$ and $Z$ spectra must be kept under control. At large $p_\rT$, in particular, large and process-dependent corrections arise due to the growth of the electroweak (EW) corrections, and these may spoil the correlation induced by pure QCD effects. For our analysis we shall use the most up-to-date theoretical predictions available today for the description of vector boson production at large $p_\rT$. On the QCD side, we rely on the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) calculations, which appeared recently for $Z+$jet [@Ridder:2015dxa; @Ridder:2016nkl; @Gehrmann-DeRidder:2016jns; @Boughezal:2015ded; @Boughezal:2016isb], $W+$jet [@Boughezal:2015dva; @Boughezal:2016dtm] and $\gamma+$jet [@Campbell:2016lzl; @Campbell:2017dqk] production. On the EW side, we apply full NLO calculations for $Z+$jet [@Denner:2011vu; @Denner:2012ts; @Kallweit:2015dum], $W+$jet [@Denner:2009gj; @Kallweit:2015dum] and $\gamma+$jet [@Badger:2016bpw] production with off-shell decays of the $Z$ and $W$ bosons. Given the strong enhancement of EW Sudakov effects in the TeV region, we also include 2-loop logarithmic terms at next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) accuracy for all $V+$jet processes [@Kuhn:2005gv; @Kuhn:2005az; @Kuhn:2007qc; @Kuhn:2007cv]. An extensive assessment and discussion of the estimates of missing higher-order terms, and of the relative systematics, is given in the main body of this paper. In particular, in order to address non-trivial issues that arise in the context of dark matter searches, we introduce a global framework for the estimate of theoretical uncertainties in all $V+$jet processes, taking into account correlation effects across different processes and $p_\rT$ regions. Also the uncertainties associated with the combination of QCD and EW corrections are discussed in detail.
From the experimental perspective, the determination of the background composition in signal and control regions, and the modeling of other key aspects of experimental analyses (e.g. lepton identification and reconstruction, missing energy, etc.) require a theoretical description of the various $V+$jets processes at the particle level. Typically, this is provided by Monte Carlo (MC) samples based on multi-jet merging at LO or NLO QCD, and improvements based on higher-order theoretical calculations can be implemented through reweighting of MC events. For the fit of MC predictions to data, ATLAS and CMS analyses rely on the profile likelihood approach, where experimental and theoretical uncertainties are described in terms of nuisance parameters with Gaussian distributions. In this context, the correlations of theoretical uncertainties across $p_\rT$ bins (shape uncertainties) and across different $V+$jets processes play a key role for searches at large MET.
For the implementation of higher-order QCD and EW corrections and for the estimate of theoretical uncertainties in the experimental analysis framework, we propose a procedure based on a one-dimensional reweighting of MC samples. The proposed framework should enable the experiments to carry out their profile likelihood approach, quantifying the impact of the theoretical systematics in their analyses, and validating directly with data the reliability and robustness of the theoretical inputs. In this respect, we would like to stress that, independently of the application to BSM searches, the results in this paper provide a framework for incisive validations of the theoretical calculations. Furthermore, these results might allow for further constraints on PDFs [@Malik:2013kba; @Boughezal:2017nla].
If the experimental analyses of the MET+jets channel should confirm the usefulness of the approach we propose, the same framework could be adapted to more complex or exclusive final states, in which for example MET is accompanied by a large number of (hard) jets or by specific objects (photons, heavy quarks, Higgs, etc). These extensions are left for future studies.
The structure of this paper is as follows: In we introduce the reweighting technique, to incorporate in a MC analysis the effect of higher-order corrections and of their systematic uncertainties including correlations. describes details of the setup for our numerical calculations, the employed tools and methods, as well as the detailed definition of physics objects and observables to be used in the context of MC reweighting. In we discuss higher-order QCD and EW corrections, including the contribution of photon-initiated processes and real vector boson emission. We present here our approach to the estimate of the various systematics, covering QCD scale, shape and process-dependent uncertainties, as well as uncertainties arising from higher-order EW and mixed QCD–EW corrections. contains our summary and conclusions. As detailed in , results for all $V$+jets processes are available in form of one-dimensional histograms in the vector-boson $p_\rT$ covering central predictions and all mentioned uncertainties. Technical plots on the individual sources of QCD and EW uncertainties are documented in .
Reweighting of Monte Carlo samples {#se:reweighting}
==================================
The reweighting of MC samples is an approximate, but straightforward and easy to implement method of combining (N)LO MC simulations with (N)NLO QCD+NLO EW perturbative calculations and to account for the respective uncertainties in a systematic way. The following formula describes the one-dimensional reweighting of MC samples for $V+$jet production ($V=\gamma,Z,W^\pm$) in a generic variable $x$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rew}
\parx\pary\,&\siv(\vec\eps_\MC,\vec\eps_\TH)= \\ & \parx\pary \siv_{\MC}(\vec\eps_\MC) \nonumber
\left[\frac{\parx\siv_{\TH}(\vec\eps_\TH)}{\parx\siv_{\MC}(\vec\eps_\MC)}\right].\end{aligned}$$ In the case at hand, i.e. $V+$jet production, the one-dimensional parameter $x$ should be understood as the vector-boson transverse momentum, $x=p^{(V)}_\rT$, while $\vec y$ generically denotes the remaining variables of the fully differential kinematic dependence of the accompanying QCD and QED activity, including both extra jet and photon radiation, as well as leptons and neutrinos from hadron decays. It is implicitly understood that $\parx\pary \sigma$ depends on $x$ and $\vec y$, while in $\parx \sigma$ the variables $\vec y$ are integrated out.
The labels MC and TH in refer to Monte Carlo and higher-order theoretical predictions, respectively, and the related uncertainties are parametrised through nuisance parameters $\vec\eps_\TH, \vec\eps_\MC$. Our recommendations for theory uncertainties in are formulated in terms of intervals for the related nuisance parameters, $$-1<\eps_{\TH,k}<1,$$ which pragmatically should be understood as the $1\sigma$ range of Gaussian uncertainties.
Monte Carlo uncertainties, described by $\vec\eps_\MC$, must be correlated in the numerator and denominator on the r.h.s. of , while they can be kept uncorrelated across different processes (apart from $Z(\nu\bar\nu)+\,\jet$ and $Z(\ell^+\ell^-)+\,\jet$).
We note that, as opposed to an approach based only on ratios of $p_\rT$ distributions, where theory is used for extrapolations across different processes at fixed $p_\rT$, MC reweighting is more powerful as it supports all possible extrapolations across different processes and $p_\rT$ regions. In particular, it makes it possible to exploit $V+$jet precision measurements at moderate $p_\rT$ in order to constrain $Z(\nu\bar\nu)+\jet$ production in the TeV region.
A further advantage of the reweighting approach lies in the fact that the three terms on the r.h.s. of do not need to be computed with the same numerical setup (parameters, cuts, observables, etc.). More precisely, only the definition of the variable $x$ and the binning of its distribution need to be the same in all three terms. Scale choices, QCD and EW input parameters and PDFs should be the same only in the numerator and denominator of \[eq:rmc\] R\_(x,y)=, but can be chosen in a different way in $\parx\siv_\TH$, provided that QCD and EW corrections themselves are computed using the same settings. Vice versa, possible cuts must be identical only in the numerator and denominator of \[eq:rth\] R\_[/]{}(x)=, while particle-level MC predictions, $\parx\pary\siv_\MC$, can be subject to more exclusive or inclusive cuts in the experimental analysis.
For an optimal combination of higher-order calculations and MC predictions, two conditions should be fulfilled. On the one hand, theory calculations should describe the distribution in the reweighting variable with higher (or at least equal) precision as compared to the MC sample, \[eq:rewc1\] . On the other hand, the MC sample should be more accurate than TH calculations in describing the correlation between $x$ and all other variables $\vec y$, \[eq:rewc2\] . More precisely, condition needs to be fulfilled only for those aspects of $V+\,$jet events that are relevant for the actual experimental analysis.
As concerns the first condition, we note that, depending on the choice of the observable $x$, using state-of-the-art theory calculations that involve higher-order QCD and EW corrections may not guarantee that is fulfilled. In fact, there are a number of aspects, i.e. resolved multi-jet emissions, the resummation of soft logarithms in the region of small vector-boson $p_\rT$, soft QCD radiation of non-perturbative origin, multiple photon radiation, or neutrinos and charged leptons resulting from hadron decays, for which fixed-order perturbative calculations of $pp\to V+$jet are less accurate than MC simulations.
Thus, the reweighting variable $x$ should be defined such as to have minimal sensitivity to the above-mentioned aspects. In this respect, due to its reduced sensitivity to multiple jet emissions, the vector-boson $p_\rT$ is a natural choice. However, in order to fulfil , the region $p_\rT^{(V)}\ll M_V$ should be excluded from the reweighting procedure, unless QCD Sudakov logarithms are resummed to all orders in the theoretical calculations. Moreover, in order to simultaneously fulfil conditions and , any aspect of the reconstructed vector-boson $p_\rT$ that is better described at MC level should be excluded from the definition of $x$ and included in $\vec y$. This applies, as discussed in , to multiple photon emissions off leptons, and to possible isolation prescriptions for the soft QCD radiation that surrounds leptons or photons. In general, purely non-perturbative aspects of MC simulations, i.e. MPI, UE, hadronisation and hadron decays, should be systematically excluded from the definition of the reweighting variable $x$. Thus, impact and uncertainties related to this non-perturbative modelling will remain as in the original MC samples.
It should be stressed that the above considerations are meant for dark-matter searches based on the [*inclusive*]{} MET distribution, while more exclusive searches that exploit additional information on hard jets may involve additional subtleties. In particular, for analyses that are sensitive to multi-jet emissions, using the inclusive vector-boson $p_\rT$ as the reweighting variable would still fulfil , but the lack of QCD and EW corrections to $V+2$jets production in MC simulations could lead to a violation of . In analyses that are sensitive to the tails of inclusive jet-$p_\rT$ and $H_\rT$ distributions this issue is very serious, and QCD+EW corrections should be directly implemented at MC level using multi-jet merging [@Kallweit:2015dum].
In general, as a sanity check of the reweighting procedure, we recommend verifying that, for reasonable choices of input parameters and QCD scales, (N)NLO QCD calculations and (N)LO merged MC predictions for vector-boson $p_\rT$ distributions are in reasonably good agreement within the respective uncertainties. Otherwise, in case of significant MC mismodelling of the $\parx\siv$ distribution, one should check the reliability of the MC in extrapolating TH predictions from the reweighting distribution to other relevant observables.
In general, one could check whether the one-dimensional reweighting via the variable $x$ in can in fact reproduce the dependence of the corrections in other kinematic variables that are relevant for the experimental analysis. To this end, distributions of $\siv$ w.r.t. another kinematic variable $x'$ should be calculated upon integrating . Switching on and off the corrections on the r.h.s. of in $\siv_{\TH}$ and taking the ratio of the obtained differential cross sections $\siv$, produces the relative correction to the $x'$ distribution that could be compared to the corresponding result directly calculated from $\siv_{\TH}$.[^3]
Finally, it is crucial to check that state-of-the-art predictions for absolute $\rd\sigma/\rd p_{\rT}$ distributions agree with data for the various visible final states.
Setup for numerical predictions {#se:setup}
===============================
In this section we specify the physics objects (), acceptance cuts and observables (), input parameters () and tools () used in the theoretical calculations for $pp\to W^\pm/Z/\gamma+$jet.
The definitions of physics objects, cuts and observables—which specify the setup for the reweighting procedure discussed in —should be adopted both for theoretical calculations and for their Monte Carlo counterpart in the reweighting factor . The details of the reweighting setup are designed such as to avoid any possible deficit in the perturbative predictions (e.g. due to lack of resummation at small $p_\rT$) and any bias due to non-perturbative aspects of Monte Carlo simulations (e.g. leptons and missing energy from hadron decays). Let us also recall that this setup is completely independent of the physics objects, cuts and observables employed in the experimental analyses.
As concerns input parameters and PDFs, the recommendation of should be applied to all QCD and EW higher-order calculations. In particular, it is mandatory to compute (N)NLO QCD and EW corrections in the same EW input scheme, otherwise NLO EW accuracy would be spoiled. Instead, Monte Carlo simulations and the corresponding $\parx\siv_{\MC}$ contributions to the reweighting factor do not need to be based on the same input parameters and PDFs used for theory predictions.
We recommend handling $W/Z+\jet$ production and decay on the Monte Carlo side as the full processes $pp\to \ell\ell/\ell\nu/\nu\nu+\jet$, i.e. with a consistent treatment of off-shell effects, as is done on the theory side.
Definition of physics objects {#se:objects}
-----------------------------
In the following we define the various physics objects relevant for higher-order perturbative calculations and for the reweighting in the Monte Carlo counterparts in .
### Neutrinos {#se:neutrinos .unnumbered}
In parton-level calculations of $pp\to \ell\ell/\ell\nu/\nu\nu+\jet$, neutrinos originate only from vector-boson decays, while in Monte Carlo samples they can arise also from hadron decays. In order to avoid any bias in the reweighting procedure, only neutrinos arising from $Z$ and $W$ decays at Monte Carlo truth level should be considered.
### Charged leptons {#se:dressing .unnumbered}
Distributions in the lepton $p_\rT$ and other leptonic observables are known to be highly sensitive to QED radiative corrections, and the differences in the treatment of QED radiation on Monte Carlo and theory side can lead to a bias in the reweighting procedure. This should be avoided by using dressed leptons, i.e. recombining all leptons with nearly collinear photons that lie within a cone R\_=<. For the radius of the recombination cone we employ the standard value $\rrec=0.1$, which allows one to capture the bulk of the collinear final-state radiation, while keeping contamination from large-angle photon radiation at a negligible level. All lepton observables as well as the kinematics of reconstructed $W$ and $Z$ bosons are defined in terms of dressed leptons, and, in accordance with standard experimental practice, both muons and electrons should be dressed. In this way differences between electrons and muons, $\ell=e,\mu$, become negligible, and the reweighting function needs to be computed only once for a generic lepton flavour $\ell$.
Similarly as for neutrinos, only charged leptons that arise from $Z$ and $W$ decays at Monte Carlo truth level should be considered. Concerning QCD radiation in the vicinity of leptons, no lepton isolation requirement should be imposed in the context of the reweighting procedure. Instead, in the experimental analysis lepton isolation cuts can be applied in the usual manner.
### $Z$ and $W$ bosons {#se:ptVdef .unnumbered}
The off-shell four-momenta of $W$ and $Z$ bosons are defined as p\^\_[W\^+]{}&=&p\^\_[\^+]{}+p\^\_[\_]{},p\^\_[W\^-]{}=p\^\_[\^-]{}+p\^\_[|\_]{},\
p\^\_[Z]{}&=&p\^\_[\^+]{}+p\^\_[\^-]{},p\^\_[Z]{}=p\^\_[\_]{}+p\^\_[|\_]{}, where the leptons and neutrinos that result from $Z$ and $W$ decays are defined as discussed above.
### Photons {#se:photons .unnumbered}
At higher orders in QCD, photon production involves final-state $q\to q\gamma$ splittings that lead to collinear singularities when QCD radiation is emitted in the direction of the photon momentum. Since such singularities are of QED type, they are not cancelled by corresponding virtual QCD singularities. Thus, in order to obtain finite predictions in perturbation theory, the definition of the $pp\to \gamma+$jet cross section requires a photon-isolation prescription that vetoes collinear $q\to q\gamma$ radiation while preserving the cancellation of QCD infrared singularities.
To this end, in this study we adopt Frixione’s isolation prescription [@Frixione:1998jh], which limits the hadronic transverse energy within a smooth cone around the photon by requiring $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:standard_isolation}
\sum\limits_{i={\rm partons/hadrons}} & p_{\rm T, i}\,\Theta(R-\Delta R_{i\gamma})\\ &\leq
\epsilon_0\, p_{\rm T,\gamma} \left(\frac{1-\cos R}{1-\cos R_0}\right)^n \nonumber
\quad\forall\; R\le R_0,\end{aligned}$$ where the sum runs over all quarks/gluons and hadrons at parton level and Monte Carlo level, respectively, while $p_{\rm T,i}$ and $p_{\rm T,\gamma}$ denote the transverse momenta of partons/hadrons and photons. The $p_\rT$-fraction $\eps_0$, the cone size $R_0$, and the exponent $n$ are free parameters that allow one to control the amount of allowed QCD radiation in the vicinity of the photon.
The photon-isolation prescription is applicable to QCD as well as to EW higher-order corrections. At NLO EW, $\gamma+$jet production involves bremsstrahlung contributions with two final-state photons. In this case, at least one isolated photon is required. The other photon might become soft, guaranteeing the cancellation of related soft and collinear singularities in the virtual EW corrections. In case of two isolated photons in the final state, the hardest photon is considered. In particular, an explicit photon isolation prescription is mandatory at NLO EW in order to prevent uncancelled singularities from $q\to q\gamma$ splittings in the $\ord(\alpha^2\alphaS)$ mixed EW–QCD contributions from $qq\to qq\gamma$ and crossing-related channels.
As a consequence of $q\to q\gamma$ collinear singularities and the need to apply a photon isolation prescription, QCD corrections to $pp\to\gamma+$jet behave differently as compared to $Z/W+$jet production. Such differences can be important even at the TeV scale, where one might naively expect that massive and massless vector bosons behave in a universal way from the viewpoint of QCD dynamics. Instead, the presence of collinear $q\to q V$ singularities at (N)NLO QCD implies a logarithmic sensitivity to the vector-boson masses, which results, respectively, in $\ln(R_0)$ and $\ln(p_{\rT,V}/M_V)$ terms for the case of massless and massive vector bosons at $p_{\rT,V}\gg M_{W,Z}$.
A quantitative understanding of these differences and their implications on the correlation of QCD uncertainties between $\gamma+$jet and $Z+$jet production is crucial for the extrapolation of $\gamma+$jet measurements to $Z+$jet dark-matter backgrounds. To this end, as discussed in , we propose a systematic approach based on the idea that, at large $p_{\rT,V}$, the $pp\to \gamma+$jet process can be split into a dominant part with universal QCD dynamics (in the sense that QCD effects in $\gamma+$jet and $Z/W+$jet production are strongly correlated) and a remnant contribution that has to be handled as uncorrelated in the treatment of QCD uncertainties. To achieve this, we introduce a modified photon isolation prescription, which is designed such as to render the QCD dynamics of $\gamma+$jet and $Z/W$+jet production as similar as possible at high $p_\rT$. To this end we define a dynamic cone radius \[eq:dynrad\] (p\_[,]{},\_0)=, which is chosen in such a way that the invariant mass of a photon-jet pair with $R_{\gamma j}=\rdyn$ and $p_{\rT,j}=\eps_0\, p_{\rT,\gamma}$ corresponds to the $Z$-boson mass, \[eq:dynrad2\] M\^2\_[j]{}p\_[,]{}p\_[,j]{} R\^2\_[j]{}=\_0 p\^2\_[,]{} \^2 = M\_Z\^2, where the first identity is valid in the small-$R$ approximation. In this way, using a smooth isolation with $R_0=\rdyn(p_{\rT,\gamma},\eps_0)$ mimics the role of the $Z$- and $W$-boson masses as regulators of collinear singularities in $Z/W$+jet production at high $p_\rT$, while using a fixed cone radius $R_0$ would correspond to an effective $M_{\gamma j}$ cut well beyond $M_{Z,W}$, resulting in a more pronounced suppression of QCD radiation in $\gamma+$jet production as compared to $Z/W+$jet.
Specifically, as default photon selection for the theoretical predictions[^4] in this study we use the dynamic cone isolation defined through and , with parameters \[eq:dynisolation\] \_[0,]{}&=&0.1,n\_=1,\
R\_[0,]{}&=& {1.0, (p\_[,]{},\_[,0]{})}. Note that, in order to prevent that the veto against collinear QCD radiation is applied to an excessively large region of phase space, the dynamic cone radius in is limited to $\rdyn\le 1.0$. As a result of this upper bound, for $p_{\rT,\gamma}< M_Z\eps^{-1/2}_{0,\dyn}\simeq 290$GeV the cone radius is kept fixed, and the impact of collinear QCD radiation starts to be significantly enhanced as compared to the case of $Z/W+$jet production. Vice versa, for $p_{\rT,\gamma}> M_Z\eps^{-1/2}_{0,\dyn}$, thanks to the dynamic isolation cone , QCD effects in $\gamma+$jet and $Z/W+$jet production become closely related, and the degree of correlation between QCD uncertainties across all $V+$jet processes can be described with the prescription of .
For a realistic assessment of theoretical uncertainties, one should also consider the fact that photon isolation prescriptions used in experimental analyses differ in a significant way from the dynamic prescription of . To this end, we recommend to repeat the reweighting procedure using theory predictions for $\gamma+$jet based on a standard Frixione isolation with fixed cone radius and parameters that mimic typical experimental selections at particle level [@Khachatryan:2015ira], \[eq:standard\_isolation\_parameters\] \_[0,]{}=0.025, n\_=2, R\_[0,]{}= 0.4. The difference between $\gamma+$jet MC samples reweighted in the dynamic- and fixed-cone setup should be taken as an additional uncertainty for $pp\to\gamma+$jet. As ingredients for this uncertainty estimate we provide higher-order QCD predictions (without uncertainties) with fixed-cone isolation besides the full set of $pp\to
\gamma+$jet predictions and uncertainties with dynamic photon isolation (see ). In the EW corrections, differences between the two photon isolation prescriptions are well below the percent level. Thus predictions for $\gamma+$jet at (n)NLO EW are provided only with the dynamic cone prescription of .
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}
![ Ratios of distributions in the vector-boson transverse momenta for $pp\to V\gamma$ versus $pp\to Vj$ at LO with $\mu_{\rR,\rF}=H_\rT/2$. The vector bosons $V=W^\pm,Z,\gamma$ are on shell and $\sqrt{s}=13\,\TeV$. []{data-label="fig:ratios_Vgamma"}](ratios_Vgamma){width="\ratiotextwidthbig\textwidth"}
In we present a comparison of the NLO QCD $K$-factors for $W/Z+$jet and $\gamma+$jet production with dynamic and fixed cone isolation. For $p_{\rT,\gamma}<290$GeV, where both isolation prescriptions correspond to a fixed cone radius, the QCD corrections to $pp\to \gamma+$jet grow rapidly with decreasing $\pT$. At low $\pT$, due to the smaller cone size, fixed isolation ($R_0=0.4$) leads to more pronounced corrections as compared to dynamic isolation ($R_0=1.0$), but the slopes of the corresponding $\gamma+$jet $K$-factors are quite similar to each other and very different as compared to the ones for $pp\to W/Z+$jet. In the case of fixed isolation, this difference persists also in the high-$\pT$ regime (apart form the accidental agreement of $K$-factors at $p_{\rT,V}\approx 800$GeV). Instead, in the case of dynamic photon isolation, at large $\pT$ the QCD corrections to $\gamma+$jet and $W/Z+$jet production turn out to be remarkably similar, both in shape and size. As expected, the onset of this universal behaviour is located close to $p_{\rT,\gamma}=290$GeV, where the isolation radius $R_{0,\dyn}$ starts varying with $\pT$ in a way that rejects QCD radiation with $M_{\gamma j}\lsim M_{W,Z}$. The differences between $\gamma+$jet and $W/Z+$jet $K$-factors remain as small as a few percent up to the TeV scale.
### QCD partons and photons inside jets {#se:photonsinjets .unnumbered}
In order to avoid any bias due to the different modelling of jets in MC simulations and perturbative calculations, theory calculations and reweighting should be performed at the level of inclusive vector-boson $p_\rT$ distributions, without imposing any requirement on the recoiling jet(s). Predictions presented in this study are thus independent of specific jet definitions or jet cuts.
Concerning the composition of the recoil, we observe that, at NLO EW, $q\to
q\gamma$ splittings can transfer an arbitrary fraction of the recoiling momentum from QCD partons to photons. In particular, in $pp\to V\gamma j$ contributions of $\ord(\alpha^2\alphaS)$, the photon can carry up to 100% of the recoil momentum. Such contributions involve soft QCD singularities that are cancelled by including also virtual QCD corrections to $pp\to V\gamma$. In order to minimise double counting with diboson production,[^5] $V\gamma$ production at LO is not included in the EW corrections to $pp\to Vj$. In practice, as demonstrated in , the relative weight of $pp\to V\gamma$ at $\ord(\alpha^2)$ versus $pp\to Vj$ at $\ord(\alpha\alphaS)$ is well below the percent level. Thus the impact of $\ord(\alpha^2\alphaS)$ contributions from hard $V\gamma$ production, which are included in this study, should be completely negligible.
Cuts and observables {#se:cutsnadobs}
--------------------
process extra cuts observable comments
----------------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------
$pp\to \ell^+\nu_\ell+$jet none $p_{\rT,\ell^+\nu_\ell}$ $\ell= e$ or $\mu$
\[2mm\]$pp\to \ell^-\bar\nu_\ell+$jet none $p_{\rT,\ell^-\bar\nu_\ell}$ $\ell= e$ or $\mu$
\[2mm\]$pp\to \nu_\ell\bar\nu_\ell+$jet none $p_{\rT,\nu_\ell\bar\nu_\ell}$ $\ell=e+\mu+\tau$
\[2mm\]$pp\to \ell^+\ell^-+$jet $m_{\ell\ell} > 30\,\GeV$ $p_{\rT,\ell^+\ell^-}$ $\ell= e$ or $\mu$
\[2mm\]$pp\to \gamma+$jet dynamic isolation $p_{\rT,\gamma}$
–
\[2mm\]
Theoretical calculations and the reweighting of MC samples should be performed in a fully inclusive $V+$jet setup, imposing a single cut \[eq:ptcut\] p\_[,V]{}>30V=W\^,Z,, with $p_{\rT,W^\pm}$ and $p_{\rT,Z}$ defined as in . The cut is crucial in order to avoid the region where perturbative predictions suffer form the lack of QCD resummation.[^6]
For leptons and MET we do not apply any $p_\rT$ or rapidity cuts. Moreover, we do not impose any restrictions on QCD radiation in the vicinity of leptons and MET. Also QCD radiation is handled in a fully inclusive way, i.e. the presence of a recoiling jet is not explicitly required, and, as discussed in , at NLO EW the recoil can be entirely carried by a photon. Here we want to stress again that of course the particle-level analysis of the reweighted Monte Carlo samples can (and will) involve a more exclusive event selection than used for the reweighting itself.
The differential distributions to be used for the reweighting of the various $pp\to V+$jet processes and process-specific selection cuts to be applied in addition to are summarised in . In the case of $pp\to \nu\bar\nu+$jet all three neutrino species are added, while for all other $Z$ and $W$ decays only a single lepton generation is considered. For $pp\to\ell^+\ell^-+$jet an extra invariant-mass cut is applied in order to avoid far off-shell contributions, especially from $\gamma^*\to \ell^+\ell^-$ at low invariant mass. The relatively low value of the lower cut, $m_{\ell\ell}> 30\,\GeV$, is intended to minimise cross section loss due to photon radiation that shifts events from the $Z$-peak region down to lower invariant mass (see ). This choice guarantees a reduced sensitivity with respect to the modelling of QED radiation.
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}
The following binning is adopted for distributions in the reconstructed vector-boson transverse momenta, \[eq:binning\] & .\
Input parameters, PDFs and QCD scales {#se:inputs}
-------------------------------------
Input parameters and PDFs employed for theoretical predictions in this study are specified in the following. Let us recall that, as discussed in , Monte Carlo samples used in the experimental analyses do not need to be generated with the same input parameters and PDFs used for higher-order theoretical predictions.
In the calculation of $pp\to\ell\ell/\ell\nu/\nu\nu/\gamma\,+$jet we use the gauge-boson masses [@Agashe:2014kda] \[eq:massesew\] M\_Z&=&91.1876 , M\_W=80.385 , and the corresponding widths, \_Z&=&2.4955 ,\_W=2.0897 . The latter are obtained from state-of-the-art theoretical calculations. For the top-quark [@Agashe:2014kda] and Higgs-boson [@Heinemeyer:2013tqa] masses and widths we use \[eq:massestop\] M\_t&=&173.2 ,M\_H=125 , and[^7] \_t&=&1.339 , \_H=0 .
All unstable particles are treated in the complex-mass scheme [@Denner:2005fg], where width effects are absorbed into the complex-valued renormalised masses \[eq:complexmasses\] \^2\_i=M\_i\^2-\_iM\_i i=W,Z,t.
For $W$+jet and $Z$+jet production processes the EW couplings are derived from the gauge-boson masses and the Fermi constant, $\GF=1.16637\times10^{-5}~\GeV^{-2}$, using \[eq:defalpha\] =||, while for $\gamma$+jet production the EW coupling is chosen to be [@Agashe:2014kda] =(0)=1/137.035999074. In both schemes the weak mixing angle $\thetaw$ is determined by \[eq:defsintheta\] \^2=1-\^2=1-, and becomes complex-valued. The $G_\mu$-scheme guarantees an optimal description of pure SU(2) interactions at the EW scale. It is the scheme of choice for $W+$jet production, and it provides a very good description of $Z\,+$jet production as well. The $\alpha(0)$ scheme to be used for $\gamma$+jet, on the other hand, expresses the fact that on-shell photons effectively couple at a scale $Q^2$=0 . The CKM matrix is assumed to be diagonal and we checked at LO and NLO QCD that for $W$+jet production the difference with respect to a non-diagonal CKM matrix is always well below 1%. For the choice of renormalisation and factorisation scales and variations thereof we refer to .
For the calculation of hadron-level cross sections at (N)NLO QCD+(n)NLO EW we employ the [LUXqed$\_\linebreak$plus$\_$PDF4LHC15$\_$nnlo$\_$100]{} PDF set, which is based on PDF4LHC NNLO PDFs [@Butterworth:2015oua; @Ball:2014uwa; @Dulat:2015mca; @Harland-Lang:2014zoa; @Gao:2013bia; @Carrazza:2015aoa] supplemented with QED effects [@Manohar:2016nzj]. The same PDF set, and the related $\alphaS$ value, is used throughout, i.e. also in the relevant LO and NLO ingredients used in the estimate of theoretical uncertainties. At the level of precision discussed in this study also the uncertainty on the value of $\alphaS$ becomes relevant. Given 1% uncertainty on the measured value of $\alphaS$ this results in an overall 1–2% normalisation uncertainty on the differential $\pT$ distributions. However, one should keep in mind that in the process ratios this uncertainty cancels completely and thus it is irrelevant for background estimates in DM searches at high-MET. Consistently with the five-flavour number scheme employed in the PDFs, $b$-quarks are treated as massless partons, and channels with initial-state $b$-quarks are taken into account. All light quarks, including bottom quarks, are treated as massless particles, and top-quark loops are included up to NLO throughout. Matrix elements at (N)NLO are evaluated using the five-flavour running of the strong coupling supported by the PDFs and, for consistency, top-quark loops are renormalised in the decoupling scheme. For the NNLO QCD coefficient no top-quark loops are considered.
For the assessment of PDF uncertainties the PDF4LHC prescription [@Butterworth:2015oua] is adopted. In addition to standard PDF variations, also additional `LUXqed` variations for the photon PDF are applied. For more details see more details in .
Computational frameworks {#se:tools}
------------------------
The theoretical predictions presented in include corrections up to NNLOQCD and NLOEW, as well as Sudakov EW effects at $\ord(\alpha^2)$. They have been obtained by means of a variety of methods and tools, as detailed in the following.
The NLO QCD and NLO EW calculations for all $pp\to V+$jet processes have been performed with and/or . In these automated frameworks [@Kallweit:2014xda; @Kallweit:2015dum; @Kallweit:2017khh] virtual amplitudes are provided by the program [@hepforge; @Cascioli:2011va], combined with the tensor reduction library [@Denner:2016kdg] or with [CutTools]{} [@Ossola:2007ax]. The remaining tasks are supported by the two independent and fully automated Monte Carlo generators [@munich] and [@Gleisberg:2008ta; @Krauss:2001iv; @Gleisberg:2007md; @sherpaqedbrems]. Additionally, we carefully validated the NLO EW predictions against the results of . The NLO EW calculations for $pp\to V+2$jets performed to test the factorisation of QCD and EW corrections have been checked against the one of for $pp\to Z+2$jets in . The NLO EW amplitudes for all $V$+jet processes in have been supplemented with the one- and two-loop analytical Sudakov logarithms of .
The NNLO QCD predictions for $Z$+jet production have been obtained with the parton-level event generator [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NNLOjet</span>]{}, which provides the necessary infrastructure to perform fully differential calculations at NNLO using the antenna subtraction formalism [@GehrmannDeRidder:2005cm; @GehrmannDeRidder:2005aw; @GehrmannDeRidder:2005hi; @Daleo:2006xa; @Daleo:2009yj; @Gehrmann:2011wi; @Boughezal:2010mc; @GehrmannDeRidder:2012ja; @Currie:2013vh]. The computation of $pp\to W$+jet through NNLO is based on the $N$-jettiness subtraction scheme for NNLO calculations [@Boughezal:2015dva]. The above-cut contribution within the $N$-jettiness subtraction was obtained using . The NNLO QCD prediction for the $pp\to \gamma$+jet process is based on the calculations of and has been obtained using MCFM [@Boughezal:2016wmq]. In order to ensure the correctness of the numerical implementation of cuts and other parameters in the NNLO codes, a detailed comparison has been performed at the level of the NLO QCD results as described above.
Higher-order QCD and EW predictions {#se:ho}
===================================
Precise theory predictions for $V+$jet production require QCD and EW higher-order corrections, mixed QCD–EW contributions, as well as photon-induced contributions, \[eq:th1\] \_= \_+ \_ + \_ + \_[-[ind.]{}]{}. In this section we present theoretical predictions that include corrections up to NNLOQCD and NLOEW supplemented by EW Sudakov logarithms at two loops. Moreover, we introduce a coherent theoretical framework for the combination of EW and QCD calculations for the various $V+$jet production processes and for the assessment of the corresponding remaining sources of theoretical uncertainty. State-of-the art QCD and EW predictions and the related theoretical uncertainties are discussed in and \[se:ew\] respectively. is devoted to photon-induced channels and to PDF uncertainties, while in we discuss the real emission of vector bosons, and mixed corrections of $\ord(\alpha\alphaS)$ are addressed in by means of a factorised combination of QCD and EW corrections.
To illustrate the effect of higher-order corrections and uncertainties we present a series of numerical results for $pp\to V+$jet at a centre-of-mass energy of 13TeV in the setup specified in . In particular, $pp\to \gamma+$jet predictions are based on the dynamic photon isolation . As anticipated in , this prescription provides a very convenient basis for the systematic modelling of the correlation of QCD uncertainties between the various $V+$jet production processes (see ).
Vector-boson $p_\rT$ spectra are plotted starting at 80GeV, but for the sake of a complete documentation data sets are provided above 30 GeV (see ). However, we note that in the region of $p_\rT \lsim 100$ GeV there are potential sources of systematics that we are not controlling or even discussing, as they would require a separate study. These arise from the resummation of QCD Sudakov logarithms or from non-perturbative effects (e.g. an order $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$ average shift of the vector boson $p_\rT$ associated with the asymmetry of colour flow in the final state). Furthermore, as shown later, a reliable correlation between the $Z/W$ spectra and the photon spectrum requires $p_\rT$ to be large enough so that fragmentation contributions in $\gamma +$jet production become small. We also expect that in the $p_\rT$ regions up to a few hundred GeV the statistics are sufficient to guarantee that experimental analyses of missing-$E_\rT$ backgrounds can entirely rely on the direct measurement of the $Z$ spectrum measured via $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-$. As a result, we believe that our conclusions on the systematic uncertainties are most reliable and useful for experimental applications in the region of $p_\rT$ larger than 100–200GeV.
Higher-order QCD predictions {#se:qcd}
----------------------------
For perturbative QCD predictions at LO, NLO and NNLO we use the generic notation \[eq:qcd0\] \_ = \_, with $k=0,1$ or $2$. Wherever possible, nominal predictions are provided at NNLO QCD, i.e. including terms up to[^8] $\ord(\alpha\alphaS^3)$. However, as ingredients for the assessment of some theory uncertainties, also LO and NLO QCD contributions will be used.
For convenience, results at $\NkLO$ QCD are systematically expressed in terms of LO predictions and relative correction factors defined through \[eq:kfactors\] \_()&=& K\^[(V)]{}\_(x,) \_(\_0). We calculate all $\NkLO$ and LO cross sections with one and the same set of NNLO PDFs as discussed in. The dependence on the renormalisation and factorisation scales, $\vec\mu=(\mu_{R},\mu_{F})$, is absorbed into the $K$-factors, while LO predictions on the r.h.s. of are taken at the central scale, $\vec\mu_0=(\mu_{R,0},\mu_{F,0})$. For the central scale we adopt the commonly used choice \[eq:htscale\] \_[R,0]{}=\_[F,0]{}=\_[0]{}=/2 , where the total transverse energy, $\HTprimehat$, is defined as the scalar sum of the transverse energy of all parton-level final-state objects, \[eq:BHscale\] = E\_[,]{}+\_[i{}]{} |p\_[,i]{}|. Also quarks (q), gluons (g) and photons that are radiated in the (N)NLO QCD or EW corrections are included in $\HTprimehat$, and the vector-boson transverse energy, $E_{\rT,\PV}$, is computed using the total (off-shell) four-momentum of the corresponding decay products, \[ETboson\] E\^2\_[,Z]{}&=&p\^2\_[,\^+\^-]{}+m\_[\^+\^-]{}\^2,\
E\^2\_[,W]{}&=&p\^2\_[,]{}+m\_\^2,\
E\^2\_[,]{}&=&p\^2\_[,]{}. In order to guarantee infrared safety at NLO EW, the scale must be insensitive to collinear photon emissions off charged fermions. To this end, the vector-boson transverse energies defined in should be computed in terms of dressed leptons as specified in, while $|p_{\rT,\gamma}|$ contributions to should involve only photons that have not been recombined with charged leptons. It is worth to note that $\mu_{0} \approx p_{\rT,V}$ at large $p_{\rT,V}$.
### Pure QCD uncertainties {#pure-qcd-uncertainties .unnumbered}
The uncertainty associated with the truncation of the perturbative expansion in $\alphaS$ is estimated by means of factorisation and renormalisation scale variations. We consider standard seven-point variations applying, respectively, factor-two rescalings, &=& (1,1), (2,2), (0.5,0.5), (2,1), (1,2), (1,0.5), (0.5,1),\
where $i=0,\ldots 6$. Nominal predictions and related uncertainties are defined as the centre and the half-width of the band resulting from the above variations. In terms of $K$-factors this corresponds to \[eq:meanKfact\] K\^[(V)]{}\_(x) &=& ,\
\^[(1)]{} K\^[(V)]{}\_(x)&=& , \[eq:var1Kfact\] with K\_\^[(V,)]{}(x)&=&{K\^[(V)]{}\_(x,\_i)| 0i6.},\
K\_\^[(V,)]{}(x)&=&{ K\^[(V)]{}\_(x,\_i)| 0i6.}. Since the shift resulting form the symmetrisation of scale variations in is encoded in the $K$-factors, also the LO $K$-factor differs from one.
Constant scale variations mainly affect the overall normalisation of $p_\rT$-distributions and tend to underestimate shape uncertainties, which play an important role in the extrapolation of low-$p_\rT$ measurements to high $p_\rT$. Thus, for a reasonably conservative estimate of shape uncertainties, we introduce an additional variation, \[eq:dKqcd2\] \^[(2)]{} K\^[(V)]{}\_(x)= (x) \^[(1)]{} K\^[(V)]{}\_(x), \[eq:var2Kfact\] where the standard scale uncertainty is supplemented by a shape distortion $\shape(x)$, with $|\shape(x)|\le 1$ and $\shape(x)\to \pm 1$ at high and small transverse momentum, respectively. The function $\shape$ is defined as \[eq:shapedist\] (p\_)= =, and as reference transverse momentum we choose the value $p_{\rT,0}=650$GeV, which corresponds (in logarithmic scale) to the middle of the range of interest, 0.2–2TeV. As illustrated in , the function $\shape(x)$ induces asymmetric variations that cover $\pm 75\%$ of the standard scale variation band for $p_\rT\in [250,1750]\,\GeV$. Note that, in the combination of the uncertainties and , our choice to have an additional shape variation augments the standard scale uncertainty by a factor $1 \le \sqrt{1+\shape^2(p_\rT)}\le \sqrt{2}$.
{width="50.00000%"}
Besides shape uncertainties, also the correlation of QCD uncertainties across $V+$jet processes plays a key role in fits of the $Z(\nu\bar\nu)+$jet dark matter background, and the quantitative understanding of such process correlations belongs to the most important theoretical aspects in dark matter searches. From the viewpoint of QCD interactions, the processes $pp\to W+$jet and $pp\to Z+$jet are quite similar to each other at $p_{\rT,V}\gg M_{W,Z}$. Thus, the respective QCD uncertainties are expected to be strongly correlated. However, due to the presence of $q\to q\gamma$ collinear singularities and the need to suppress them with an appropriate photon-isolation prescription, higher-order QCD contributions to $\gamma+$jet production can behave in a significantly different way as compared to the case of $pp\to W/Z+$jet. In order to reduce such differences, we adopt the dynamic photon isolation approach defined in . As discussed in , this prescription renders the QCD dynamics of $pp\to \gamma+$jet and $pp\to Z/W+$jet processes almost universal. As a result, QCD $K$-factors $K^{(V)}_{\NkLO}(x)$ and their uncertainties $\delta^{(i)}K^{(V)}_{\NkLO}(x)$ depend only very weakly[^9] on $V$ at high $p_\rT$, and in this situation the small process-dependent part of QCD $K$-factors can be used as an estimator of the degree of correlation across processes. To this end we consider the highest available term in the perturbative expansion, \[eq:proccorr1\] K\^[(V)]{}\_(x)=K\^[(V)]{}\_(x)/K\^[(V)]{}\_(x)-1, and as estimate of unknown process correlation effects we take the difference of the known QCD $K$-factors with respect to $Z+$jet production, \[eq:dKqcd3\] \^[(3)]{} K\^[(V)]{}\_(x) &=& K\^[(V)]{}\_(x)-K\^[(Z)]{}\_(x). This process correlation uncertainty can be assessed using the central scale throughout. Applying it to nominal predictions, replacing $K^{(V)}_{\NkLO} \to K^{(V)}_{\NkLO}\pm \delta^{(3)} K^{(V)}_{\NkLO}$, amounts to doubling or removing $K$-factor differences between processes. The choice of $Z+$jet production as reference process in is arbitrary, but changing the reference process has very little impact on process correlations since the resulting overall shift in $\delta^{(3)} K^{(V)}_{\NkLO}(x)$ cancels to a large extent in ratios of $V+$jet cross sections.
The above prescription should be regarded as conservative, since parts of the available $K$-factors are downgraded from the status of known higher-order corrections to uncertainties. However, thanks to the fact that the $V+$jet $K$-factors of the same order $k$ are strongly correlated, $\delta^{(3)} K^{(V)}_{\NkLO}(x) \ll \Delta K^{(V)}_{\NkLO}$, the resulting losses of accuracy in the nominal $\NkLO$ predictions for individual processes are rather small.
For the application to experimental analyses, it is important to keep in mind that the above modelling of process correlations assumes a close similarity of QCD effects between all $pp\to V+$jet processes, which is achieved, in the present study, by means of the dynamic photon isolation . Thus, as discussed in , experimental analyses that employ a different photon isolation approach require an additional $\gamma+$jet specific uncertainty.
The above uncertainties can be parametrised through a set of independent nuisance parameters, $\vec\eps_\QCD$, and combined using \[ew:QCDcomb\] &\_(\_)= \_(\_0). The nuisance parameters $\eps_{\QCD,1},\eps_{\QCD,2}$ and $\eps_{\QCD,3}$ should be Gaussian distributed with one standard deviation corresponding to the range $\eps_{\QCD,i}\in[-1,+1]$. These parameters should be kept uncorrelated, but each $\eps_{\QCD,i}$-variation should be applied in a correlated way across $p_\rT$ bins and processes, since correlation effects are consistently implemented in the $\delta^{(i)} K^{(V)}_{\NkLO}(x)$ terms.
### Numerical results {#numerical-results .unnumbered}
{width="\ratiotextwidthbig\textwidth"}
Predictions for $V$+jet distributions and their ratios at LO, NLO and NNLO QCD are presented in as well as in (see ). In Figures \[fig:QCD\_corr\_error\] and \[fig:app\_QCD\_error\]–\[fig:app\_ratios\_qcd\], scale uncertainties , shape uncertainties , and process-correlation uncertainties are shown separately, while in Figures \[fig:QCD\_error\] and \[fig:ratios\_qcd\] the three QCD uncertainties are combined in quadrature. Here and in the following $W$ denotes $W^+$ and $W^-$ combined.
At high transverse momentum, we find that QCD corrections and uncertainties for the various $V+\,$jet production processes behave in a very similar way. At NLO the corrections amount to 40–60% with residual uncertainties around 10–20%, while NNLO corrections increase the cross section by 5–10% and reduce the combined uncertainty to 3–10%. Scale variations $\delta^{(1)}K_{\NkLO}$ and shape variations $\delta^{(2)}K_{\NkLO}$ are the dominant sources of uncertainty in $\pT$-distributions. Their contributions are very similar across $V+\,$jet processes. Thus in the ratios scale and shape variations largely cancel, and the process-correlation uncertainty $\delta^{(3)}K_{\NkLO}$ tends to dominate.
The ratio plots () allow one to appreciate small differences in the QCD dynamics of the various $V+$jet processes. As reflected in the $Z/W$ ratio, the NLO and NNLO corrections for the corresponding proceses are almost identical, with differences below up to one TeV. Only at very large $\pT$ the NLO and also NNLO corrections to $W$+jet grow faster than in the case of $Z$+jet. This results in an increase of the process-correlation uncertainty $\delta^{(3)}K_{\NLO}$ up to about $5\%$ beyond $\pT=2~\TeV$.
As can be seen in the $Z/\gamma$ and $W/\gamma$ ratios, the higher-order QCD corrections to $\gamma$+jet production behave very similarly as for $Z+$jet and $W+$jet production at large $\pT$. This is the result of the dynamic photon isolation , which guarantees that the differences in the NLO and NNLO corrections remain below 3–4% for $\pT>200\,$GeV. Instead, at lower $\pT$ the behaviour of $\gamma+$jet production changes drastically due to mass effects, which results in sizeable process-correlation uncertainties.[^10] Note that for $\pT\approx 300~\GeV$ the NLO process-correlation uncertainty in $pp\to\gamma+$jet is accidentally very small (see ) yielding a pinch in the total QCD uncertainty for the $Z/\gamma$ and the $W/\gamma$ ratios (see also ). However, one should keep in mind that an additional analysis-dependent photon-isolation uncertainty (see ) has to be considered for these ratios.
In general, comparing QCD predictions at different orders we observe a good convergence of the perturbative expansion, and the fact that process ratios receive very small corrections both at NLO and NNLO provides strong evidence for the universality of QCD dynamics is all $V+$jet processes. Results at NNLO provide also a crucial test of the goodness of the proposed approach for the estimate of QCD uncertainties and their correlations. In particular, the remarkable consistency between NNLO and NLO predictions in confirms that QCD uncertainties for process ratios are as small as 1–2%.
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}\
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}
Electroweak corrections {#se:ew}
-----------------------
For EW higher-order corrections we use the notation, \[eq:ew0\] \_&=& \_+ \_,\
\_&=& \_+ \_, where $\Delta\siv_{\NLO\,\EW}$ denotes exact $\ord(\alpha^2\alphaS)$ contributions, and ‘NNLOSud’ stands for $\ord(\alpha^3\alphaS)$ EW Sudakov logarithms in NLL approximation (see below). Their combination is dubbed nNLOEW as it accounts for the dominant EW effects at NNLO. While our power counting does not consider the extra factor $\alpha$ associated with vector-boson decays, all predictions for $pp\to W/Z+$jet at (N)NLO QCD + NLO EW are at the level of the full processes, $pp\to \ell\nu/\ell\ell/\nu\nu+$jet, including off-shell effects and NLO EW corrections in decays. Since EW Sudakov logarithms do not enter $W$ and $Z$ decays, they are applied only at the level of $pp\to V+$jet production, including off-shell decays at LO.
The EW corrections, similarly as for the QCD ones, are also expressed in terms of correction factors with respect to LO QCD, \[eq:ewkfactors\] \_()&=& \_(), where EW stands for NLO EW or nNLO EW. At variance with , here the EW $\kappa$-factors are defined by taking the factorized LO cross section at the same QCD scales, $\vec\mu=(\mur,\muf)$, as in the higher-order EW prediction. In this way, since QCD scale variations at LO QCD and (n)NLO EW have almost identical impact, the relative EW correction is essentially independent of $\vec\mu$. Thus, in practice, $\kappa_\EW$ can be computed at the fixed reference scale, \^[(V)]{}\_(x,)\^[(V)]{}\_(x,\_0)= \^[(V)]{}\_(x), while the scale dependence of $\siv_{\EW}$ is generated through $\siv_{\LO\,\QCD}(\vec\mu)$ in . Moreover, the EW correction factor $\kappa^{(V)}_\EW$ is rather insensitive to the choice of PDF set as long as it is derived from cross sections that are based on the same PDFs. Analogously to , nNLO EW correction factors are split into a full NLO part and an NNLO Sudakov part, \[eq:EWcorsplitting\] \^[(V)]{}\_(x)= \^[(V)]{}\_(x)+\^[(V)]{}\_(x).
At NLO EW, all relevant contributions of $\ord{(\alpha^2\alphaS)}$ are included. In the $q\bar q$ channel, and in all crossing-related channels, they comprise the following types of corrections:
1. virtual EW corrections to $q\bar q\to Vg$;
2. $q\bar q\to Vg\gamma$ photon bremsstrahlung;
3. virtual QCD corrections to $q\bar q\to V\gamma$, which are needed to cancel soft-gluon singularities from (a.2) if the final-state QCD partons are allowed to become unresolved;
4. $q \bar q\to Vq'\bar q'$ bremsstrahlung, which contributes at $\ord(\alpha^2\alphaS)$ through the interference of $\ord(eg_S^2)$ and $\ord(e^3)$ tree amplitudes in the same-flavour case, $q=q'$;
Formally at $\ord(\alpha^2\alphaS)$ in perturbation theory also the following contributions appear and are not included:
5. \[it:gammaindqbrem\] $\gamma q\to V q g$ photon-induced quark-bremsstrahlung[^11], at $\ord(\alpha^2\alphaS)$, which plays the dual role of NLO EW correction to the $q\bar q\to Vg$ channel and NLO QCD correction to the $\gamma q\to Vq$ channel. As discussed in , given the relatively small impact of $\gamma q\to V q$ processes at $\ord(\alpha^2)$, photon-induced contributions of $\ord(\alphaS\alpha^2)$ will not be included in the present study;
6. real-boson emission, i.e. $pp\to VV'j$, contributes at $\ord(\alpha^2\alphaS)$. As discussed in , in order to avoid double counting with diboson production, such contributions should be treated as separate background samples and not as part of the EW corrections to $pp\to Vj$.
At very high transverse momentum, EW corrections are strongly enhanced by Sudakov effects, and the inclusion of higher-order Sudakov logarithms becomes mandatory in order to achieve few-percent level accuracy. In the high-$p_\rT$ regime, where all energy scales are far above the weak-boson mass scale, higher-order virtual EW corrections to hard scattering cross sections can be described by means of resummation formulas of the type[^12] [@Jantzen:2005az; @Chiu:2007dg] \[eq:Sudakov\] \_= {\_[M\_W\^2]{}\^[Q\^2]{} } \_, where $\gamma$, $\chi$ and $\xi$ are anomalous dimensions depending on the EW quantum numbers of the scattering particles. The hard cross section has the form \[eq:hardME\] \_=\_, and the correction factors $\delta^{(k)}_\hard$ are finite in the limit $Q^2/M_W^2\to \infty$, while EW Sudakov and subleading high-energy logarithms of type $\alpha^m \ln^n\left(Q^2/M_W^2\right)$ are factorised in the exponential. Expanding in $\alpha=\alpha(M^2)$ with $\gamma_i(\alpha)=\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\gamma_i^{(1)}+\dots,$ and (t)=yields \[eq:EXPSudakov\] {…}=1+\^[(1)]{}\_+()\^2\^[(2)]{}\_+…. At NLL level, which is the logarithmic accuracy at which NNLO Sudakov effects are known for $V+$jet production [@Kuhn:2004em; @Kuhn:2005gv; @Kuhn:2005az; @Kuhn:2007qc; @Kuhn:2007cv], the following types of logarithms are available, \[eq:NLLSudakov\] \^[(1)]{}\_&=&\_[i,j]{}[C\_[2,ij]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}[\^[2]{}()]{}+[C\_[1]{}\^[(1)]{}]{}[\^[1]{}()]{},\
\^[(2)]{}\_&=&\_[i,j]{}[C\_[4,ij]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}[\^[4]{}()]{} +[C\_[3]{}\^[(2)]{}]{}[\^[3]{}()]{}\
&&+,where $M=M_W\sim M_Z$, $Q^2_{ij}=|(\hat p_i\pm \hat p_j)^2|$ are the various Mandelstam invariants built from the hard momenta $\hat p_i$ of the $V+$jet production process and $Q^2=Q_{12}^2=\hat s$.
In this work we will employ the explicit NLL Sudakov results of , which have been implemented, in addition to exact NLO QCD+NLO EW amplitudes, in the [OpenLoops]{} matrix-element generator [@Kallweit:2014xda; @Kallweit:2015dum]. Let us recall that the results of are based on the high-energy limit of virtual one- and two-loop corrections regularised with a fictitious photon mass of order $M_W$. This generates logarithms of the form $\alpha^n\ln^k(\hat s/M^2_W)$ that correspond to the combination of virtual one- and two-loop EW corrections plus corresponding photon radiation contributions up to an effective cut-off scale of order $M_W$. In the case of $V+$jet production, for physical observables that are inclusive with respect to photon radiation, this approximation is accurate at the one-percent level [@Kuhn:2005gv; @Kuhn:2007cv; @Badger:2016bpw].
In this work we will employ full EW results at NLO and NLL Sudakov logarithms at NNLO. In the notation of , for fully-differential partonic cross sections, this implies \[eq:sudakovkfactors1\] \_(s, t)&=&,\
\[eq:sudakovkfactors2\] \_(s, t)&=&()\^2\^[(2)]{}\_.
### Pure EW uncertainties {#se:pureewunc .unnumbered}
Assuming that the NLL Sudakov approximation at NNLO is comparably accurate as at NLO, we can consider unknown Sudakov logarithms beyond NNLO as the dominant source of EW uncertainty at high $p_\rT$. Such Sudakov terms of relative $\ord(\alpha^3)$ can be easily estimated via naive exponentiation, which implies the following relations between NLO, NNLO and NNNLO terms, \[eq:n3loestimate\] \^[(2)]{}\_&&\^2,\
\^[(3)]{}\_&&\^3\^[(1)]{}\_\^[(2)]{}\_. Based on these relations, we estimate the uncertainty due to unknown high-$p_\rT$ EW effects beyond NNLO as \[eq:dkappaEW1\] \^[(1)]{}\^[(V)]{}\_(x) &=& \^[(V)]{}\_(x)\^[(V)]{}\_(x) ,\
which is an approximate implementation of , obtained by neglecting effects from angular integration, replacing $\delta^{(1)}_\Sud$ by the full NLO EW correction, and multiplying the term $\delta^{(3)}_\Sud$ by a factor two, in order to be conservative.
Besides Sudakov exponentiation effects, we introduce a second source of uncertainty, defined, at nNLO EW level, as 5% of the absolute full NLO EW correction, \[eq:dkappaEW2\] \^[(2)]{} \^[(V)]{}\_(x)= 0.05 \^[(V)]{}\_(x). This type of uncertainty has a twofold motivation. At high $p_\rT$, where Sudakov logarithms dominate, it accounts for unknown terms of order $\alpha^2{\ln^{2}\left(\frac{Q^2}{M^2}\right)}$ that can arise from effects of the form \[eq:dkappaEW2b\] ()\^2\^[(1)]{}\_ \^[(1)]{}\_&=& \_ \_\
&& \_ \_. In general, the non-Sudakov factor $\kappa_{\NLO\,\hard}=(\frac{\alpha}{\pi})\delta^{(1)}_\hard$ can amount to several percent, e.g. due to photon-bremsstrahlung effects in highly exclusive observables. However, for the boson-$p_\rT$ distributions considered in this paper, where dressed leptons are used, the quality of the Sudakov approximation observed in indicates that $\kappa_{\NLO\,\hard}$ is very small. Nevertheless, to be conservative, in we choose a prefactor that allows for effects as large as $\kappa_{\NLO\,\hard}=5\%$.
As a second motivation, the uncertainty accounts also for NNLO effects of type $\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^2\delta^{(2)}_\hard$, which can become relevant in the case where hard contributions dominate. In this situation, amounts to a bound on hard NNLO effects, \[eq:dkappaEW2c\] ()\^2\^[(2)]{}\_0.05 \_ 0.05 ()\^[(1)]{}\_, which corresponds to $\delta^{(2)}_\hard \le \frac{0.05\pi}{\alpha}\delta^{(1)}_\hard\simeq
20\,\delta^{(1)}_\hard$. This limit should be conservative enough to hold also in situations where the NLO hard correction is accidentally small with respect to its NNLO counterpart.
In order to account for the limitations of the Sudakov approximation at nNLO in a sufficiently conservative way, we introduce an additional source of uncertainty defined as the difference between the rigorous NLL Sudakov approximation and a naive exponentiation of the full NLO EW correction, \[eq:dkappaEW3\] \^[(3)]{}\^[(V)]{}\_(x) &=& \^[(V)]{}\_(x)- \[\^[(V)]{}\_(x)\]\^2 .\
This expression provides an estimate of the typical size of terms of type $\left[\delta^{(1)}_\hard\right]^2$ and $\delta^{(1)}_\hard\times\delta^{(1)}_\Sud$.
In correspondence to the nNLO uncertainties of Eqs. , and , at NLOEW we introduce uncertainties $\delta^{(i)}\kappa_{\NLO\,\EW}$, defined as \[eq:EWuncertainties3\] \^[(1)]{}\^[(V)]{}\_(x) &=& \^2,\
\^[(2)]{}\^[(V)]{}\_(x) &=& 2000()\^2 1.2% ,\
\^[(3)]{}\^[(V)]{}\_(x) &=& 0. Here the first term is the direct transposition of Eq. to NLO. It accounts for the unknown $\ord{(\alpha^2)}$ Sudakov terms $\delta_\Sud^{(2)}$ in supplemented with an extra factor of two. As explained in the following, the second uncertainty in is the NLO counterpart of the nNLOEW uncertainty . The latter accounts for unknown $\ord{(\alpha^2)}$ terms of type and , which correspond to the intrinsic uncertainty of the employed Sudakov approximation at nNLO. At NLOEW the situation is different, since the calculations are exact, there are no unknown terms of $\ord(\alpha)$. Thus, we assume an uncertainty $\delta^{(2)}\kappa^{(V)}_{\NLO\,\EW}(x)$ of type $\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^2\delta^{(2)}_\hard$. We do not consider additional uncertainties of type $\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^2\delta^{(2)}_\Sud$ since they are already covered by the first term in . As estimate of the size of the unknown $\delta^{(2)}_\hard$ coefficient, following the discussion of , we impose a very generous upper bound to the ratio between $\delta^{(2)}_\hard$ and $\delta^{(1)}_\hard$. To be conservative, at NLOEW we adopt a ten times looser bound as compared to nNLOEW, we require $\delta^{(2)}_\hard\lsim 200\,\delta^{(1)}_\hard$. Finally, setting $\delta^{(1)}_\hard=10$, which corresponds to the typical size of non-Sudakov enhanced EW corrections, $10\times\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)\simeq 2\%$, we arrive at $2000\times\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^2$ for the second term in . The third uncertainty in is set to zero, since there is no counterpart of at NLO.
Similarly as for QCD uncertainties, the EW uncertainties in Eqs. , , and , can be parametrised in terms of nuisance parameters $\vec \eps_\EW$ and combined via \[eq:ewunccomb\] \_(\_,\_)&=&\
&&\_(\_), where EW stands for NLO EW or nNLO EW. The nuisance parameters $\eps^{(V)}_{\EW,i}$ should be Gaussian distributed with one standard deviation corresponding to the range $\eps^{(V)}_{\EW,i}\in[-1,+1]$, and their variations should be applied in a correlated way across $p_\rT$-bins. Since the first uncertainty reflects the universal exponentiation properties of Sudakov EW corrections, which permits to predict the magnitude and size of the dominant higher-order corrections for each individual processes, this variation should be correlated across processes, i.e. a single nuisance parameter should be used, \^[(W\^)]{}\_[,1]{}= \^[(Z)]{}\_[,1]{}= \^[()]{}\_[,1]{}= \_[,1]{}. In contrast, the remaining EW uncertainties and describe subleading NNLO effects whose sign, magnitude and process dependence are unknown. Thus these uncertainties should be treated as uncorrelated, i.e. independent nuisance parameters $\eps^{(V)}_{\EW,2}$ and $\eps^{(V)}_{\EW,3}$ should be used for each process.
### Numerical results {#numerical-results-1 .unnumbered}
{width="\ratiotextwidthbig\textwidth"}
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}
Predictions for $V$+jet distributions and their ratios at LO, $\NLO\,\EW$ and $\nNLO\,\EW$ are presented in as well as in (see ). In Figures \[fig:EW\_corr\_error\] and , the EW uncertainties defined in , , and are shown separately, while in Figures \[fig:EW\_error\] and \[fig:ratios\_ew\] they are combined in quadrature.
Contrary to the case of QCD corrections, higher-order EW effects have a significant impact on the shapes of $\pT$ distributions as well as a pronounced dependence on the scattering process. This behaviour is mainly due to the $\pT$ dependence of EW Sudakov logarithms and their dependence on the SU(2) charges of the produced vector bosons.
As can be seen in , the vector-boson $\pT$ spectra receive negative EW corrections that grow with $\pT$ and become very sizable in the tails. At the TeV scale, NLO EW effects reach 20–50% for $Z$+jet and $W$+jet production, and 10–15% for $\gamma$+jet production. As expected from exponentiation, NNLO Sudakov logarithms have positive sign. Thus they compensate in part the impact of NLO EW corrections.
In exact NLO EW results are also compared to the NLL Sudakov approximation at the same order, denoted as $\nLO\,\EW$. The observed agreement indicates that the Sudakov approximation at NLO works very well, thereby supporting the usage of EW Sudakov logarithms at $\NNLO$. Moreover, the fact that $\nNLO\,\EW$ results are well consistent with predictions supplemented by the corresponding uncertainties provides an important confirmation of the goodness of the proposed approach for the estimate of EW uncertainties.
The importance of NLO and $\nNLO\,\EW$ corrections for different processes and the role of individual uncertainties is shown in more detail in . Regarding the size of EW uncertainties we observe that the inclusion of $\nNLO\,\EW$ corrections is crucial in order to achieve few-percent accuracy in the tails, while uncertainties at $\NLO\,\EW$ can be as large as 10% or beyond.
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}\
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}\
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}\
As shown in , the various ratios of $\pT$ distributions and their shape receive significant EW corrections, with the largest effects observed in the $Z(\ell^+\ell^-)/\gamma$ and $W/\gamma$ ratios. In these ratios the remaining combined EW uncertainties are at the level of few percent in the TeV range, reaching about $5\%$ for $p_{{\rm T},
V}\simeq 2$ TeV. Interestingly, also the $Z(\ell^+\ell^-)/Z(\nu\bar\nu)$ and $W^-/W^+$ ratios receive non-negligible EW corrections. In the case of the $W^-/W^+$ ratio this is due to the behaviour of mixed QCD–EW interference contributions at high $\pT$, which yield relevant (negative) contributions in $W^+$+jet production but less in $W^-$+jet production. As for the $Z(\ell^+\ell^-)/Z(\nu\bar\nu)$ ratio, the observed EW effects can be attributed to $\pT$-migration effects induced by QED radiation off leptons. At moderate $p_{\rT,Z}$, the invariant mass of photon-lepton pairs that lie inside the recombination cone $\Delta R_{\ell\gamma}<0.1$ is well below $M_Z$. Thus a significant fraction of the $Z\to \ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ phase space does not undergo photon-lepton recombination, and photon radiation results in a negative mass and momentum shift for the $\ell^+\ell^-$ system. The $Z$-mass shift is typically not sufficient to push $Z\to \ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ events outside the inclusive $m_{\ell\ell}$ window defined in . However, the reduction of the reconstructed $p_{\rT,\ell\ell}$ results in a negative correction to the $Z(\ell^+\ell^-)/Z(\nu\bar\nu)$ ratio. Vice versa, for $p_{\rT,Z}\gsim 1$TeV the recombination cone $\Delta R_{\ell\gamma}<0.1$ covers photon-lepton invariant masses up to $p_{\rT,Z}\Delta_{\ell\gamma}> M_Z$, beyond the $Z\to \ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ phase space. As a result, $p_{\rT,\ell\ell}$ starts capturing a non-negligible amount of ISR QED radiation, which results in a positive shift of $p_{\rT,\ell\ell}$ and thus in a positive correction to the $Z(\ell^+\ell^-)/Z(\nu\bar\nu)$ ratio. Note, that the quantitative impact of such corrections depends on the choice of the $m_{\ell\ell}$ mass window. Thus, for a consistent implementation of the predictions presented in this study it is crucial to reweight MC samples using the $m_{\ell\ell}$ window defined in . Moreover, in order to guarantee a consistent extrapolation of QED radiative effects to the $m_{\ell\ell}$ window employed in experimental analyses, it is mandatory to employ MC samples that account for QED radiation off leptons.
Photon-induced production and QED effects on PDFs {#se:gammaind}
-------------------------------------------------
Higher-order QCD and EW calculations for $pp\to V+$jet require PDFs at a corresponding accuracy level, including also QED corrections. The effect of QED interactions on parton densities is twofold. Firstly they introduce a photon parton distribution and so open up partonic channels such as $\gamma q \to V q'$. Secondly they modify the quark (and even gluon) PDFs both through QED effects in the initial conditions and especially in the DGLAP evolution.
Photon-induced $V+$jet production is accounted for by the term $\parx\siv_{\gamma-{\rm ind.}}$ in eq. (\[eq:th1\]). It might become relevant in the TeV range, especially in the case of $W+$jet production [@Denner:2009gj; @Kallweit:2015dum], where the initial-state photon directly couples to a virtual $W$ boson in the $t$-channel. Such contributions are suppressed by a relative factor $\alpha/\alpha_S$ and can be treated at LO, which corresponds to $\gamma q\to Vq$ at $\ord(\alpha^2)$ or, if necessary, at NLO QCD, up to order $\ord(\alpha^2\alphaS)$. This order comprises:
1. virtual QCD corrections to $\gamma q\to Vq$;
2. $\gamma g\to Vq\bar q$ quark bremsstrahlung;
3. $\gamma q\to Vqg$ gluon bremsstrahlung.
The latter can also be understood as photon-induced quark-bremsstrahlung NLO EW contribution to the dominant $q\bar q$ channel. See the contributions of type (a.\[it:gammaindqbrem\]) in .
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}
illustrates the impact of photon-induced $V+$jet production at LO according to three recent PDF sets that implement QED corrections. Effects of the order of 5–10% for $W$+jet can be observed in the TeV region if `CT14qed_inc` [@Schmidt:2015zda] or `LUXqed` PDFs [@Manohar:2016nzj] are used. Much larger effects are found with `NNPDF30qed` [@Ball:2013hta; @Bertone:2016men]. The impact of photon-induced production to $Z$+jet (and also $\gamma$+jet) processes on the other hand is negligible [@Denner:2011vu; @Denner:2012ts]. For the description of PDFs and their uncertainties we will use the `LUXqed` PDFs and their intrinsic uncertainties, given that this set of parton distributions implements a model-independent, data-driven determination of the photon distribution. From one sees that the `LUXqed` uncertainties for $\gamma p\to V+$jet are small. Using the `CT14qed_inc` PDFs, based on a non-perturbative model with limited data-based constraints for the inelastic contribution, would result in fairly similar photon-induced cross sections but somewhat larger uncertainties (not shown) as compared to `LUXqed` PDFs. The `NNPDF30qed` parton distributions are model independent and data driven, but are based on a different approach from `LUXqed` for deducing the photon distribution from data, which results in large uncertainties in the photon-induced component, of the order of $100\%$ for $pp\to \ell^+\nu_\ell+$jet at $p_{\rT,\ell}=1\,$TeV [@Denner:2009gj].
We have verified that the NLO QCD corrections to photon-induced production have an impact at the percent level relative to $\ord(\alpha^2)$ and can safely be omitted. This implies that $\gamma p\to V+$jet can be regarded as independent processes. Thus photon-induced $V+$jet production can be either included through the parton-level predictions provided in this study or handled as separate background processes through dedicated MC simulations.
Concerning the size of the QED effects on the QCD partons, examines the two main parton luminosities that contribute to the $Z+$jet process, i.e. $g\Sigma=2 \sum_i ({\cal L}_{gq_i} + {\cal L}_{g\bar q_i})$ (which dominates) and $q\bar q=2\sum_i {\cal L}_{q_i\bar q_i}$ (which accounts for the remaining $15\%{-}30\%$). It shows the ratio of these luminosities in `LUXqed_plus_PDF4LHC15_nnlo` relative to the `PDF4LHC15_nnlo` set on which it is based. The ratio is given as a function of half the partonic invariant mass, $M/2$, which is commensurate with the $p_{\rT}$ of the $Z$.
Most of the difference between the `LUXqed` set and `PDF4LHC15_nnlo` results in comes from the QED effects in the DGLAP evolution [@deFlorian:2015ujt], with photon emission during the evolution reducing the momentum in the quarks. This effect reaches about $2\%$ at $2\,$TeV for the $g\Sigma$ luminosity. There is also a part of the correction associated with the impact of QED effects on the initial partons. In the `LUXqed` set this has been approximated by absorbing the photon momentum from the gluon distribution in `PDF4LHC15_nnlo` and keeping the quarks unchanged at a scale of $10\,\GeV$. This is an ad-hoc procedure, however, insofar as the photon carries only $\simeq 0.3\%$ of the proton momentum (at a scale of $10\,\GeV$), the uncertainty associated with the arbitrariness of this choice should be below $1\%$.
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}
PDF uncertainties {#se:pdfuncert}
-----------------
The role of PDF uncertainties can be significant especially at high-$p_\rT$, where PDFs tend to be less precise. In we illustrate the effect of PDF uncertainties within `LUXqed` (for the quark and gluon uncertainties based on `PDF4LHC15_nnlo_100`) for the different $V+$jets processes and process ratios at NLO QCD. Up to about $800$ GeV the PDF uncertainties on the nominal $\pT$ distributions remain below $2\%$. In the tails of the distributions the PDF uncertainties significantly increase. They grow beyond $5\%$ for $\pT \gtrsim 1.5$ TeV. In the Z/W ratio the PDF uncertainties cancel almost completely and remain below $0.5(2)\%$ up to $\pT \approx 800(1500)$ GeV. In the $Z/\gamma$ and $W/\gamma$ ratios the PDF uncertainties are at the level of $1-2\%$ up to $\pT \approx 1300$ GeV, while the $W^-/W^+$ ratio is subject to PDF uncertainties beyond $5\%$ already for $\pT \gtrsim 1$ TeV, driven by uncertainties on the $u/d$-ratio at large Bjorken-$x$ [@Malik:2013kba].
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}
To keep track of PDF uncertainties in the combination of QCD and EW corrections we introduce a generalised set of QCD nuisance parameters, \[se:epsQCDPDF\] \_=(\_[,1]{},\_[,2]{},\_[,3]{},\_[,1]{},\_[,2]{},…),\
which comprises QCD scale and shape variations, as well as process-correlation and PDF uncertainties. To this end we extent Eq. , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ew:QCDcombPDF}
\nonumber
&\parx\siv_{\NkLO\,\QCD}(\vec\eps_{\QCD})=
\left[K^{(V)}_{\NkLO}(x) \right. \\ \nonumber
&\left. +\sum_{i=1}^3\eps_{\QCD,i}\,\delta^{(i)} K^{(V)}_{\NkLO}(x)
+ \sum_{i=1}^{107}\eps_{\PDF,i}\,\delta^{(i)} K^{(V)}_{\PDF}(x) \right]\\
&{}\times\,\parx\siv_{\LO\,\QCD}(\vec\mu_0)\,,\end{aligned}$$ introducing a sum over the 107 independent Hessian PDF replicas provided by the PDF set `LUXqed_plus_PDF4LHC15_nnlo`. Such a combination corresponds to the PDF4LHC recommendation as detailed in Eq. (20) of Ref. [@Butterworth:2015oua]. These PDF variations should be applied in a fully correlated way across processes and $p_\rT$ bins. As specified in more detail in , the various uncertainties parametrised through should be applied at the level of QCD calculations and treated on the same footing in the combination of QCD and EW corrections.
Real-boson emission {#se:dibosons}
-------------------
Inclusive diboson production (in particular $pp\to VV'+$jets) can be understood as the real-emission counterpart to NLO EW corrections to $pp\to V+$jet. Both contributions are separately finite and well defined if $V'=W,Z$. Although they are expected to cancel against each other to a certain (typically small) extent, in practice one should only make sure that both types of processes, $pp\to V+$jet and $pp\to VV'$(+jets) with leptonic and hadronic decays of the $V'$, are included in the analysis, and, in order to avoid double counting, contributions of type $VV'$(+jets) should be included in separate diboson MC samples and not as EW correction effects in $V+$jets samples. Unless a very strong cancellation is observed (which is typically not the case), there is no reason to worry about the possible correlation of uncertainties in $V+$jets and $VV'$(+jets) production, i.e. one can treat the respective uncertainties as uncorrelated.
As concerns the accuracy of MC simulations of $pp\to VV'$(+jets), it is important to notice that a large diboson background to inclusive vector-boson production at high $p_\rT$ is expected to arise from $pp\to VV'j$ topologies with a hard back-to-back $Vj$ system accompanied by a relatively soft extra vector boson. This calls for a reliable description of $VV'+$jet including QCD (and possibly EW) corrections. Thus we recommend the use of merged diboson samples that include at least one extra jet at matrix-element level. At the TeV scale, the EW corrections to $pp\to VV'+$jet can become quite large [@Li:2015ura; @Yong:2016njr] and should ultimately be included, together with the corresponding QCD corrections [@Campbell:2007ev; @Dittmaier:2007th; @Dittmaier:2009un; @Binoth:2009wk; @Campanario:2009um; @Campanario:2010hp; @Cascioli:2013gfa; @Campbell:2015hya].
Combination of QCD and electroweak corrections {#se:ewqcd}
----------------------------------------------
The combination of higher-order predictions presented in the previous sections can be cast in the form, \[eq:QCDEWcomb1\] \_() &=& K\^[(V)]{}\_(x,) \_(\_0)\
&&+\_[-[ind.]{}]{} (x,), where \[eq:QCDEWcomb2\] K\^[(V)]{}\_ = K\^[(V)]{}\_[,]{}(x,) &= & K\_\^[(V)]{}(x,)\
&&+ \_\^[(V)]{}(x) K\_\^[(V)]{}(x,) corresponds to the standard additive combination of QCD and EW corrections as defined, respectively, in and . Note that the scale-dependent LO QCD in is due to the fact that QCD and EW correction factors are normalised to $\sigma_{\LO\,\QCD}^{(V)}(\vec\mu_0)$ and $\sigma_{\LO\,\QCD}^{(V)}(\vec\mu)$, respectively.
Mixed QCD–EW corrections of relative $\ord(\alpha\alphaS)$ are not known to date. However, it is possible to obtain an improved prediction that partially includes such mixed effects by combining higher-order EW and QCD corrections through a factorised prescription[^13], \[eq:QCDEWcomb3\] K\^[(V)]{}\_= K\^[(V)]{}\_[,]{}(x,) = K\_\^[(V)]{}(x,).\
The higher-order terms induced by this factorised formula can be written as \[eq:QCDEWcomb5\] K\^[(V)]{}\_[,]{}(x,)-K\^[(V)]{}\_[,]{}(x,) &=& \_\^[(V)]{}(x,)\_\^[(V)]{}(x),\
where $\kappa_{\NkLO}^{(V)}$ denotes the pure higher-order contribution to the QCD $K$-factor, \[eq:QCDEWcomb6\] K\_\^[(V)]{}(x,) = K\_\^[(V)]{}(x,) + \_\^[(V)]{}(x,), in analogy with the definition of the $\kappa_{\EW}$ correction factor . The prescription is motivated by the factorisation of QCD corrections from the large Sudakov-enhanced EW corrections at high energies [@Chiu:2007dg] and by the observation that in cases where the multiplicative and additive approach are far apart from each other, such as in the presence of giant $K$-factors [@Rubin:2010xp; @Kallweit:2015dum], the former turns out to be much more reliable. In general, when QCD and EW corrections are simultaneously enhanced, the $\ord(\alpha\alphaS)$ mixed terms that are controlled by the multiplicative prescription can become quite significant. We also note that, thanks to the fact that the relative EW correction factors $\kappa_{\EW}^{(V)}(x)$ are essentially insensitive to QCD scale variations, the scale dependence of the multiplicative combination is similar as for pure $\NkLO$ QCD predictions. In contrast, the additive approach can suffer from sizable scale uncertainties when EW corrections become large.
In order to estimate the typical size of higher-order effects that are not captured by the factorised prescription , we cast mixed QCD–EW corrections of $\ord(\alpha\alphaS)$ in the form \[eq:QCDEWcomb7\] K\^[(V)]{}\_(x,) &=&\
&=& \_\^[(V)]{}(x,), and to model the non-factorising term we use the simple Ansatz[^14] \[eq:QCDEWcomb8\] \^[(V)]{}\_(x) &=& \^[(V)]{} \_\^[(V)]{}(x). The expectation that the bulk of QCD and EW corrections factorise implies that the absolute value of the free process-dependent factors $\xi^{(V)}$ should be well below one. Note that is equivalent to \[eq:QCDEWcomb9\] K\^[(V)]{}\_(x,) &=& \^[(V)]{} ,\
we assume that non-factorising EW–QCD mixed terms are proportional to the difference between the additive and multiplicative combination of QCD and EW corrections.
The NLO EW corrections to $pp\to V+2$jets [@Denner:2014ina; @Kallweit:2015dum], which represent a real–virtual contribution to the unknown mixed EW–QCD NNLO corrections to $V+$jet production, can provide useful insights into the typical size of the $\xi^{(V)}$ factors and the goodness of the Ansatz –. In particular, starting from the $\ord(\alpha\alphaS)$ contributions to , \[eq:dkmix1\] K\^[(V)]{}\_[ ]{}(x,)= &\_\^[(V)]{}(x,) , it is possible to establish a relation between non-factorising NNLO mixed corrections and the differences between NLO EW $K$-factors for $V+2$jet and $V+1$jet production. To this end, we consider the identity \[eq:dkmix2\] &\^[V+2]{}\_[ ]{}(x,) = \^[V+2]{}\_[ ]{}(x,)\
&, which is obtained by multiplying both sides of by the LO QCD cross section for $pp\to V+1$jet and restricting the phase space to real–virtual contributions with $V+2$jet final states. This restriction is implemented by means of an $N$-jettiness [@Stewart:2010tn] resolution parameter $\taucut$, as described in more detail below, and the above equation should be understood as definition of $\delta \kappa^{(V)}_{\NNLO\,\mix}(x,\taucut)$, which will be used as estimator of $\delta \kappa^{(V)}_{\NNLO\,\mix}(x)$ in . In we use the notation $\kappa_{\NLO\, \EW}^{V+1\,\jet}(x)=\kappa_{\NLO\, \EW}^{(V)}(x)$, and we keep the as implicitly understood, since the term $\delta \kappa^{(V)}_{\NNLO\,\mix}(x,\taucut)$ is expected to be quite stable with respect to scale variations. Instead, the $\taucut$ parameter plays an important role since it acts as a cutoff of infrared QCD singularities in the regions where the second jet becomes soft or collinear. Based on the universal behaviour of IR QCD effects, such singularities are expected to factorise into identical singular factors on the left- and the right-hand side of . Thus, while the $\delta \kappa^{(V)}_{\NNLO\,\mix}(x,\taucut)$ term on the right-hand side depends on $\taucut$, this dependence is expected to be free from large $\taucut$-logarithms and thus reasonably mild.
As anticipated above, solving for $\delta \kappa^{(V)}_{\NNLO\,\mix}$ we obtain the relation \[eq:dkmix3\] \^[(V)]{}\_(x,)&=& \^[V+2]{}\_[ ]{}(x,) -\_[ ]{}\^[V+1]{}(x),\
which allows us to estimate non-factorising mixed effects in terms of the difference between the $V+2$-jet and $V+1$-jet EW $\kappa$-factors. To this end, we will match the estimator to the Ansatz . More precisely, we will fix the free coefficients $\xi^{(V)}$ in in such a way that \[eq:dkmix4\] \^[(V)]{} \_\^[V+1]{}(x)&& \^[V+2]{}\_[ ]{}(x,) -\_[ ]{}\^[V+1]{}(x)\
for the whole $x$-spectrum and within an appropriately chosen $\taucut$ range. Thanks to the cancellation of IR QCD singularities in , the resulting $\xi^{(V)}$ coefficients should be reasonably stable with respect to the choice of the resolution parameter. Thus, $\taucut$ can be varied in a rather wide range. In principle one could even consider the $\taucut\to 0$ limit of . However, given that two-loop mixed EW–QCD contributions are not taken into account, this limit does not converge towards the full NNLO result corresponding to $\taucut=0$. Moreover, for very small values of $\taucut$ the numerator and denominator of $\kappa^{V+2\,\jets}_{\NLO\, \EW}(x,\taucut)$ are dominated by universal $\taucut$-logarithms that should cancel against virtual two-loop terms, and since such logarithms factorise, their dominance can result in an underestimation of non-factorising effects. Vice versa, excessively large values of $\taucut$ can lead to an overestimation of non-factorising effects. This is due to the fact that increasing $\taucut$ enhances the difference between EW $\kappa$-factors in but also suppresses the cross section of the $V+2$-jet subprocess, rendering it a less and less significant estimator of the behaviour of mixed corrections for inclusive $V+$jet production. Thus, excessively small or large values of $\taucut$ should be avoided.
Based on the above considerations, for the fit of the $\xi^{(V)}$ coefficients we require that is fullfilled in a wide $\taucut$-range while keeping the $\sigma^{V+2\,\jet}/\sigma^{V+1\,\jet}$ ratio at order one, in such a way that the $V+2\,$jet cross section is neither too suppressed nor too enhanced. This procedure is implemented using an cut parameter [@Stewart:2010tn]. More precisely, we use the dimensionless one-jettiness parameter $$\label{eq:taudef}
{\tau}_1 = \sum_k \text{min}_i \left\{ \frac{2 p_i \cdot q_k}{Q_i\,\sqrt{\hat{s}}}\right\},
$$ where the $p_i$ are light-like vectors for each of the initial beams and the hardest final-state jet, and the $Q_i$ characterise their respective hardness, which we set as $Q_i = 2 E_i$. The hardest final-state jet is defined by applying an anti-$k_{\rm{T}}$ algorithm with R=1 to all final-state partons.[^15] The $q_k$ denote the four-momenta of any such final-state parton, and $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$ is the partonic centre-of-mass energy. All quantities are defined in the hadronic centre-of-mass system.
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}
To isolate two-jet configurations against one-jet configurations we require $\tau_1>\taucut$, and the cut is varied in the range $0.001 \le \taucut \le 0.04$. As demonstrated in , this choice keeps the $\sigma^{V+2\,\jet}/\sigma^{V+1\,\jet}$ ratio around order one, as desired. Moreover, we observe that the estimator remains quite stable with respect to $\taucut$ variations (see the solid lines in the right plot). Non-factorising effects turn out to be generally very small. They exceed the percent level only in the TeV tails of the distributions. As illustrated by the gray band in (right), setting \[eq:dkmix5\] \^[Z]{}=0.1, \^[W]{}=0.2, \^=0.4, guarantees an acceptable matching of the Ansatz to the estimator . More precisely, for $W+$jet production the shape of the Ansatz tends to overestimate the uncertainty in the $\pT$ range between one and two TeV. However, we have checked that the Ansatz becomes much less adequate if the full EW correction in is replaced by its non-Sudakov part.
The rather small values of the $\xi^{(V)}$ coefficients confirm that the bulk of the EW and QCD corrections factorise. However, in the case of $W+$jet and $\gamma+$jet production, the relative size of non-factorising corrections appears to be rather significant. This is due to the behaviour of the EW $\kappa$-factors in the multi-TeV region, where the difference between the EW $\kappa$-factors for $pp\to V+1$jet and $pp\to V+2$jet is enhanced by the presence of mixed EW–QCD interference contributions in channels of type $qq\to qq V$ (see the contributions of type a.\[it:gammaindqbrem\] in ). More precisely, EW–QCD interference effects of $\ord(\alphaS\alpha^2)$ enhance the EW corrections to $pp\to V+1$jet as a result of the opening of the $qq$ channel at NLO EW, while in $pp\to V+2$jet the EW K-factor is not enhanced since the $qq$ channel is already open at LO. Based on this observation, and also due to the fact that the main effect of the opening of the $qq$ channel is already reflected in the NLO QCD $K$-factor for $V+1\,$jet production, the above mentioned EW–QCD interference effects could be excluded from the factorisation prescription and treated as a separate contribution. As illustrated by the dashed curves in , this approach would lead to a drastic reduction of non-factorising effects, especially for $\gamma+$jet production. Nevertheless, given that the effects observed in are subdominant with respect to current PDF and statistical uncertainties, in the present study we refrain from implementing such a splitting.
Combination of QCD and EW corrections with related uncertainties {#se:MIXunc .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above analysis, we recommend to combine QCD and EW corrections according to the multiplicative prescription , treating the non-factorising term as uncertainty and using the estimated $\xi^{(V)}$ factors given in . Including QCD and EW uncertainties as specified in and , this leads to the combination formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:QCDEWcomb4}
&K^{(V)}_{\TH}(x,\vec\eps_\QCD,\vec\eps_\EW,\eps_\mix) \nonumber \\
&= K^{(V)}_{\TH,\otimes}(x,\vec\eps_\QCD,\vec\eps_\EW) + \eps_\mix \, \delta K^{(V)}_{\mix}(x) \nonumber
\\ \nonumber &=
\left[K_{\NkLO}^{(V)}(x)
+\sum_{i=1}^3\eps_{\QCD,i}\,\delta^{(i)} K^{(V)}_{\NkLO}(x) \right. \\
&\quad\quad \left. + \sum_{i=1}^{107}\eps_{\PDF,i}\,\delta^{(i)} K^{(V)}_{\PDF}(x) \right]
\nonumber \\
&\quad \times
\left[1 + \kappa_{\EW}^{(V)}(x)
+\sum_{i=1}^3\eps^{(V)}_{\EW,i}\,\delta^{(i)}\kappa^{(V)}_\EW(x)
\right] \nonumber \\
&\quad + \eps_\mix \, \delta K^{(V)}_{\mix}(x),\end{aligned}$$ where the uncertainty associated with non-factorising mixed EW–QCD terms reads \[eq:uncert\_mix\] K\^[(V)]{}\_(x) &=& \^[(V)]{} \_\^[(V)]{}(x)\
&=& \^[(V)]{} . The related nuisance parameter, $\eps_\mix$, should be Gaussian distributed with one standard deviation corresponding to the range $\eps_\mix\in[-1,+1]$. Given that mixed uncertainties have been estimated using a proxy of the full NNLO QCD–EW calculation, it would be reasonable to assume some degree of correlation across different $V+$jet processes. However, for simplicity in this study we keep $\eps_\mix$ variations fully uncorrelated, bearing in mind that this approach is probably too conservative.
{width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidth\textwidth"}
In we compare the additive and multiplicative combinations of QCD and EW corrections showing also the corresponding uncertainty estimate for various $V$+jet processes.
Summary and conclusions {#se:conclusions}
=======================
The precise control of SM backgrounds, and notably of $pp \to Z(\nu\bar\nu)+$jets, is crucial in order to maximise the potential of MET+jets searches at the LHC. Such backgrounds can be predicted directly using QCD and EW calculations. Alternatively, QCD and EW calculations can be used to relate them to experimental data for similar $V+$jet production processes, $pp\to \gamma+$jets, $pp \to W(\ell\nu)+$jets and $pp \to Z(\ell^+\ell^-)+$jets.
In this article we have presented predictions for inclusive vector-boson $p_\rT$ distributions based on the most advanced calculations available today, bringing together results from a number of groups so as to have perturbative QCD to NNLO accuracy, EW corrections to NLO accuracy and additionally the inclusion of 2-loop EW Sudakov logarithms.
A substantial part of our study concerned uncertainty estimates. In particular we proposed and applied various new approaches for uncertainty estimates and correlations across processes and $p_\rT$ regions.
We defined the uncertainties due to normal QCD scale variations in a way that gives a strong correlation across different $p_\rT$ regions, . We then supplemented it with a shape uncertainty that is anti-correlated across $p_\rT$, . To address the long-standing problem of evaluating the correlations between uncertainties for different processes, we separated the uncertainty into process-independent and process-dependent components. The universal component was taken to be composed of the overall scale and shape uncertainties for the reference $Z+\jet$ process. The process-dependent component, which is generally small, was determined by considering the difference between suitably normalised $K$-factors for the different processes, . This amounts to a conservative choice of taking the uncertainty on ratios as the difference between the best available prediction and the one at one order lower.
Special attention was devoted to the correlation of $Z/W+$jet and $\gamma+$jet production. In that case a substantial non-universal contribution is associated with the masslessness of the photon and the need to control collinear divergent $q\to q\gamma$ radiation through a photon-isolation prescription. We introduced a novel photon-isolation prescription with a dynamically chosen isolation radius, , designed to suppress $q\to \gamma q$ radiative effects in a way that is similar to the effect of the masses of the $Z$ and $W$ bosons in the case of $q\to V q$ splittings at large $p_\rT$. Such a dynamic isolation allows one to split $\gamma$+jet production into a quasi-universal part, which can be treated on the same footing as $Z+\jet$ and $W+\jet$ production, and a non-universal part which is kept uncorrelated. The non-universal part is given by the difference between the cross sections with conventional and dynamic photon isolation prescriptions.
For pure EW corrections we considered three uncertainty sources for unknown higher order contributions. These address unknown Sudakov logarithms beyond NNLO and/or NLL accuracy, as well as unknown hard (non-Sudakov) EW corrections beyond NLO and process-correlation effects.
One potentially large source of uncertainty arises from mixed QCD and EW corrections, given that both $\ord(\alphaS)$ and $\ord(\alpha)$ NLO corrections can be large and that the $\ord(\alpha \alphaS)$ NNLO corrections are not currently known. We chose a multiplicative scheme for combining EW and QCD corrections. To obtain an estimate of unknown $\ord(\alpha\alphaS)$ corrections not captured by this factorised ansatz, we studied the NLO EW corrections to $V+2$jet production, which represent the real–virtual part of a full $\ord(\alpha\alphaS)$ calculation for $V+$jet production. Based on this analysis, we concluded that it is reasonable to assume that the multiplicative combination of QCD and EW corrections describes the full $\ord(\alpha\alphaS)$ correction with a relative uncertainty that varies between 10–20% for $pp\to W/Z+$jet and 40% for $pp\to\gamma+$jet.
Overall, QCD corrections are substantial, a few tens of percent at NLO, and up to $10\%$ at NNLO. The NNLO results are consistent with the NLO predictions within our prescription for the uncertainty bands of the latter. This is true not just for absolute cross sections and their shapes, but also for ratios of cross sections. These ratios are remarkably stable across LO, NLO and NNLO QCD corrections, see . Using dynamic photon isolation, this statement holds true also for the $\gamma+\jet$ process at $p_\rT \gtrsim 300~\GeV$.
The EW corrections to $V$+jet cross sections amount to a few tens of percent in the TeV region, see . In the ratios they cancel only in part, due to the sensitivity of EW effects to the SU(2) charges of the produced vector bosons. At the TeV scale, the NNLO Sudakov logarithms can reach the several percent level and their systematic inclusion is an important ingredient in order to achieve percent precision at very high $p_\rT$.
In we summarize our uncertainty estimates for the different $V$+jet processes and process ratios. Here we combine in quadrature all sources of perturbative uncertainties at N(N)LO QCD$\otimes$nNLO EW and we overlay the remaining PDF uncertainties. For convenience, PDF variations have been assessed using NNLO PDFs in combination with NLO QCD calculations, but can be safely applied to the NNLO QCD results. The nominal $\pT$ distributions at N(N)LO QCD$\otimes$nNLO EW are constrained at the 10(5)% level up to about 1 TeV and at the 20(10)% level up to about 2 TeV. In the process ratios these uncertainties cancel to a large extent. In particular, in the $Z/W$ ratio remaining uncertainties are at the level of only 1–2% up to 1TeV and below 5% up to 2TeV. Similarly, the $Z/\gamma$ ratio is constrained at the 5% level up to 2TeV. Noteworthy, including the NNLO QCD corrections the process ratios remain very stable and in particular within the uncertainty estimates based on NLO QCD. This reflects the fact that QCD uncertainties are very well under control: taking at face value the NNLO QCD systematics we are at the level of few percent all the way up to the multi-TeV scale (see ), and at large $\pT$ we are dominated by EW and PDF uncertainties. The latter are below the perturbative uncertainties in all nominal distributions and all but the $W^-/W^+$ ratio, where a precise measurement at high $\pT$ could help to improve PDF fits. In this respect, we note that the theoretical uncertainty for the $W^-/W^+$ ratio is entirely dominated by mixed QCD–EW effects and is most likely overestimated due to our conservative assumption of keeping such uncertainties uncorrelated across processes (see ).
{width=".43\textwidth"} {width=".43\textwidth"}
We also discussed photon-induced contributions and QED corrections to PDFs. In this context, for a precise prediction of the $\gamma$-PDF we have advocated the use of the `LUXqed_plus_PDF4LHC15_nnlo` PDFs, which implement a data driven determination of the $\gamma$-PDF. For a consistency treatment of $\ord(\alpha)$ effects in the PDFs, the `LUXqed_plus_PDF4LHC15_nnlo` distributions should be used in all photon-, quark-, and gluon-induced channels.[^16] Photon-induced effects are negligible in $Z+$jet and $\gamma+$jet production, but their impact on $pp\to W+$jet, and thus on the $W/Z$ and $W/\gamma$ ratios, can reach the 5% level at the TeV scale[^17] (see ).
Our predictions are provided in the form of tables for the central predictions and for the different uncertainty sources. Each uncertainty source is to be treated as a $1$-standard deviation uncertainty and pragmatically associated with a Gaussian-distributed nuisance parameter.
The predictions are given at parton level as distributions of the vector boson $p_\rT$, with loose cuts and inclusively over other radiation. They are intended to be propagated to an experimental analysis using Monte Carlo parton shower samples whose inclusive vector-boson $p_\rT$ distribution has been reweighted to agree with our parton-level predictions. The impact of additional cuts, non-perturbative effects on lepton isolation, etc., can then be deduced from the Monte Carlo samples. The additional uncertainties associated with the Monte Carlo simulation are expected to be relatively small, insofar as the vector-boson $p_\rT$ distribution that we calculate is closely connected to the main experimental observables used in MET+jets searches.
Some caution is needed in implementing the results of this paper: for example the uncertainty prescriptions are tied to the use of the central values that we provide. If an experiment relies on central values that differ, e.g. through the use of MC samples that are not reweighted to our nominal predictions, then the uncertainty scheme that we provide may no longer be directly applicable. Furthermore, for searches that rely on features of the event other than missing transverse momentum, one should be aware that our approach might need to be extended. This would be the case notably for any observable that relies directly on jet observables, whether related to the recoiling jet or vetoes on additional jets.
Overall, it is possible to obtain precise theoretical control both for vector-boson $p_\rT$ distributions, and for their ratios, at the level of a few percent. We expect this precision, across a wide range of $p_\rT$, to be of significant benefit in MET+jets searches, notably enabling reliable identification or exclusion of substantially smaller BSM signals than was possible so far. In fact, since the release of the first version of this paper, the background estimates we propose here have been adopted in analyses by ATLAS [@ATLAS-CONF-2017-060] and CMS [@CMS-PAS-EXO-16-048].
We wish to thank Frank Krauss, Keith Ellis, Christian Gütschow, Sarah Malik, Fabio Maltoni, Holger Schulz and Graeme Watt for valuable discussions. This research was supported in part by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council, the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) under contracts 200020-162487, CRSII2-160814, and BSCGI0-157722, and by the Research Executive Agency (REA) of the European Union under the Grant Agreements PITN-GA-2012-316704 (”HiggsTools”), PITN–GA–2012–315877 (”MCnet”), and the ERC Advanced Grants MC@NNLO (340983) and LHCtheory (291377). R.B. is supported by the DOE contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. F.P. is supported by the DOE grants DE-FG02- 91ER40684 and DE-AC02-06CH11357. C.W. is supported by the National Science Foundation through award number PHY-1619877. The research of J.M.C. is supported by the US DOE under contract DE-AC02-07CH11359. The work of S.D. is supported by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF). This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. We also acknowledge support provided by the Center for Computational Research at the University at Buffalo and the Wilson HPC Computing Facility at Fermilab.
Theoretical predictions and uncertainties {#se:numpredictions}
=========================================
Predictions for the various $pp\to V+$jet processes listed in with $\sqrt{s}=13~\TeV$ are provided at\
[<http://lpcc.web.cern.ch/content/dark-matter-wg-documents>]{}
The various predictions and related uncertainties at the highest available perturbative order, NNLOQCD and nNLOEW, as well as the labels of the corresponding histograms are listed in . Predictions with uncertainties at NLO and additional building blocks for the construction of the uncertainties at the various perturbative orders can also be found in .
\[h\]
process QCD order EW order label
----------------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- -------
$pp\to \ell^+\nu_\ell/\ell^-\bar\nu_\ell+$jet NNLO QCD nNLO EW evj
\[2mm\] $pp\to \nu_\ell\bar\nu_\ell+$jet NLO QCD nNLO EW vvj
\[2mm\] $pp\to \ell^+\ell^-+$jet NNLO QCD nNLO EW eej
\[2mm\] $pp\to \gamma+$jet NNLO QCD nNLO EW aj
\[2mm\]
: List of processes, highest available QCD and EW order, and process labels used in data files (see ). Predictions for $pp\to \nu_\ell\bar\nu_\ell+$jet are available only at NLO QCD, but corresponding NNLO QCD corrections and uncertainties can be taken from $pp\to \ell^+\ell^-+$jet.[]{data-label="Tab:availabe_processes"}
All ingredients and related uncertainties should be combined as indicated in and , and we recall that all nuisance parameters in should be Gaussian distributed with one standard deviation corresponding to the range $[-1,+1]$ for all $\eps_{\QCD,i}$, $\eps_{\PDF,i}$, $\eps_{\EW,i}$ and $\eps_\mix$. In the implementation of the various relative uncertainties, $\delta^{(i)} K_{\NkLO}$, $\delta^{(i)} K_{\PDF}$, and $\delta^{(i)} K_{\EW}$, it is crucial to take into account their correct normalisation according to Eqs. and . For instance, at $\NNLO\,\QCD\otimes\nNLO\,\EW$ the relative impact of QCD and EW uncertainties should be $\delta^{(i)} K_{\NNLO}/K_{\NNLO}$ and $\delta^{(i)} K_{\EW}/(1+\kappa_\EW)$, respectively.
Concerning QCD contributions, predictions at NNLOQCD should be combined with uncertainties at the same order. However, before higher-order QCD calculations are thoroughly validated against high-statistics measurements at moderate transverse momenta, theory uncertainties should be assessed in a more conservative way. To this end, we advocate the usage of NNLO QCD nominal predictions in combination with NLO QCD uncertainties, while keeping all EW effects at nNLOEW level.
All predictions and uncertainties for $pp\to \gamma+$jet are based on the dynamic photon isolation prescription introduced in . As explained therein, this requires an extra $\gamma+$jet specific uncertainty, which needs to be evaluated by means of a separate reweighting in a standard Frixione isolation setup with fixed cone. Corresponding theoretical predictions at NLO QCD are denoted as $K^{(\gamma,\fix)}_{\NLO}(x)$ in .
\[t\]
prediction equation label correlation
------------------------------------------------------ ---------- --------------------------- -------------
$\parx\siv_{\LO\,\QCD}(\vec\mu_0)$ \[pb/GeV\] proc\_x\_ -
$K^{(V)}_{\NNLO}(x)$ , proc\_x\_K\_NNLO -
$\delta^{(1)}K^{(V)}_{\NNLO}(x)$ , proc\_x\_d1K\_NNLO yes
$\delta^{(2)}K^{(V)}_{\NNLO}(x)$ , proc\_x\_d2K\_NNLO yes
$\delta^{(3)}K^{(V)}_{\NNLO}(x)$ , proc\_x\_d3K\_NNLO yes
$K^{(\gamma,\dyn)}_{\NLO}(x)$ ,, aj\_x\_K\_NLO -
$K^{(\gamma,\fix)}_{\NLO}(x)$ ,, aj\_x\_K\_NLO\_fix -
$\kappa^{(V)}_{\EW}(x)=\kappa^{(V)}_{\nNLO\,\EW}(x)$ –, proc\_x\_kappa\_EW -
$\delta^{(1)}\kappa^{(V)}_{\nNLO\,\EW}(x)$ , proc\_x\_d1kappa\_EW yes
$\delta^{(2)}\kappa^{(V)}_{\nNLO\,\EW}(x)$ , proc\_x\_d2kappa\_EW no
$\delta^{(3)}\kappa^{(V)}_{\nNLO\,\EW}(x)$ , proc\_x\_d3kappa\_EW no
$\delta K^{(V)}_{\mix}(x)$ , proc\_x\_dK\_NLO\_mix yes
$\parx\siv_{\LO\,\gamma-{\rm ind.}}$ \[pb/GeV\] proc\_x\_gammaind\_ -
$\delta^{(i)}K^{(V)}_{\PDF}(x)$ proc\_x\_dK\_PDF\_i yes
$K^{(V)}_{\LO}(x)$ proc\_x\_K\_LO -
$K^{(V)}_{\NLO}(x)$ , proc\_x\_K\_NLO -
$\delta^{(1)}K^{(V)}_{\NLO}(x)$ , proc\_x\_d1K\_NLO yes
$\delta^{(2)}K^{(V)}_{\NLO}(x)$ , proc\_x\_d2K\_NLO yes
$\delta^{(3)}K^{(V)}_{\NLO}(x)$ , proc\_x\_d3K\_NLO yes
$\delta^{(1)}K^{(V)}_{\LO}(x)$ , proc\_x\_d1K\_LO yes
$\delta^{(2)}K^{(V)}_{\LO}(x)$ , proc\_x\_d2K\_LO yes
$\kappa^{(V)}_{\NLO\,\EW}(x)$ –, proc\_x\_kappa\_NLO\_EW -
$\kappa^{(V)}_{\NNLO\,\Sud}(x)$ –, proc\_x\_kappa\_NNLO\_Sud -
QCD and EW uncertainties {#app:unc}
========================
In this appendix we present a series of technical plots that illustrate the relative importance of the various sources of QCD and EW uncertainties discussed in . The impact of individual QCD uncertainties, $\delta^{(i)}K_{\NkLO}$, in $p_\rT$ spectra and ratios is illustrated in . Similar plots for the three types of EW uncertainties, $\delta^{(i)}\kappa^{(V)}_{\EW}$, are shown in .
{width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"}\
{width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"}
{width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"}\
{width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"}
{width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"}
{width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"}
{width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"}\
{width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"} {width="\ratiotextwidthapp\textwidth"}
[^1]: For a recent comprehensive review of DM models leading to this class of signatures, see e.g. [@Abercrombie:2015wmb].
[^2]: Other backgrounds (such as QCD multijets, $t\bar{t}$ or pairs of gauge bosons) are suppressed, and their contribution to the overall uncertainty is well below the percent level.
[^3]: This procedure should be restricted to variables $x'$ that can be described with good accuracy both in perturbative calculations and in the MC simulations.
[^4]: The same isolation prescription used for theory predictions should be applied also to their MC counterparts $\rd\sigma_{\rm MC}/$d$ x$ in the context of the reweighting procedure.
[^5]: Diboson backgrounds, including $pp\to V\gamma$, can be included through separate Monte Carlo samples in the experimental analyses.
[^6]: See e.g. the comparison of NNLOPS against fixed-order predictions in Figure 3 of .
[^7]: Besides loop diagrams with top quarks and Higgs bosons, the NLO EW corrections to $pp\to W^\pm+$jet receive $\ord(\alpha^2\alphaS)$ bremsstrahlung contributions from $qb\to q' W^\pm b$ channels that involve $s$-channel top-quark propagators and thus require a finite top-quark width, for which we use the NLO QCD value $\Gamma_t=1.339~\GeV$. However, at the perturbative order considered in this study, such topologies arise only in QCD–EW interference terms that do not give rise to Breit–Wigner resonances. The dependence of our results on $\Gamma_t$ is thus completely negligible.
[^8]: Here and in the following we adopt a power counting that does not include the extra factor $\alpha$ associated with vector-boson decays.
[^9]: For what concerns process correlations, it is crucial that (apart from the $M_V$ dependence) all $V+$jet processes are evaluated using equivalent dynamical scales.
[^10]: In this regime, which is not the main focus of the present study, the process-correlation uncertainty ceases to be a meaningful uncertainty estimate.
[^11]: Note that, in spite of the fact that we present them as separate terms in , $\gamma$-induced contributions and NLO EW corrections to $pp\to V+$jet are interconnected at $\ord(\alpha^2\alphaS)$.
[^12]: Here, in order to discuss qualitative features of Sudakov logarithms, we adopt a generic and rather schematic representation of the asymptotic high-energy limit. In particular, we do not consider some aspects, such as the helicity dependence of the corrections or SU(2) soft-correlation effects. However, in the numerical analysis all relevant aspects are consistently included.
[^13]: See, e.g. for a factorised treatment of QCD and EW corrections for Higgs-strahlung and vector-boson fusion processes.
[^14]: As discussed below, the goodness of this naive Ansatz will be justified by fitting it to a realistic estimator of $\delta \kappa^{(V)}_{\mix}(x)$.
[^15]: In order to guarantee a proper cancellation of QCD and EW singularities, the jet algorithm is applied to all QCD partons and photons, excluding photons that are recombined with leptons, as well as the leading identified photon in case of the $\gamma+$jets process.
[^16]: This is automatically achieved by reweighting MC samples generated with arbitrary PDFs with our complete $\NkLO\,\QCD\times\nNLO\,\EW$ predictions based on `LUXqed_plus_PDF4LHC15_nnlo` PDFs. Vice versa, restricting the reweighting to pure EW corrections and using MC samples based on different PDFs can lead to inconsistencies at $\ord(\alpha)$.
[^17]: Note that photon-induced contributions are not included in the summary plots of .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Given two channels that convey information about the same random variable, we introduce two measures of the unique information of one channel with respect to the other. The two quantities are based on the notion of generalized weighted Le Cam deficiencies and differ on whether one channel can approximate the other by a randomization at either its input or output. We relate the proposed quantities to an existing measure of unique information which we call the minimum-synergy unique information. We give an operational interpretation of the latter in terms of an upper bound on the one-way secret key rate and discuss the role of the unique informations in the context of nonnegative mutual information decompositions into unique, redundant and synergistic components.'
author:
- 'Pradeep Kr. Banerjee$^{\ast}$, Eckehard Olbrich, Jürgen Jost, and Johannes Rauh [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'allerton2018.bib'
title: '**Unique Informations and Deficiencies** '
---
Synergy, redundancy, unique information, Le Cam deficiency, degradation preorder, input-degradedness preorder, Secret key rate.
Introduction
============
Consider three random variables $S$, $Y$, $Z$ with finite alphabets. Suppose that we want to know the value of $S$, but we can only observe $Y$ and $Z$. The mutual information between $S$ and $Y$ can be decomposed into information that $Y$ has about $S$ that is *unknown* to $Z$ (we call this the *unique* or *exclusive* information of $Y$ w.r.t. $Z$) and information that $Y$ has about $S$ that is *known* to $Z$ (we call this the *shared* or *redundant* information). $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MIdec1}
I(S; Y) = \underbrace{{\widetilde{UI}}(S;Y \backslash Z)}_{\text{unique $Y$ wrt $Z$}}+\underbrace{{\widetilde{SI}}(S; Y,Z)}_{\text{shared (redundant)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Conditioning on $Z$ annihilates the shared information but creates *complementary* or *synergistic* information from the interaction of $Y$ and $Z$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MIdec2}
I(S; Y|Z) = \underbrace{{\widetilde{UI}}(S;Y \backslash Z)}_{\text{unique $Y$ wrt $Z$}}+\underbrace{{\widetilde{CI}}(S; Y,Z)}_{\text{complementary (synergistic)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the chain rule, the total information that the pair $(Y,Z)$ conveys about $S$ can be decomposed into four terms. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MIdec3}
I(S; YZ) &= I(S;Y)+I(S;Z|Y)\notag\\
&={\widetilde{UI}}(S;Y \backslash Z)+{\widetilde{SI}}(S; Y,Z)+{\widetilde{UI}}(S;Z \backslash Y)+{\widetilde{CI}}(S; Y,Z),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\widetilde{UI}}$, ${\widetilde{SI}}$, and ${\widetilde{CI}}$ are nonnegative functions that depend continuously on the joint distribution of $(S,Y,Z)$. Nonnegative information decompositions of this form have been considered in [@e16042161; @HarderSalgePolani2013:Bivariate_redundancy; @GriffithKoch2014:Quantifying_Synergistic_MI; @WilliamsBeer].
Any definition of the function ${\widetilde{UI}}$ fixes two of the terms in which in turn also determines the other terms by (\[eq:MIdec1\]) and (\[eq:MIdec2\]). This gives rise to the *consistency condition*: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:consistency}
I(S;Y)+{\widetilde{UI}}(S;Z \backslash Y)=I(S;Z)+{\widetilde{UI}}(S;Y \backslash Z).\end{aligned}$$ One can thus interpret the unique information as either the conditional mutual information without the synergy, or as the mutual information without the redundancy. The difference of the redundant and synergistic information is called the *coinformation* $CoI(S;Y;Z)$ which is symmetric in its arguments and can be negative: $CoI(S;Y;Z)={\widetilde{SI}}(S; Y,Z)-{\widetilde{CI}}(S; Y,Z)=I(S; Y)-I(S; Y|Z)$ [@Bell2003]. Coinformation is a widely used measure in the neurosciences [@syncode; @LathamNirenberg05:Synergy_and_redundancy_revisited] with negative values being interpreted as synergy [@kontoyiannis2005ISIT] and positive values as redundancy [@syncode]. If the interactions induce redundancy and synergy in equal measure, then the coinformation cannot detect it. *Correlational importance*, a nonnegative measure introduced in [@LathamNirenberg05:Synergy_and_redundancy_revisited] (see also [@minsyn2017]) to quantify the importance of correlations in neural coding is similar in spirit to the synergistic information. However, examples are known [@schneidman2003synergy] when it can exceed the total mutual information.
The notions of synergy, redundancy and unique information also appear implicitly in information-theoretic cryptography [@ahlswede1993; @maurerintrinsic; @renner2002ISIT; @rauh2017secret]. Consider the source model for secret key agreement between distant Alice and Bob against an adversary, Eve [@maurer1993; @maurerintrinsic]. Alice, Bob and Eve observe i.i.d. copies of random variables $S$, $Y$ and $Z$ respectively, where $(S,Y,Z)\sim P_{SYZ}$. Alice and Bob want to compute a secret key by communicating messages over a noiseless but insecure (public) channel transparent to Eve such that Eve’s total information ($Z$ and the entire public communication) about the key is negligibly small. The maximum (asymptotic) rate at which Alice and Bob can compute a key is called the *two-way secret key rate* ${S_{\leftrightarrow}\!\left({S};{Y}\!\left|{Z} \right. \right)}$. If Alice is allowed to use the public channel only once and Bob does not transmit, then the corresponding quantity is called the *one-way secret key rate* ${S_{\rightarrow}\!\left({S};{Y}\!\left|{Z} \right. \right)}$.
An instance of a purely synergistic interaction is the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">XOR</span> distribution: $Y$ and $Z$ are independent binary random variables and $S=Y+Z \mod 2$. Here $I(S; YZ)={\widetilde{CI}}(S; Y,Z)=1$ bit. Clearly, if Alice can only see $S$ and Bob $Y$, then they cannot realize a secret key. However if Alice can also see $Z$, then she can compute $Y$ which can be used as a key perfectly secret from Eve since Eve’s variable $Z$ is independent of the key $Y$.
An instance of a purely redundant interaction is the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RDN</span> distribution: $S$, $Y$, $Z$ are uniformly distributed binary random variables with $S=Y=Z$. Here $I(S; YZ)={\widetilde{SI}}(S; Y,Z)=1$ bit. Alice and Bob cannot share a secret since Eve knows the exact values of $S$ and $Y$.
Intuitively, if Bob has some unique information about Alice’s variable $S$ (that is not known to Eve), then there must be a situation where Bob can *exploit* this information to his advantage. A distribution combining the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">XOR</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RDN</span> exemplifies such an advantage.
\[[@RennerW03; @maurerintrinsic]\] \[ex:sktoy\] Consider the joint distribution
where $Z$’s value is shown in parentheses. For instance, the first entry of the table is read as $P_{SYZ}(0,0,0)=\tfrac{1}{8}$. Here $I(S;YZ)=2$, ${\widetilde{SI}}(S; Y,Z)=1.5$, ${\widetilde{CI}}(S; Y,Z)=0.5$ and ${\widetilde{UI}}(S;Y\backslash Z)=0$[^3]. If Eve sees 2 or 3, she knows the exact values of $S$ and $Y$. When she sees 0 or 1, she can infer that Alice and Bob’s values are in $\{0,1\}$, but in this range, their observations are independent. Hence, no secret key agreement is possible.
Consider now the modified distribution
where Eve’s variable $Z$ can only assume binary values. For this distribution, $I(S; YZ)=2$, ${\widetilde{SI}}(S; Y,Z)=0.5$, ${\widetilde{CI}}(S; Y,Z)=0.5$ and ${\widetilde{UI}}(S; Y\backslash Z)=1$. Now Bob has *unique information* about Alice’s values w.r.t. Eve (namely, the ability to distinguish whether Alice sees values in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">XOR</span> or the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">RDN</span> quadrant) which he can use to agree on 1 bit of secret. The *intrinsic information*[^4] $I(S;Y\!\!\downarrow \!Z):=\min_{P_{Z'|Z}}I(S;Y|Z')$, a well-known upper bound on the two-way secret key rate [@maurerintrinsic] is not tight in this toy example. It evaluates to 1.5 bits.
How can we decide if $Y$ has some unique information about $S$ (that is not known to $Z$)? Consider the channels $\kappa$ and $\mu$ with the common input alphabet ${\mathcal{S}}$ in Fig. \[fig:1\]. If $\mu$ reduces to $\kappa$ by adding a post-channel $\lambda$ at its *output*, then $\mu$ may be said to *include* $\kappa$. One can draw the same conclusion for the channels $\bar{\kappa}$ and $\bar{\mu}$ with the common output alphabet ${\mathcal{S}}$ in Fig. \[fig:2\], if $\bar{\mu}$ reduces to $\bar{\kappa}$ by adding a pre-channel $\bar{\lambda}$ at its *input*. These are special cases of a *channel inclusion* preorder first studied by Shannon [@shannonorder]. In both these situations, one would expect that $Y$ provides no unique information about $S$ w.r.t. $Z$. A nonvanishing unique information would then quantify how far is one channel from being an inclusion or randomization of the other.
[0.33]{}
\(P) at (-1,-0.5) [$\pi_S\sim S$]{}; (S) at (0,0) [${\mathcal{S}}$]{}; (Y) at (3,0) [${\mathcal{Y}}$]{}; (S1) at (0,-1) [${\mathcal{S}}$]{}; (Y1) at (3,-1) [${\mathcal{Y}}$]{}; (Z) at (1.5,-1) [${\mathcal{Z}}$]{}; (S) to node [$\kappa$]{} (Y); (S1) to node [$\mu$]{} (Z); (Z) to node \[xshift=0pt,yshift=0pt\] [$\lambda$]{} (Y1);
[0.33]{}
\(P) at (-1,-0.5) [$\pi_Y\sim Y$]{}; (S) at (3,0) [${\mathcal{S}}$]{}; (Y) at (0,0) [${\mathcal{Y}}$]{}; (S1) at (3,-1) [${\mathcal{S}}$]{}; (Y1) at (0,-1) [${\mathcal{Y}}$]{}; (Z) at (1.5,-1) [${\mathcal{Z}}$]{}; (Y) to node [$\bar{\kappa}$]{} (S); (Y1) to node [$\bar\lambda$]{} (Z); (Z) to node \[xshift=0pt,yshift=0pt\] [$\bar{\mu}$]{} (S1);
Depending on whether such a randomization is applied at the output or the input, two different ways of quantifying the unique information arise. Utilizing tools from statistical decision theory, [@e16042161] defined the function ${\widetilde{UI}}$ based on the idea of approximating one channel from the other by a randomization at the *output* (see Fig. \[fig:1\]). [@HarderSalgePolani2013:Bivariate_redundancy] defined the function ${\widetilde{SI}}$ as a difference of two Kullback-Leibler divergence terms where one of the terms implicitly uses a randomization at the *input* (see Fig. \[fig:2\]). In both cases, the induced decompositions of the total mutual information are nonnegative and satisfy equations -. While quantitative differences between the two decompositions have been studied earlier (see, e.g., [@e16042161 Figure 1]), the aforementioned distinction seems to have largely gone unnoticed in the literature. Also, as Example \[ex:sktoy\] seem to suggest, the unique information is an interesting quantity in its own right that might play a role in bounding the secret key rate. An objective study relating the two quantities is missing.
In this paper, we bridge these little gaps and make the following contributions:
- Given two channels that convey information about the same random variable, we propose two measures of unique information of one channel w.r.t. the other. They are both based on a generalized version of Le Cam’s notion of *weighted deficiency* [@lecam; @torgersen; @raginsky2011] of one channel w.r.t. another. Weighted deficiencies measure the cost of approximating one channel from the other via randomizations. Depending on whether the randomization is applied at the output or the input, two different notions of weighted deficiency arise. We call the respective quantities the *weighted output* and *weighted input deficiencies*. The new quantities induce nonnegative decompositions of the mutual information. Interestingly, the decomposition induced by the weighted input deficiency coincides with the one proposed in [@HarderSalgePolani2013:Bivariate_redundancy].
- We show that the definition of the unique information proposed in [@e16042161] shares some intuitive and basic properties of the secret key rate [@maurerintrinsic]. We give an operational interpretation of this quantity in terms of an upper bound on the *one-way secret key rate*. Theorem \[thm:uppbound\] is our main result in this part. As a minor side note, for secret key agreement against active adversaries, we restate Maurer’s impossibility result [@maurersimul1] in terms of vanishing unique informations in Theorem \[thm:simul\].
Proofs are collected in Appendix \[app:proofs\].
Unique informations and Le Cam Deficiencies
===========================================
Suppose that an agent has a finite set of actions ${\mathcal{A}}$. Each action $a\in{\mathcal{A}}$ incurs a bounded loss ${\ell}(s,a)$ that depends on the chosen action $a$ and the state $s\in{\mathcal{S}}$ of a finite random variable $S$. Let $\pi_S$ encode the agents’ uncertainty about the true state $s$. Then, the triple $(\pi_S,{\mathcal{A}},\ell)$ is called a *decision problem*. In the sequel, we assume that $\pi_S$ has full support. Before choosing her action, the agent is allowed to observe a finite random variable $Z$ through a *channel* from ${\mathcal{S}}$ to ${\mathcal{Z}}$ which is a family $\mu=\{\mu_s\}_{s\in{\mathcal{S}}}$ of probability distributions on ${\mathcal{Z}}$, one for each possible input $s\in{\mathcal{S}}$. Let $\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{S}};{\mathcal{Z}})$ denote the space of all channels from ${\mathcal{S}}$ to ${\mathcal{Z}}$ which is the set of all (row) stochastic matrices $[0,1]^{{\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{Z}}}$. The goal of a rational agent is to choose a strategy $\rho\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Z}};{\mathcal{A}})$ that minimizes her expected loss or *risk* $$\begin{aligned}
R(\pi_S,\mu,\rho,\ell):=\sum_{s\in{\mathcal{S}}}{\pi_S(s)}\sum_{a\in{\mathcal{A}}}{\rho\circ\mu_s(a)\ell(s,a)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho\circ\mu$ (read $\rho$ after $\mu$) denotes the composition of the channels $\rho$ and $\mu$. Writing ${\mathcal{A}}_\mu=\{\rho\circ\mu\,:\,\rho\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Z}};{\mathcal{A}})\}$, the *optimal risk* when using the channel $\mu$ is $$\begin{aligned}
R(\pi_S,\mu,\ell):=\min_{\sigma\in{\mathcal{A}}_\mu}\sum_{s\in{\mathcal{S}}}{\pi_S(s)}\sum_{a\in{\mathcal{A}}}{\sigma_s(a)\ell(s,a)}.\end{aligned}$$ In this minimum, there always exist deterministic optimal strategies. So it suffices to consider deterministic strategies.
Suppose now that the agent is allowed to observe another finite random variable $Y$ through a second channel $\kappa\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{S}};{\mathcal{Y}})$ with the same input alphabet ${\mathcal{S}}$. When will she *always* prefer $Z$ to $Y$? She can rank the variables by comparing her optimal risks: she will *always* prefer $Z$ over $Y$ if her optimal risk when using $Z$ is at most that when using $Y$ for any decision problem. We have the following definition.
\[def:preorder1\] Let $(S,Y,Z)\sim P$, $S\sim\pi_S$ and $\kappa\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{S}};{\mathcal{Y}})$, $\mu\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{S}};{\mathcal{Z}})$ be two channels with the same input alphabet such that $P_{SZ}(s,z) = \pi_S(s)\mu_s(z)$ and $P_{SY}(s,y) = \pi_S(s)\kappa_s(y)$. We say that $Z$ is *always more informative* about $S$ than $Y$ and write $Z{\sqsupseteq}_{S} Y$ if $R(\pi_S,\kappa,\ell)\ge R(\pi_S,\mu,\ell)$ for any $(\pi_S,{\mathcal{A}},\ell)$.
She can also rank the variables purely probabilistically: she will *always* prefer $Z$ over $Y$ if, knowing $Z$, she can simulate a single use of $Y$ by randomly sampling a $y'\in{\mathcal{Y}}$ after each observation $z\in{\mathcal{Z}}$.
\[def:preorder2\] Write $Z{\sqsupseteq'}_{S} Y$ if there exists a random variable $Y'$ such that the pairs $(S,Y)$ and $(S,Y')$ are statistically indistinguishable, and $S-Z-Y'$ is a Markov chain.
The relation $Z{\sqsupseteq'}_{S} Y$ is also called the *degradation preorder*. Intuitively, $Z$ knows everything that $Y$ knows about $S$ in both these situations. In a classic result, Blackwell showed the equivalence of these two relations.
\[thm:BW53\] (Blackwell’s Theorem [@Blackwell1953; @BlackwellISIT]) [$Z{\sqsupseteq'}_{S} Y$]{} $\iff$ [$Z{\sqsupseteq}_{S} Y$]{}.
Theorem \[thm:BW53\] is a version of the Blackwell’s theorem for random variables. We say $\mu$ is *Blackwell sufficient* for $\kappa$ and write $\mu{\sqsupseteq}_{{\mathcal{S}}} \kappa$ if $\kappa=\lambda\circ\mu$ for some $\lambda\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Z}};{\mathcal{Y}})$. If $\pi_S$ has full support, then $\mu{\sqsupseteq}_{{\mathcal{S}}} \kappa\iff Z{\sqsupseteq}_{S} Y$ [@BlackwellISIT Theorem 4]. In this setting, we are motivated to make the following definition.
\[def:UI0\] $Y$ *has no unique information* about $S$ w.r.t. $Z$ ${\mathrel{\vcentcolon\Longleftrightarrow}}$ $Z{\sqsupseteq'}_{S} Y$.
Definition \[def:UI0\] gives an operational idea when the unique information vanishes [@e16042161]. The converse to the Blackwell’s theorem states that if the relation $Z{\sqsupseteq'}_{S} Y$ (resp., $Y{\sqsupseteq'}_{S} Z$) does not hold, then there exists a loss function and a set of actions that renders $Y$ (resp., $Z$) more useful. This statement motivates the following definition [@e16042161].
\[def:UIg0\] $Y$ *has unique information* about $S$ w.r.t. $Z$ if there exists a set of actions ${\mathcal{A}}$ and a loss function $\ell(s,a)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{{\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}}$ such that $R(\pi_S,\kappa,\ell)<R(\pi_S,\mu,\ell)$.
The relation ${\sqsupseteq'}_S$ is a preorder on observed variables. In general, one cannot expect two random variables to be comparable, i.e., one can always be simulated by a randomization of the other. On the contrary, most random variables are uncomparable. Lucien Le Cam introduced the notion of *deficiencies* [@lecam] and considerably augmented the scope of the Blackwell ordering. Deficiencies measure the cost of approximating one observed variable from the other (and vice versa) via Markov kernels. Maxim Raginsky [@raginsky2011] introduced a broad class of deficiency-like quantities using the notion of a generalized divergence between probability distributions that satisfies a data processing inequality. In a spirit similar to [@raginsky2011] and [@torgersen Section 6.2], when the distribution of the common input to the channels is fixed, one can define a *weighted deficiency*.
\[def:gdefo\] The *weighted output deficiency of $\mu$ w.r.t. $\kappa$* is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:weighted_gdefo}
\delta_o^{\pi}(\mu,\kappa):=\min_{\lambda\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Z}};{\mathcal{Y}})}D(\kappa\|\lambda\circ\mu|\pi_S),
\end{aligned}$$ where $D$ is the Kullback-Leibler divergence and the subscript $o$ in $\delta_o^{\pi}$ emphasizes the fact that the randomization is at the *output* of the channel $\mu$ (see Fig. \[fig:1\]).
As an immediate consequence, $\delta_o^{\pi}(\mu,\kappa)=0$ if and only if $Z{\sqsupseteq'}_{S} Y$, which captures the intuition that if $\delta_o^{\pi}(\mu,\kappa)$ is small, then $Z$ is *approximately Blackwell sufficient* for $Y$.
Le Cam’s *randomization criterion* [@lecam] shows that deficiencies quantify the maximal gap in the optimal risks of decision problems when using the channel $\mu$ rather than $\kappa$. The next proposition states that bounding the weighted output deficiency is sufficient to ensure that the differences in the optimal risks is also bounded for any decision problem of interest.
\[prop:lecam\_suffbound\] Fix $\mu\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{S}};{\mathcal{Z}})$, $\kappa\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{S}};{\mathcal{Y}})$ and a prior probability distribution $\pi_S$ on ${\mathcal{S}}$ and write ${\left\lVert\ell\right\rVert}_\infty=\max_{s,a}\ell(s,a)$. For every $\epsilon > 0$, if $\delta_o^{\pi}(\mu,\kappa)\le\epsilon$, then $R(\pi_S,\mu,\ell)-R(\pi_S,\kappa,\ell)\le\sqrt{\epsilon\tfrac{{\ln\left(2\right)}}{2}}{\left\lVert\ell\right\rVert}_\infty$ for any set of actions ${\mathcal{A}}$ and any bounded loss function $\ell$.
Another ordering that has been studied recently is the input-degradedness preorder [@nasser2017] based on whether one channel can be simulated from the other by randomization at the input.
\[def:preorder3\] Let $\bar{\kappa}\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Y}};{\mathcal{S}})$, $\bar{\mu}\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Z}};{\mathcal{S}})$ be two channels with a common output alphabet. We say that *$\bar{\kappa}$ is input-degraded from $\bar{\mu}$* and write $\bar{\mu}\succeq_{{\mathcal{S}}} \bar{\kappa}$ if $\bar{\kappa}=\bar{\mu}\circ\bar{\lambda}$ for some $\bar{\lambda}\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Y}};{\mathcal{Z}})$.
[@nasser2017] gave a characterization of input-degradedness that is similar to Blackwell’s theorem. The weighted deficiency counterpart of Definition \[def:gdefo\] is as follows.
\[def:gdefi\] The *weighted input deficiency of $\bar{\mu}$ w.r.t. $\bar{\kappa}$ is* $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:weighted_gdefi}
\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\mu},\bar{\kappa}):=\min_{\bar{\lambda}\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Y}};{\mathcal{Z}})}D(\bar{\kappa}\|\bar{\mu}\circ\bar{\lambda}|\pi_Y),
\end{aligned}$$ where the subscript $i$ in $\delta_i^{\pi}$ emphasizes the fact that the randomization is at the *input* of the channel $\bar{\mu}$ (see Fig. \[fig:2\]).
Nonnegative mutual information decompositions
=============================================
We propose two nonnegative decompositions of the mutual information between the pair $(Y,Z)$ and $S$ based on Definition \[def:gdefo\] and Definition \[def:gdefi\] of the weighted output and input deficiencies.
Nonnegative decomposition based on weighted output deficiencies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the following functions on the simplex $\mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{Z}}}$.
\[def:decomp\_gdefo\] Let $(S,Y,Z)\sim P$.
\[subeq:decomp\_gdefo\] $$\begin{aligned}
UI_o(S;Y\backslash Z) &= \max\{\delta_o^{\pi}({\mu},{\kappa}),\delta_o^{\pi}({\kappa},{\mu})+I(S;Y)-I(S;Z)\},\label{subeq:UI_oy}\\
UI_o(S;Z\backslash Y) &= \max\{\delta_o^{\pi}({\kappa},{\mu}),\delta_o^{\pi}({\mu},{\kappa})+I(S;Z)-I(S;Y)\},\label{subeq:UI_oz}\\
SI_o(S;Y,Z) &=\min\{I(S;Y)-\delta_o^{\pi}(\mu,\kappa), I(S;Z)-\delta_o^{\pi}(\kappa,\mu)\},\label{subeq:SI_o}\\
CI_o(S;Y,Z) &= \min\{I(S;Y|Z)-\delta_o^{\pi}(\mu,\kappa), I(S;Z|Y)-\delta_o^{\pi}(\kappa,\mu)\}.\label{subeq:CI_o}
\end{aligned}$$
The functions $UI_o$ and $SI_o$ depend only on the triple $(\pi,{\kappa},{\mu})$. The function $CI_o$ depends on the full joint $P$.
It is easy to check that the functions satisfy the information decomposition equations -.
\[Nonnegativity\] \[lem:positivity\_gdefo\] $SI_o$, $UI_o$ and $CI_o$ are nonnegative functions.
\[lem:UIo-zero\] $UI_{o}(S;Y\backslash Z)$ vanishes if and only if $Y$ has no unique information about $S$ w.r.t. $Z$ (according to Definition \[def:UI0\]).
Nonnegative decomposition based on weighted input deficiencies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the following functions on the simplex $\mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{Z}}}$.
\[def:decomp\_gdefi\] Let $(S,Y,Z)\sim P$.
\[subeq:decomp\_gdefi\] $$\begin{aligned}
UI_i(S;Y\backslash Z) &= \max\{\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\mu},\bar{\kappa}),\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\kappa},\bar{\mu})+I(S;Y)-I(S;Z)\},\label{subeq:UI_iy}\\
UI_i(S;Z\backslash Y) &= \max\{\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\kappa},\bar{\mu}),\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\mu},\bar{\kappa})+I(S;Z)-I(S;Y)\},\label{subeq:UI_iz}\\
SI_i(S;Y,Z) &=\min\{I(S;Y)-\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\mu},\bar{\kappa}),I(S;Z)-\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\kappa},\bar{\mu})\},\label{subeq:SI_i}\\
CI_i(S;Y,Z) &= \min\{I(S;Y|Z)-\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\mu},\bar{\kappa}),I(S;Z|Y)-\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\kappa},\bar{\mu})\}.\label{subeq:CI_i}
\end{aligned}$$
The functions $UI_i$ and $SI_i$ depend only on the tuple $(\pi_Y,\pi_Z,\bar{\kappa},\bar{\mu})$. $CI_i$ depends on the full joint $P$.
It is easy to see that the functions satisfy the information decomposition equations -.
\[Nonnegativity\]\[lem:positivity\_gdefi\] $SI_i$, $UI_i$ and $CI_i$ are nonnegative functions.
[@HarderSalgePolani2013:Bivariate_redundancy] defined a measure of *shared information* based on reverse information projections [@csiszarIproj] to a convex set of probability measures.
\[def:SIred\] For $C\subset\mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{S}}}$, let $\operatorname*{conv}(C)$ denote the convex hull of $C$. Let $$Q_{y\searrow Z}(S)\in \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{Q\in\operatorname*{conv}\left(\{\bar{\mu}_z\}_{z\in{\mathcal{Z}}}\right)\subset\mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{S}}}} D(\bar{\kappa}_y\|Q)$$ be the *reverse I-projection* of $\bar{\kappa}_y$ onto the convex hull of the points $\{\bar{\mu}_z\}_{z\in{\mathcal{Z}}}\in\mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{S}}}$. Define the *projected information of $Y$ onto $Z$ w.r.t. S* as $$\begin{aligned}
I_{S}(Y\searrow Z):=\mathbb{E}_{(s,y)\sim\bar{\kappa}\times\pi_Y} \log \tfrac{Q_{y\searrow Z}(s)}{\bar{\kappa}\circ\pi_Y(s)},
\end{aligned}$$ and the shared information $$\begin{aligned}
SI_{red}(S;Y,Z):=\min\{I_{S}(Y\searrow Z),I_{S}(Z\searrow Y)\} \label{eq:SI_red}.
\end{aligned}$$
For an account of some intuitive properties of the function $SI_{red}$ as a measure of shared information, see [@HarderSalgePolani2013:Bivariate_redundancy Section II.B] and [@WilliamsBeer].
Proposition \[prop:UIred\_equals\_gdefi\] states that implicit in the above construction is the weighted input deficiency $\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\mu},\bar{\kappa})$.
\[prop:UIred\_equals\_gdefi\] $I_{S}(Y\searrow Z)=I(S;Y)-\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\mu},\bar{\kappa})$.
An immediate consequence of Proposition \[prop:UIred\_equals\_gdefi\] is that the decomposition proposed in [@HarderSalgePolani2013:Bivariate_redundancy] and that in Definition \[def:decomp\_gdefi\] are equivalent.
\[thm:equivalence\_Ired\_gdefi\]
$SI_{red}=SI_i$, $UI_{red}=UI_i$, $CI_{red}=CI_i$, where $UI_{red}$ and $CI_{red}$ are the corresponding unique and complementary informations derived from and satisfying equations -.
Minimum-synergy unique information
==================================
[@e16042161] proposed a nonnegative decomposition of the mutual information based on the idea that the unique and shared information should depend only on the marginal distributions of the pairs $(S,Y)$ and $(S,Z)$.
\[def:decomp\_minsyn\] Let $(S,Y,Z)\sim P$ and let ${\kappa}\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{S}};{\mathcal{Y}})$, ${\mu}\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{S}};{\mathcal{Z}})$ be two channels with the same input alphabet such that $P_{SY}(s,y) = \pi_S(s){\kappa}_s(y)$ and $P_{SZ}(s,z) = \pi_S(s){\mu}_s(z)$. Define
\[subeq:decomp\_minsyn\] $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_P = \big\{Q \in \mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{Z}}}\colon &Q_{SY}(s,y)=\pi_S(s)\kappa_s(y),\notag\\
&Q_{SZ}(s,z)=\pi_S(s)\mu_s(z)\big\},\label{subeq:delP}\\
UI(S;Y\backslash Z) &= \min_{Q \in \Delta_P} I_Q(S;Y|Z),\label{subeq:UIy}\\
UI(S;Z\backslash Y) &= \min_{Q \in \Delta_P} I_Q(S;Z|Y),\label{subeq:UIz}\\
SI(S;Y,Z)&=\max_{Q \in \Delta_P} CoI_Q(S;Y;Z),\label{subeq:SI}\\
CI(S;Y,Z)&= I(S;Y|Z)-UI(S;Y\backslash Z),\label{subeq:CI}
\end{aligned}$$
where $CoI$ is the coinformation and the subscript $Q$ in $CoI_Q$ and $I_Q$ denotes that joint distribution on which the quantities are computed.
In Appendix \[app:opt\], we briefly comment on the optimization problems in Definitions \[def:decomp\_minsyn\], \[def:gdefi\] and \[def:gdefo\].
The functions $UI$ and $SI$ depend only on the triple $(\pi,{\kappa},{\mu})$. The function $CI$ depends on the full joint $P$.
\[[[[@e16042161 Lemma 6]]{}]{}\] \[lem:UI-zero\] $UI(S;Y\backslash Z)$ vanishes if and only if $Y$ has no unique information about $S$ w.r.t. $Z$ (according to Definition \[def:UI0\]).
The following trivial bounds follow from -. $$\begin{aligned}
I(S;Y)-I(S;Z) \le UI(S;Y\backslash Z) \le \min\{I(S;Y),I(S;Y|Z)\}.
\end{aligned}$$ These bounds are also valid for the functions $UI_o$ and $UI_i$. In the adversarial setting in Example \[ex:sktoy\], if either Eve has less information about $S$ than Bob or, by symmetry, less information about $Y$ than Alice, then Alice and Bob can exploit this difference to extract a secret key. In such a setting, bounds on the *unique information common to $S$ and $Y$ w.r.t. $Z$* are useful. $$\begin{aligned}
\max\{I(S;Y)-I(S;Z),I(Y;S)-I(Y;Z)\}\le\max\{UI(S;Y\backslash Z),UI(Y;S\backslash Z)\}\le \min\{I(S;Y),I(S;Y|Z)\}.
\end{aligned}$$ An interesting observation is that these bounds match the trivial bounds on the two-way secret key rate [@maurerintrinsic] (see Section \[subsec:skrate\]). $$\begin{aligned}
\max\{I(S;Y)-I(S;Z),I(Y;S)-I(Y;Z)\}\le {S_{\leftrightarrow}\!\left({S};{Y}\!\left|{Z} \right. \right)} \le \min\{I(S;Y),I(S;Y|Z)\}.
\end{aligned}$$
The following lemma states that the quantities $UI$, $SI$ and $CI$ in Definition \[def:decomp\_minsyn\] bound the unique, shared and complementary components in any nonnegative decomposition of the mutual information under an assumption that is in keeping with the Blackwell ordering.
\[lem:minsyn\] Let ${\widetilde{UI}}(S;Y\backslash Z)$, ${\widetilde{UI}}(S;Z\backslash Y)$, ${\widetilde{SI}}(S;Y,Z)$ and ${\widetilde{CI}}(S;Y,Z)$ be nonnegative functions on $\mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{Z}}}$ satisfying equations - and assume that the following holds:
1. ${\widetilde{UI}}$ depends only on the triple $(\pi,{\kappa},{\mu})$.
Then ${\widetilde{UI}}\le UI$, ${\widetilde{SI}}\ge SI$ and ${\widetilde{CI}}\ge CI$ with equality if and only if there exists $Q\in\Delta_P$ such that ${\widetilde{CI}}_{Q}(S:Y;Z)=0$.
Lemma \[lem:minsyn\] is consistent with our interpretation of the function $UI$ as the *minimum-synergy unique information*.
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta_o^{\pi}(\mu,\kappa) &\le UI_o(S;Y\backslash Z) \le UI(S;Y\backslash Z),
\\
\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\mu},\bar{\kappa}) &\le UI_i(S;Y\backslash Z) \le UI(S;Y\backslash Z).
\end{aligned}$$
Proposition \[prop:vanishingUIequiv\] follows from Lemmas \[lem:UIo-zero\] and \[lem:UI-zero\], and Definition \[def:gdefo\].
\[prop:vanishingUIequiv\] $\delta_o^{\pi}(\mu,\kappa)=0 \iff UI_o(S;Y\backslash Z)=0 \iff UI(S;Y\backslash Z)=0$.
In [@e16042161], it was claimed that the vanishing sets of $UI_{\text{red}}=UI_{i}$ and $UI$ agree. In the published version of this paper [@Allerton2018], this was used to show that the vanishing sets of $UI_{i}$ and $\delta^{\pi}_{i}$ agree with that of $UI$. As the following example shows, this is not correct:
Consider the distribution depicted in Figure \[fig:counterexample\](a). $P_S$ is a binary symmetric distribution and $P_{Y|S}$ and $P_{Z|Y}$ are symmetric erasure channels with erasure probabilities $\epsilon_1=\tfrac{1}{6}$ and $\epsilon_2=\tfrac{1}{5}$, resp. We have:
- $S-Y-Z$ is a Markov chain by construction. The erasure probability of the induced erasure channel $P_{Z|S}$ shown in Figure \[fig:counterexample\](b) is greater than that of $P_{Y|S}$, whence $UI(S;Y\backslash Z)=I(S;Y|Z)=\tfrac{1}{6}>0$.
- On the other hand, the induced “reverse” erasure channels $P_{S|Y}$ and $P_{S|Z}$ are identical (see Figure \[fig:counterexample\](c)). Thus, $\delta_i^{\pi}=0$.
UI is an upper bound on the one-way secret key rate {#subsec:skrate}
---------------------------------------------------
In this section, we show that the function $UI$ has a meaningful operational interpretation in a task where the goal is to extract a secret key from shared randomness and public communication.
In a *two-way* secret key agreement protocol for the *source model* [@maurer1993; @ahlswede1993; @maurerintrinsic], Alice, Bob and Eve observe $n$ i.i.d. copies of random variables $S$, $Y$ and $Z$ respectively, where $(S,Y,Z)$ is distributed according to some joint distribution $P$ assumed to be known to all parties. The protocol proceeds in rounds: In each round either Alice or Bob can transmit a message over an insecure but authenticated public discussion channel. If Alice (resp., Bob) transmits message $C_i$ in round $i$, then $C_i$ is a function of $S^n$ (resp., $Y^n$) and all the messages received so far. After $r$ rounds, Alice (resp., Bob) computes a key $K_A^m\in{\mathcal{K}}^{m}$ for ${\mathcal{K}}=\{0,1\}$ (resp., $K_B^m\in{\mathcal{K}}^{m}$) as a function of $S^n$ (resp., $Y^n$) and $C:=(C_1,C_2,\cdots,C_{r})$, the collection of messages sent over the public channel. The protocol is *one-way* if Alice is allowed to use the public channel only once and Bob cannot transmit at all: Alice computes a key $K_A^m$ and a message $C$ for Bob as a function of $S^n$. Bob computes a key $K_B^m$ as a function of $Y^n$ and $C$. In the limit $n\to\infty$, the secret key must satisfy the following conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
{\,{\rm Pr}\!\left[K_A^{m}\ne K_B^{m}\right]}=0,\quad \log|{\mathcal{K}}^m|-H(K_A^m|Z^nC)=0.\end{aligned}$$ The largest achievable rate $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac {m}n$ at which Alice and Bob can distill a key in the two-way and the one-way communication scenarios are resp. called, the *two-way secret key rate* ${S_{\leftrightarrow}\!\left({S};{Y}\!\left|{Z} \right. \right)}$ and the *one-way secret key rate* ${S_{\rightarrow}\!\left({S};{Y}\!\left|{Z} \right. \right)}$.
An exact expression for the one-way secret key rate is known.
\[thm:skaRate\] The *one-way secret key rate* ${S_{\rightarrow}\!\left({S};{Y}\!\left|{Z} \right. \right)}$ for the source model is $$\begin{aligned}
{S_{\rightarrow}\!\left({S};{Y}\!\left|{Z} \right. \right)}=\max\limits_{P_{UV|SYZ}} & I(U;Y|V)-I(U;Z|V) \label{eq:onewayrate}
\end{aligned}$$ for random variables $U$, $V$ such that $YZ-S-UV$ is a Markov chain, and where both $U$ and $V$ have range of size at most $|{\mathcal{S}}|+1$.
The one-way secret key rate is a lower bound on the two-way secret key rate.
General properties of upper bounds on the secret key rates have been investigated under the rubric of *protocol monotones*—nonnegative real-valued functionals of joint distributions that can never increase during protocol execution (see e.g., [@maurerunbreakable; @gohari; @christandl; @gohari3]). For example, the *intrinsic information*, an upper bound on the two-way secret key rate is a protocol monotone [@RennerW03].
We show that the function $UI$ shares some intuitive and basic properties of the secret key rate. Lemma \[lem:LORR\] states that if Alice and Bob discard certain realizations of their random variables by restricting their ranges, then the $UI$ can never increase. See [@maurerintrinsic Lemma 3] for a counterpart of this property for the two-way secret key rate.
\[Monotonicity under range restrictions [@ISIT_RBOJ14]\] \[lem:LORR\] $UI((S,S');(Y,Y') \backslash Z) \geq UI(S;Y \backslash Z)$.
The following Lemma states that $UI$ can never increase under local operations of Alice and Bob. The counterpart of this lemma for the secret key rate is [@maurerintrinsic Lemma 4].
\[lem:LO\] $UI$ cannot increase under local operations of $S$ or $Y$.
Lemma \[lem:LOEve\] states that if Eve is allowed access to some additional side information, then the $UI$ can only decrease. See [@maurerintrinsic Lemma 5] for a counterpart of this property for the two-way secret key rate.
\[Monotonicity under adversarial side information [@ISIT_RBOJ14]\] \[lem:LOEve\] $UI(S;Y \backslash (Z,Z')) \leq UI(S;Y \backslash Z)$.
Suppose Alice publicly announces the value of a random variable. Then Lemma \[lem:PC\] states that $UI$ can never increase.
\[Monotonicity under one-way public communication\] \[lem:PC\] $UI(S;(Y,f(S)) \backslash (Z,f(S))) \leq UI(S;Y \backslash Z)$ for all functions $f$ over the support of $S$.
The following two properties, additivity and asymptotic continuity are important if the function $UI$ is to furnish an upper bound on the asymptotic rate of transforming a given joint distribution into a secret key.
Lemma \[lem:AD\] states that $UI$ is additive on tensor products.
\[Additivity under tensor products. [[[@e16042161 Lemma 19]]{}]{}\] \[lem:AD\] For independent pairs of jointly distributed random variables $(S_{1},Y_{1},Z_{1})$ and $(S_{2},Y_{2},Z_{2})$, $$\begin{aligned}
UI((S_1,S_2);(Y_1,Y_2)\backslash (Z_1,Z_2) = UI(S_1;Y_1\backslash Z_1) + UI(S_2;Y_2\backslash Z_2).
\end{aligned}$$
We also have asymptotic continuity for the $UI$.
\[thm:AC\] $UI$ is asymptotically continuous.
The following theorem gives sufficient conditions for a function to be an upper bound for the secret key rate.
\[[[[@christandl Theorem 3.1]]{},[@maurerunbreakable Lemma 2.10]]{}\] \[thm:monotone\] Let $M$ be a nonnegative real-valued function of the joint distribution of the triple $(S,Y,Z)$ such that the following holds:
*1. Local operations (LO) of Alice or Bob cannot increase $M$:* For all jointly distributed RVs $(S,Y,Z,S')$ such that $YZ-S-S'$ is a Markov chain, $M(S,Y,Z) \ge M(S',Y,Z)$ (and likewise for $Y$).
*2. Public communication (PC) by Alice cannot increase $M$:* $M\bigl((S,f(S)),(Y,f(S)),(Z,f(S))\bigr) \leq M(S,Y,Z)$ for all functions $f$ over the support of $S$.
*3. Normalization:* For a perfect secret bit $P_{SS\Delta}(0,0,\delta)=P_{SS\Delta}(1,1,\delta)=\tfrac{1}{2}$, $M(S,S,\Delta)=1$.
*4. Asymptotic continuity:* $M$ is a asymptotically continuous function of $(S,Y,Z)$.
*5. Additivity:* $M$ is additive on tensor products.
Then $M$ is an upper bound for the *one-way secret key rate*.
If, in addition, $M$ does not increase under public communication by Bob (property 2., with $f(S)$ replaced by $g(Y)$ for some function $g$ over the support of $Y$), then $M$ is an upper bound for the two-way secret key rate.
Theorem \[thm:uppbound\] is our main result in this Section.
\[thm:uppbound\] $UI$ is an upper bound for the one-way secret key rate.
Vanishing unique informations and secret key agreement against active adversaries {#subsec:simulatability}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The secret key agreement scenario in Section \[subsec:skrate\] assumes that the public discussion channel is authenticated, i.e., Eve is only a passive adversary. When this assumption is no longer valid and Eve has both read and write access to the public channel, an all-or-nothing result is known [@maurersimul1]: Either the same secret key rate can be achieved as in the authentic channel case, or nothing at all. Maurer defined the following property of a distribution to characterize the impossibility of secret key agreement against active adversaries.
\[def:simulatability\] Given $(S,Y,Z)\sim P$, we say that *$Y$ is simulatable by $Z$ w.r.t. $S$* and write $\operatorname*{sim}_S(Z\to Y)$ if there exists a random variable $Y'$ such that the pairs $(S,Y)$ and $(S,Y')$ are statistically indistinguishable, and $S-Z-Y'$ is a Markov chain.
One would immediately recognize that $\operatorname*{sim}_S(Z\to Y)$ and $Z{\sqsupseteq'}_{S} Y$ in Definition \[def:preorder1\] are equivalent. Let $S_{\leftrightarrow}^{\ast}({S};{Y}|{Z})$ denote the secret key rate in the active adversary scenario. We restate Maurer’s impossibility result (Theorem 11 in [@maurersimul1]) in terms of the function $UI$.
\[[[[@maurersimul1 Theorem 11]]{}]{}\]\[thm:simul\] Let $(S,Y,Z)\sim P$ be a distribution with ${S_{\leftrightarrow}\!\left({S};{Y}\!\left|{Z} \right. \right)}>0$. If either $UI(S;Y\backslash Z)=0$ or $UI(Y;S\backslash Z)=0$, then $S_{\leftrightarrow}^{\ast}({S};{Y}|{Z})=0$, else $S_{\leftrightarrow}^{\ast}({S};{Y}|{Z})={S_{\leftrightarrow}\!\left({S};{Y}\!\left|{Z} \right. \right)}$.
Theorem \[thm:simul\] gives an operational significance to the vanishing $UI$, namely, if either $S$ or $Y$ possess no unique information about each other w.r.t. $Z$, then Alice and Bob have no advantage in a secret key agreement task against an active Eve. By Proposition \[prop:vanishingUIequiv\], the same is true for $UI_o$.
Example \[ex:sktoy1\] shows a distribution for which ${S_{\leftrightarrow}\!\left({S};{Y}\!\left|{Z} \right. \right)}>0$ but $S_{\leftrightarrow}^{\ast}({S};{Y}|{Z})=0$.
\[ex:sktoy1\] Consider the distribution
where $Z$’s value is shown in parentheses. This distribution has $I(S;Y\!\!\downarrow \!Z)={\widetilde{SI}}(S; Y,Z)=0.02$ and ${\widetilde{CI}}(S; Y,Z)=0.55$. [@gisinlinking] showed that a secret key agreement protocol exists such that ${S_{\leftrightarrow}\!\left({S};{Y}\!\left|{Z} \right. \right)}>0$. However since the pairwise marginal distributions of $(S,Y)$, $(S,Z)$ and $(Y,Z)$ are all identical, all the unique informations vanish. Hence $S_{\leftrightarrow}^{\ast}({S};{Y}|{Z})=0$.
Conclusion
==========
The information decomposition framework extends earlier ideas to define information measures that make it possible to do a finer analysis than is possible with Shannon’s mutual information alone. For example, measures of redundancy and synergy have long been sought in the neural sciences [@syncode; @LathamNirenberg05:Synergy_and_redundancy_revisited; @schneidman2003synergy].
In this paper, we proposed two new quantities that can be interpreted as unique informations in the context of nonnegative mutual information decompositions. The quantities are derived using a generalized version of weighted Le Cam deficiencies that have a rich heritage in the theory of comparison of statistical experiments [@torgersen]. We related the proposed quantities to the function $UI$ proposed in [@e16042161]. We gave an operational interpretation of the latter in terms of an upper bound on the number of secret key bits extractable per copy of a given joint distribution using local operations and one-way public communication. It might be of independent interest to characterize the set of distributions for which two-way secret key agreement is possible at a rate given by the unique information.
APPENDIX {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Proofs {#app:proofs}
------
\[Proof of Proposition \[prop:lecam\_suffbound\]\] If $\delta_o^{\pi}(\mu,\kappa)\le\epsilon$, then we can find some $\lambda\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Z}};{\mathcal{Y}})$ such that $D(\kappa\|\lambda\circ\mu|\pi_S)\le\epsilon$. Let $\rho'\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Y}};{\mathcal{A}})$ and let $\rho=\rho'\circ\lambda$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
R(\pi_S,\mu,\rho,\ell)&-R(\pi_S,\kappa,\rho',\ell)\\
=&\mathbb{E}_{s\sim\pi_S}\left[\mathbb{E}_{a\sim\rho\circ\mu_s}\ell(s,a)-\mathbb{E}_{a\sim\rho'\circ\kappa_s}\ell(s,a)\right]\\
\le&\mathbb{E}_{s\sim\pi_S}{\left\lVert\rho\circ\mu_s-\rho'\circ\kappa_s\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{TV}}{\left\lVert\ell\right\rVert}_\infty\\
=&\mathbb{E}_{s\sim\pi_S}{\left\lVert\rho'\circ\lambda\circ\mu_s-\rho'\circ\kappa_s\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{TV}}{\left\lVert\ell\right\rVert}_\infty\\
\le&\mathbb{E}_{s\sim\pi_S}{\left\lVert\lambda\circ\mu_s-\kappa_s\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{TV}}{\left\lVert\ell\right\rVert}_\infty\\
\le&\mathbb{E}_{s\sim\pi_S}\left[\sqrt{\tfrac{{\ln\left(2\right)}}{2}D(\kappa_s\|\lambda\circ\mu_s)}\right]{\left\lVert\ell\right\rVert}_\infty\\
\le&\sqrt{\tfrac{{\ln\left(2\right)}}{2}D(\kappa\|\lambda\circ\mu|\pi_S)}{\left\lVert\ell\right\rVert}_\infty
\le\sqrt{\tfrac{{\ln\left(2\right)}}{2}\epsilon}{\left\lVert\ell\right\rVert}_\infty,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the data processing inequality for the total variation (TV) distance in the fourth step and Pinsker’s inequality in the fifth. The last step follows from the concavity of the square root function. Finally, take a minimum over $\rho'$ and $\rho$. This completes the proof.
\[Proof of Proposition \[lem:positivity\_gdefo\]\] Let $(S,Y,Z)\sim P$. Consider first the case when $UI_o(S;Y\backslash Z)=\delta_o^{\pi}({\mu},{\kappa})$. Then $UI_o$ is nonnegative by definition. Let $\lambda^{\ast}\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Z}};{\mathcal{Y}})$ achieve the minimum in . Then $CI_o$ is nonnegative since $$\begin{aligned}
&I(S;Y|Z)= \sum_s P(s)\sum_z P(z|s)D(P(y|s,z)||P(y|z))\\
&\ge \sum_s P(s)D\left(\sum_z P(z|s)P(y|s,z)||\sum_z P(z|s)P(y|z)\right)\\
&=D(P_{Y|S}\|P_{Y|Z}\circ P_{Z|S}|P_S)\\
&\ge D(P_{Y|S}\|\lambda^{\ast}_{Y|Z}\circ P_{Z|S}|P_S),
\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality follows from the convexity of the Kullback-Leibler divergence and the second inequality follows from the definition of $\lambda^{\ast}$.
$SI_o$ is nonnegative since $$\begin{aligned}
SI_o(S;Y,Z)&=D(P_{Y|S}\|P_Y|P_S)-D(P_{Y|S}\|\lambda^{\ast}_{Y|Z}\circ P_{Z|S}|P_S)\\
&\ge D(P_{Y|S}\|P_Y|P_S)-D(P_{Y|S}\|P_{Y}\circ P_{Z|S}|P_S)=0.
\end{aligned}$$
The proof for the case when $UI_o(S;Y\backslash Z)=\delta_o^{\pi}({\kappa},{\mu})+I(S;Y)-I(S;Z)$ or equivalently $UI_o(S;Z\backslash Y)=\delta_o^{\pi}({\kappa},{\mu})$ by the consistency condition is similar.
\[Proof of Lemma \[lem:UIo-zero\]\] If $Y$ has no unique information about $S$ w.r.t. $Z$, then $UI(S;Y\backslash Z) = 0$. Thus, $UI_{o}(S;Y\backslash Z)$ vanishes by Lemma \[lem:minsyn\]. Conversely, assume that $UI_{o}(S;Y\backslash Z)$ vanishes. By Definition \[def:decomp\_gdefo\], since $\delta_{o}^{\pi}(\mu,\kappa)$ is a non-negative quantity, it follows that $\delta_{o}^{\pi}(\mu,\kappa)=0$. By definition, $\kappa = \lambda\circ\mu$ for some $\lambda\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Z}};{\mathcal{Y}})$, whence $Y$ has no unique information about $S$ w.r.t. $Z$.
\[Proof of Proposition \[lem:positivity\_gdefi\]\] The proof is similar to that of Proposition \[lem:positivity\_gdefo\] and is omitted.
\[Proof of Proposition \[prop:UIred\_equals\_gdefi\]\] The proof is direct by noting that $I(S;Y)-I_{S}(Y\searrow Z)=D(\bar{\kappa}\|Q_{Y\searrow Z}|\pi_Y)$ and the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
D(\bar{\kappa}\|Q_{Y\searrow Z}|\pi_Y)&=\sum_{y\in{\mathcal{Y}}} \pi_Y(y)\min_{Q\in\operatorname*{conv}\left(\{\bar{\mu}_z\}_{z\in{\mathcal{Z}}}\right)} D(\bar{\kappa}_y\|Q)\\
&=\min_{\bar{\lambda}\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Y}};{\mathcal{Z}})} \sum_{y\in{\mathcal{Y}}} \pi_Y(y) D(\bar{\kappa}_y\|\bar{\mu}\circ\bar{\lambda}_y)
=\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\mu},\bar{\kappa}).\qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
\[Proof of Lemma \[lem:LORR\]\] Let $(S,S',Y,Y',Z)\sim P'$ and let $P$ be the $(S,Y,Z)$-marginal of $P'$. Let $Q'\in\Delta_{P'}$, and let $Q$ be the $(S,Y,Z)$-marginal of $Q'$. Then $Q\in\Delta_{P}$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
I_{Q'}(SS';YY'|Z) \ge I_{Q'}(S;Y|Z)
= I_{Q}(S;Y|Z).
\end{aligned}$$ The proof is complete by taking the minimum over $Q'\in\Delta_{P'}$.
\[Proof of Lemma \[lem:LO\]\] Consider random variables $S, S', Y, Z$ such that $YZ - S - S'$ is a Markov chain. Let $P'$ be the marginal distribution of $(S',Y,Z)$, and let $P$ be the $(S,Y,Z)$-marginal. Let $Q^{*} = \arg\min_{Q\in\Delta_{P}} I_{Q}(S;Y|Z)$, and let $$Q^{*\prime}(s',y,z) = \sum_{s}P'(s'|s) Q^{*}(s,y,z).$$ Then $Q^{*\prime}\in\Delta_{P'}$. By definition, $$\begin{aligned}
UI(S;Y\backslash Z) &= I_{Q^{*}}(S;Y|Z)\\
&\ge I_{Q^{*\prime}}(S';Y|Z)\ge \min_{Q'\in\Delta_{P'}} I_{Q'}(S;Y|Z)
= UI(S';Y\backslash Z),
\end{aligned}$$ where the conditional form of the data processing inequality was used. This chain of inequalities shows that $UI$ cannot increase under local operations of $S$.
Exchanging $Y$ and $S$ in the above proof shows that the same is true for local operations of $Y$ (the only slight difference occurs when checking that $Q^{*\prime}\in\Delta_{P'}$).
\[Proof of Lemma \[lem:LOEve\]\] Let $(S,Y,Z)\sim P$ and $(S,Y,Z,Z')\sim P'$. By definition, $P$ is a marginal of $P'$. Let $Q\in\Delta_{P}$, and let $Q'(s,y,z,z') := Q(s,y,z) P'(z'|s,z)$ if $P(s,z)>0$ and $Q'(s,y,z,z')=0$ otherwise. Then $Q'\in\Delta_{P'}$. Moreover, $Q$ is the $(S,Y,Z)$-marginal of $Q'$, and $Y-SZ-Z'$ is a Markov chain w.r.t. $Q'$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
I_{Q'}(S;Y|ZZ') &= I_{Q'}(SZ';Y|Z) - I_{Q'}(Z';Y|Z)
\\ &
\le I_{Q'}(SZ';Y|Z)
= I_{Q'}(S:Y|Z) + I_{Q'}(Z';Y|S,Z)
= I_{Q'}(S;Y|Z) = I_{Q}(S;Y|Z).
\end{aligned}$$ The proof is complete by taking the minimum over $Q\in\Delta_{P}$.
\[Proof of Lemma \[lem:PC\]\] Write $S'=f(S)$. Let $(S,Y,Z)\sim P$ and $(S,Y,Z,S')\sim P'$. By definition, $P$ is a marginal of $P'$. Let $Q\in\Delta_{P}$, and define $Q'(s,y,z,s')= Q(s,y,z) P'(s'|s)$ if $P(s)>0$ and $Q'(s,y,z,s')=0$ otherwise. Then $Q'(s,y,s')= Q(s,y) P'(s'|s)=P(s,y) P'(s'|s,y)=P'(s,y) P'(s'|s,y)=P'(s,y,s')$. Similarly, $Q'(s,z,s')=P'(s,z,s')$. Then $Q'\in\Delta_{P'}$. Moreover, $Q$ is the $(S,Y,Z)$-marginal of $Q'$, Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
I_{Q'}(S;YS'|ZS') &= I_{Q'}(S;Y|ZS')
\\ & = I_{Q'}(SS';Y|Z) - I_{Q'}(S';Y|Z)
\\ &
\le I_{Q'}(SS';Y|Z)=I_{Q'}(S;Y|Z)=I_{Q}(S;Y|Z)
\end{aligned}$$ The proof is complete by taking the minimum over $Q\in\Delta_{P}$.
To prove asymptotic continuity (Theorem \[thm:AC\]), we need the following lemma.
\[lem:asymcont-helper\] Let $P,P'\in\mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{Z}}}$. For any $Q\in\Delta_{P}$ there exists $Q'\in\Delta_{P'}$ with $\|Q-Q'\|_1\le 5\|P-P'\|_1$.
The signed measure $M = Q + P' - P$ has the same pair margins as $P'$ for the pairs $(S,Y)$ and $(S,Z)$, and $M$ is normalized (that is, $\sum_{s,y,z}M(s,y,z) = 1$). If $M$ is nonnegative, the statement of the lemma is true, since $\|M - Q\|_1 = \|P - P'\|_1$ with $Q'=M$. Otherwise there exist $s_{0},y_{0},z_{0}$ with $M(s_{0},y_{0},z_{0}) < 0$. Since $\sum_{y}M(s_{0},y,z_{0}) = P'(s_{0},z_{0}) \ge 0$ and $\sum_{z}M(s_{0},y_{0},z) = P'(s_{0},y_{0}) \ge 0$ there exist $y_{1}\neq y_{0}$ and $z_{1}\neq z_{0}$ with $M(s_{0},y_{1},z_{0}) > 0$ and $M(s_{0},y_{0},z_{1}) > 0$. Let $\nu = \min\bigl\{M(s_{0},y_{1},z_{0}), M(s_{0},y_{0},z_{1}), |M(s_{0}, y_{0}, z_{0})|\bigr\} > 0$, and consider the measure $M'$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
M'(s_{0}, y_{0}, z_{0}) & = M(s_{0}, y_{0}, z_{0}) + \nu,\\
M'(s_{0}, y_{1}, z_{0}) & = M(s_{0}, y_{1}, z_{0}) - \nu,\\
M'(s_{0}, y_{0}, z_{1}) & = M(s_{0}, y_{0}, z_{1}) - \nu,\\
M'(s_{0}, y_{1}, z_{1}) & = M(s_{0}, y_{1}, z_{1}) + \nu,\\
M'(s_{0}, y, z) & = M(s, y, z), \qquad\mbox{\rlap{ otherwise.}}
\end{aligned}$$ Then $M'$ has the same pair margins as $M$ and $P'$ for the pairs $(S,Y)$ and $(S,Z)$, and $M$ is normalized. Moreover, the absolute sum over the negative entries decreases: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{s, y, z: M(s, y, z) < 0} | M(s, y, z) | \ge \sum_{s, y, z: M'(s, y, z) < 0}| M'(s, y, z) | + \nu
> \sum_{s, y, z: M'(s, y, z) < 0}| M'(s, y, z) |.
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $\|M - M'\|_1\le 4 \nu$. Iterating the procedure, one obtains a normalized measure $M''$ that has the same pair margins as $M$ and $P'$ and that is non-negative. The triangle inequality shows $$\begin{aligned}
\|M'' - M\|_1 \le 4 \sum_{s, y, z: M(s, y, z) < 0}| M(s, y, z) | \le 4 \| P - P' \|_1.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\|M'' - Q\|_1 \le \|M'' - M\|_1 + \|M - Q\|_1 \le 5 \| P - P' \|_1$. Hence, the statement follows with $Q' = M''$.
\[Proof of Theorem \[thm:AC\]\] Let $P,P'\in\mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{Z}}}$, let $Q\in \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{Q\in\Delta_{P}} I_{Q}(S;Y|Z)$. Choose $Q'\in\Delta_{P'}$ as in Lemma \[lem:asymcont-helper\], and let $Q^{*}\in \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{Q\in\Delta_{P'}} I_{Q}(S;Y|Z)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&{UI}_{P'}(S;Y\backslash Z) - {UI}_{P}(S;Y\backslash Z)\\
&= I_{Q^{*}}(S;Y|Z) - I_{Q}(S;Y|Z) \\
&\le I_{Q'}(S;Y|Z) - I_{Q}(S;Y|Z)\\
&\le 2h'(\epsilon) + \tfrac{5}{2} \epsilon \log\min\{|{\mathcal{S}}|, |{\mathcal{Y}}|\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $h'(\epsilon) = \max_{0 \le x\le \min\{\tfrac{5\epsilon}{2},1\}}h(x)$, $h(\cdot)$ is the binary entropy function and where we have used the fact that for any $P,P'\in\mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{Z}}}$, if $\|P-P'\|_1= 2\epsilon$ then $I_{P'}(S;Y|Z)\le I_P(S;Y|Z)+2h(\epsilon)+\epsilon\log\min\{|{\mathcal{S}}|,|{\mathcal{Y}}|\}$ [@RennerW03].
\[Proof of Theorem \[thm:uppbound\]\] The function $UI$ satisfies additivity (see Lemma \[lem:AD\]), asymptotic continuity (see Theorem \[thm:AC\]) and the Normalization property. Furthermore, $UI$ satisfies monotonicity under local operations of Alice and Bob (see Lemma \[lem:LO\]) and monotonicity under one-way public communication by Alice (see Lemma \[lem:PC\]). Hence, by Theorem \[thm:monotone\], $UI$ is an upper bound to the one-way secret key rate.
Optimization problems {#app:opt}
---------------------
The optimization problems in definitions \[def:gdefo\], \[def:gdefi\] and \[def:decomp\_minsyn\] of the functions $ \delta_o^{\pi}$, $\delta_i^{\pi}$, and $UI$, respectively, are convex programs. Furthermore, the feasible sets in definitions \[def:gdefi\] and \[def:decomp\_minsyn\] have a nice product structure in relation to the corresponding objective functions.
Given $(S,Y,Z)\sim P$ and a value $s\in{\mathcal{S}}$, let $A_s: \mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{Z}}} \to \mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{Y}}}\times\mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{Z}}}$ be the linear map that computes the marginal distributions of $Y$ and $Z$, given $P_{YZ|s}$. Each $Q\in\Delta_P$ in has the form $Q=\pi_S Q_{YZ|S}$ with $Q_{YZ|S}\in \operatorname*{\textnormal{\Large $\times$}}_{s\in{\mathcal{S}}}\Delta_{P,s}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{P,s}:= \big\{Q_{YZ}\in \mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{Z}}}\colon Q_{Y}(y)=\kappa_s(y),
\text{ }Q_{Z}(z)=\mu_s(z)\big\},\text{ } s\in{\mathcal{S}}\label{eq:delPs}\end{aligned}$$ is a fiber of $A_s$ passing through $P_{YZ|s}$. Then $\Delta_{P,s}=(P_{YZ|s}+\ker{A_s})\cap\mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{Z}}}$. As an intersection of an affine space with the probability simplex, $\Delta_{P,s}$ is a polytope. Using a variational representation of the conditional mutual information (a.k.a. the Golden formula), the objective in can be written as a double minimization. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:CUIOp}
U&I(S;Y\backslash Z)=\min_{Q \in\Delta_P} I_Q(S;Y|Z)\notag\\
=& \min_{Q_{YZ|S} \in\operatorname*{\textnormal{\Large $\times$}}_{s\in{\mathcal{S}}}\Delta_{P,s}} \min_{\lambda\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Z}};{\mathcal{Y}})} D(Q_{YZ|S} \|\lambda\times \mu| \pi_S)\notag\\
=& \min_{\lambda\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Z}};{\mathcal{Y}})} \sum_s \pi_S(s) \min_{Q_{YZ|s} \in\Delta_{P,s}} D(Q_{YZ|s}\|\lambda\times \mu_s). \end{aligned}$$ [@CUIfullver] proposed an efficient alternating minimization algorithm to solve . An alternating minimization algorithm recursively fixes one of the two free variables and minimizes the other. When $\lambda$ is fixed, each summand involves computing an $I$-projection [@csiszarIproj] to the linear family of probability distributions of $(Y,Z)$ defined by $\Delta_{P,s}$. The different summands can be optimized parallely for the different values of $s\in{\mathcal{S}}$.
For the weighted input deficiency , $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_i^{\pi}(\bar{\mu},\bar{\kappa})&=\min_{\bar{\lambda}\in\mathsf{M}({\mathcal{Y}};{\mathcal{Z}})} \sum_{y\in{\mathcal{Y}}} \pi_Y(y) D(\bar{\kappa}_y\|\bar{\mu}\circ\bar{\lambda}_y)\\
&=\sum_{y\in{\mathcal{Y}}} \pi_Y(y)\min_{Q\in\operatorname*{conv}\left(\{\bar{\mu}_z\}_{z\in{\mathcal{Z}}}\right)\subset\mathbb{P}_{{\mathcal{S}}}} D(\bar{\kappa}_y\|Q), \end{aligned}$$ each summand involves computing a $rI$-projection [@csiszarIproj] to a convex set of probability distributions. Again, the summands can be optimized separately for the different values of $y\in{\mathcal{Y}}$. This is useful in practice in parallelizing the computations.
[^1]: $^{\ast}$The authors are with the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.
[^2]: [Email: {pradeep,olbrich,jjost,jrauh}@mis.mpg.de]{}
[^3]: We compute the decomposition using a definition of the function ${\widetilde{UI}}$ proposed in [@e16042161]. An efficient algorithm was recently proposed in [@CUIfullver].
[^4]: The intrinsic information violates the consistency condition and cannot be interpreted as unique information in our sense.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a search for the decays , and using data collected with the detector at the PEP-II $\epem$ collider at SLAC. Using a dataset corresponding to $384 \times 10^6$ pairs, we do not find evidence of any of the three decay modes. We obtain upper limit on the branching fractions, at $90\%$ confidence level, of ${\cal B}(\bee)< 11.3 \times 10^{-8}$, ${\cal B}(\bmm) <
5.2\times 10^{-8}$, and ${\cal B}(\bem) < 9.2\times 10^{-8}$.
title: |
\
Search for decays of [$B^0$]{} mesons into [$e^+e^-$]{} ,\
[$\mu^+\mu^-$ ]{}, and [$e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$]{} final states
---
pubboard/authors\_jul2007.tex
The standard model (SM) of particle physics does not allow flavor changing neutral currents at tree-level, and decays of this kind are predicted to have very small branching fractions. This makes rare decays particularly interesting for the detection of possible new physics (NP) beyond the SM, such as supersymmetry [@susy] (SUSY): loop contributions from heavy partners of the SM particles predicted in these models might induce, for certain decay modes, branching fractions significantly larger than the values predicted by the SM.
The leptonic decays $\bll$ (where $l^{+} l^{\prime -}$ stands for $e^+e^-$, $\mu^+\mu^-$ or $e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$; charge conjugation is implied throughout) are particularly interesting among rare decays, since a prediction of the decay rate in the context of the SM can be obtained with a relatively small error, due to the limited impact of long-distance hadronic corrections [@BRSM]. In the SM, $\Bz \to
l^{+} l^-$ decays proceed through diagrams such as those shown in Fig. \[fig:bllfeyn\]. These contributions are highly suppressed since they involve a $b \to d$ transition and require an internal quark annihilation within the $B$ meson. The decays are also helicity suppressed by factors of $(m_{\ell}/m_B)^{2}$, where $m_\ell$ is the mass of the lepton and $m_B$ the mass of the $B$ meson.
In addition, $B^0$ decays to leptons of two different flavors violate lepton flavor conservation, so they are forbidden in the SM. This feature provides a handle to discriminate among different NP models [@burasemu].
0.2cm -4.5cm![Representative Feynman diagrams for $\Bz \to l^{+} l^{-}$ in the Standard Model. []{data-label="fig:bllfeyn"}](b2ll-10-new2.eps "fig:"){width="3.3cm"} -1.9cm 4.5cm![Representative Feynman diagrams for $\Bz \to l^{+} l^{-}$ in the Standard Model. []{data-label="fig:bllfeyn"}](b2ll-30-new2.eps "fig:"){width="3.3cm"}
The decays are sensitive to NP also in a large set of models with Minimal Flavor Violation [@MFV] (MFV), in which the NP Lagrangian is flavor blind at the typical mass scale of new heavy states, with reduced effects on flavor physics at the mass scale [@UUT]. In the context of MFV models, NP corrections to are characterized by interesting correlations with other rare decays for a particular choice of some fundamental parameters (as in the case of small [@bobeth] or large [@gino] $\tan\beta$ in SUSY models with MFV). A precise determination of the decay rate of $\bll$ would allow different NP scenarios to be disentangled.
[lccc]{} Decay mode & $B^0 \to e^+e^-$ & $B^0 \to \mu^+\mu^-$ & $B^0 \to e^\pm \mu^\mp$\
SM prediction & $1.9\times10^{-15}$ & $8.0\times10^{-11}$ & $0$\
[@babar] & $6.1 \times 10^{-8}$ & $8.3 \times 10^{-8}$ & $18 \times 10^{-8}$\
Belle [@belle03] & $1.9 \times 10^{-7}$ & $1.6 \times 10^{-7}$ & $1.7 \times 10^{-7}$\
CDF [@previousCDF] & - & $2.3 \times 10^{-8}$ & -\
CLEO [@cleo] & $8.3 \times 10^{-7}$ & $6.1 \times 10^{-7}$ & $15 \times 10^{-7}$\
\[tab:expectedBR\]
As shown in Table \[tab:expectedBR\], the present experimental limits on are several orders of magnitude larger than SM expectations. Nevertheless, improved experimental bounds will restrict the allowed parameter space of several NP models.
The search for the $\Bz\to\tau^+\tau^-$ decay has been presented in a previous paper [@ref:tautau].
In this paper, we present a search for decay using data collected with the detector [@babarnim] at the 2storage ring at SLAC. The collider is operated at the resonance with asymmetric beam energies, producing a boost ($\beta\gamma \approx 0.56$) of the along the collision axis.
The dataset used consists of $384 \times 10^6$ pairs accumulated at the resonance (“on-resonance”), equivalent to an integrated luminosity of $347~\invfb$, and $37~\invfb$ accumulated at a center-of-mass (CM) energy about $40\mev$ below the resonance (“off-resonance”). The latter sample is used to characterize background contributions not originating from $B$ decays.
Hadronic two body decays of $B$ mesons such as $B^0\to\pipi$ and $B^0\to K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$ have the same event topology as the leptonic ones and are therefore the main source of background from $B$ decays. We use Monte Carlo (MC) simulations [@geant] of $\bee$, $\bmm$, $\bem$ decays (signal) and $B^0\to\pipi$ and $B^0\to K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$ (background) of approximately $3\times 10^5$ events each to optimize event selection criteria and to estimate efficiencies.
Charged particles are detected and their momenta measured by the combination of a silicon vertex tracker, consisting of five layers of double-sided silicon detectors, and a 40-layer central drift chamber, both operating in the 1.5-T magnetic field of a solenoid. The tracking system covers 92% of the solid angle in the CM frame. Identification of charged hadrons is provided by the average energy loss (d$E$/d$x$) in the tracking devices and by an internally-reflecting ring-imaging Cherenkov detector. For lepton identification, we also use the energy deposit in the electromagnetic calorimeter consisting of 6580 CsI(Tl) crystals and the pattern of hits in resistive plate chambers (partially upgraded to limited streamer tubes for a subset of the data used in this analysis) interleaved with the passive material comprising the solenoid magnetic flux return.
We reconstruct $\Bz$ meson candidates from two oppositely charged tracks originating from a common vertex. Signal events are characterized by two kinematic quantities: $$\begin{aligned}
\mes&\equiv& \sqrt{(s/2+{\bf p_0}\cdot{\bf p_B})^2/E_0^2-p_B^2}
\label{eq1} \\
\de &\equiv& E_{B}^* - \sqrt{s}/2 ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sqrt{s}/2$ is the beam energy in the CM frame, the subscripts $0$ and $B$ refer to the initial and to the $B$ candidate in the laboratory frame, respectively, and the asterisk denotes the rest frame. In Eq. (\[eq1\]), the variable $s$ is used as opposed to $E_B^*$ because $s$ is known with much greater precision and the resulting correlation between $\mes$ and $\de$ is nearly zero. For correctly reconstructed $B^0$ mesons, peaks at the mass of the $B^0$ meson with RMS of about 2.5 , and $\Delta E$ peaks at zero with RMS of about 25 . We require $|\DeltaE|< 150$ MeV and $\mes>5.2$ GeV/c$^2$.
Since we use the pion mass hypothesis for the reconstruction of tracks, the distribution of $\de$ peaks near zero for the $\pipi$ and leptonic modes and at -50 MeV for $K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$. The mass hypothesis does not affect the distribution of $\mes$.
Energy loss by electrons due to final state radiation or Bremsstrahlung in detector material leads to tails in the $\DeltaE$ and distributions, in particular for the $\bee$ decay mode. We partially correct for this effect by adding the momentum of a photon emitted at a small angle from the track to the electron momentum.
We apply stringent requirements on particle identification (PID) to reduce the contamination from misidentified hadrons and leptons. In this way, we retain $\sim 93\%$ ($\sim 73\%$) of the electrons (muons), with a mis-identification rate for pions of less than $\sim
0.1\%$ ($\sim 3\%$).
According to the information provided by the PID, we separate our dataset into three samples, $2e$, $2\mu$, and $1\mu 1e$, containing events with two electrons, two muons and one muon and one electron, respectively. The rest of the dataset ($h^{+}h^{\prime -}$) comprises two oppositely charged hadrons and is used to characterize background contamination to the three signal samples.
Based on MC simulations, we expect negligible cross feed of events between the leptonic and hadronic data samples.
Contamination from non-resonant ($q=u,d,s,c$) and $\tau^+
\tau^-$ production is reduced by exploiting their different event topology with respect of that of the signal events. In particular, we examine the distribution of final-state particles in the rest frame of the candidate, in which the fragmentation of a pair (non-resonant event) produces an isotropic (jet-like) angular distribution of the particles.
Non-events are rejected by requiring the cosine of the sphericity angle [@sphericity] to be $|\cos\theta_S| < 0.8$, and the second normalized Fox-Wolfram moment [@foxwolf] to be $R_2 < 0.95$. In addition, we use a Fisher discriminant [@fisher] ($\cal{F}$) in the maximum likelihood (ML) fit to separate the residual background from signal events. $\cal{F}$ is constructed from the CM momentum $p_i$ and angle $\theta_i$ of each particle $i$ in the rest of the event (ROE) with respect to the thrust axis [@thrust] of the $B$ candidate. $${\cal F} \equiv 0.5319 - 0.6023L_0 + 1.2698L_2,
\label{Eq:fisher}$$ where $L_0 \equiv \sum_i^{\rm ROE}p_i$ and $L_2 \equiv \sum_i^{\rm
ROE} {p_i \cos^2{\theta_i}}$. The coefficients of the linear combination have been optimized on samples of signal and background simulated events. Since the variable $\cal{F}$ depends only on the ROE, we use the same coefficients for the three leptonic decays in the ML fit.
The background from other events is found to be negligible after applying the PID requirements. Backgrounds originating from QED events (electrons and muons coming from $\epem$ interactions) are rejected by requiring more than four charged tracks in the event.
To ensure the quality of the measurement of the Cherenkov angle $\theta_c$, we require more than five detected Cherenkov photons and $\theta_c>0$. For pion or lepton candidates, in order to reject protons, we require $\theta_c$ to be within $4 \sigma$ of the value expected for pions. For kaon candidates, we require $\theta_c$ to be within $4 \sigma$ of the expected value for kaons.
Applying the criteria described above, we select 67 events in the $2e$ sample, 56 in the $2\mu$ sample, 86 in the $1\mu 1e$ sample and $\approx 94\times 10^3$ in the $h^{+}h^{\prime -}$ sample.
Among these events, the three signal yields are independently determined by ML fits on the $2e$, $2\mu$ and $1\mu 1e$ samples. Each likelihood function is based on the variables , $\DeltaE$ and $\cal{F}$. The probability density functions (PDFs) for the signal $\mes$ and $\de$ distributions are parameterized as: $$f(x)=\exp \left(-\frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2\cdot \sigma_{R/L}^2 +\alpha_{R/L} \cdot
(x-\mu)^2}\right),$$ where $\mu$ is the maximum, $\sigma_{R/L}$ represent the standard deviation of the Gaussian component and $\alpha_{R/L}$ describe the non-Gaussian tails of the PDF for $x > \mu$ (R) and $x < \mu$ (L). The $\cal{F}$ distribution for signal events is described by a Gaussian function with different RMS on the left and right side. The PDF of the background distribution is parameterized by an ARGUS [@argus] function, the background distribution by a second order polynomial and the background $\cal{F}$ distribution by the sum of two Gaussian functions. Figure \[fig:result\] shows the estimated background distributions for the three subsamples (solid lines) and, just for comparison, the corresponding signal PDFs obtained from Monte Carlo (dotted lines) with arbitrary normalization.
{width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"}
We find that the residual background distributions of , and $\cal F$ are the same in the three leptonic samples. This has been verified using data in the off-resonance sample and on-resonance events populating the kinematic sidebands ($\mes< 5.27$ GeV/c$^2$ or $|\DeltaE| > 150$ MeV).
In the fit the shape parameters for the (signal) PDFs are obtained from the MC simulation with a correction factor that accounts for differences between data and MC, while the background PDF shape parameters are determined on data with a procedure described below.
We determine the parameters of the background PDFs by fitting their distribution on the $h^{+}h^{\prime -}$ sample, where we use the Cherenkov angle to separate $B^0\to\pipi$ and $B^0\to
K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$.
The yields of $B^0\to\pipi$ and $K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$ in our $h^{+}h^{\prime -}$ sample are consistent with the results of the previous analysis [@pipinew]. We find $\sim 600$ signal and $\sim 3.5\times 10^4$ background events for , $\sim 2200$ signal and $\sim 2.3\times 10^4$ background events for $K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$.
The background shape parameters in the fit are fixed to the central values obtained in the fit to $B^0\to\pipi$ and $B^0\to
K^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$ samples, and their errors are used to estimate the associated systematic uncertainty on the leptonic yields.
We find no bias in the background shape parameters determined by the procedure described above on a large number of MC simulated $h^{+}h^{\prime -}$ event samples.
We correct for discrepancies between data and MC in the signal shape parameters by rescaling the PDF parameters obtained from the simulation by the ratio between the values of the $B^0\to \pipi$ PDF parameters in data and MC.
The knowledge of the rescaled shapes is limited by the size of the $B^0 \to \pipi$ component in data, which causes a strong correlation among the parameters of each signal PDF. In order to avoid double-counting of these effects, we take the largest observed deviation as the systematic error induced on the leptonic yields. The errors on the signal yields due to the PDF shapes are $\sim 1.1$, $\sim 0.4$ and $\sim 0.2$ events for the $e^{+}e^{-}$, $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ and $e^{\pm} \mu^{\mp}$ channels, respectively.
Our results are summarized in Table \[tab:result\]. We find no evidence of signal in any of the three modes. Using a bayesian approach, a $90\%$ probability upper limit (UL) on the branching fraction () is calculated as $$\int_0^{UL}\mathcal{L}(\Bf) \,d\Bf {\bigg/} \int_0^{\infty}\mathcal{L}(\Bf) \,d\Bf = 0.9 .$$ The is calculated as $$\Bf \equiv \frac{N_{ll'}}{\epsilon_{ll'} N_{\BB}} \mbox{ ,}
\label{eq:br}$$ with $N_{ll'}$ indicating the signal yield, $\epsilon_{ll'}$ the reconstruction efficiency, and $N_{\BB}$ the number of pairs in the dataset, $N_{\BB} = (383.6\pm4.2)\times 10^6$. We make the assumption that the branching fractions to $\BpBm$ and $\BzBzb$ are equal.
The likelihood $\cal{L}$() is obtained by including in the likelihood function for the signal yield ${\cal L}(N_{ll'})$ the systematic errors on $N_{ll'}$ and the total number of pairs, and the statistical and systematic errors on the efficiency $\epsilon_{ll'}$. We use the relation of Eq.(\[eq:br\]) and assume Gaussian shapes for the errors. Figure \[fig:likelihoods\] shows the likelihood distributions of the three leptonic decays.
We evaluate the efficiencies for individual selection criteria from MC simulation and correct the results for small differences between the simulation and the data. We take these observed differences as a measure of the systematic uncertainties on the efficiencies.
The efficiency of PID requirements is calculated by using MC simulations of signal events. It is then corrected with efficiency ratios computed on data and MC, as function of track charge, momentum, and polar angle. We take into account the systematic error associated to this correction.
The total systematic error on the efficiencies is $\sim 4 \%$, calculated as the sum in quadrature of all these contributions.
In summary, we find no evidence of signal for $\bll$ and place $90\%$ confidence level upper limits on the branching fractions of , $\mu^+\mu^-$ and $e^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$.
Table \[tab:result\] reports the efficiency, the number of signal events and the UL expected in each of these modes based on MC simulation for a sample of the size of our data sample.
The present result on $\bem$ and $\bmm$ improve the previous upper limits [@babar] based on $111~\invfb$.
The upper limit reported here for is higher than the value obtained in [@babar]. In our previous paper we used a largely frequentist approach [@barlow] that does not explicitly require a non-negative signal. The present results supercede our previous results: the analysis has a higher sensitivity, estimated from the value of the expected UL, and is based on a larger dataset that includes the sample used in [@babar].
[lcccc]{} &$\epsilon_{ll'}(\%)$ &$N_{ll'}$ &$\mbox{UL(\Bf)}\times 10^{-8}$ &Exp(UL)\
$B^0 \to e^+e^-$ &$16.6\pm0.3$ &$0.6\pm2.1$ & $11.3$ &$7.4$\
$B^0 \to \mu^+\mu^-$ &$15.7\pm0.2$ &$-4.9\pm1.4$ & $5.2$ &$5.9$\
$B^0 \to e^\pm \mu^\mp$ &$17.1\pm0.2$ &$1.1\pm1.8$ & $9.2$ &$6.3$\
\[tab:result\]
![Distribution of the likelihood as function of the for (a), (b) and $e^\pm\mu^\mp$ (c) decays.[]{data-label="fig:likelihoods"}](likelihood_BRee.eps "fig:"){width="5.0cm"}\
![Distribution of the likelihood as function of the for (a), (b) and $e^\pm\mu^\mp$ (c) decays.[]{data-label="fig:likelihoods"}](likelihood_BRmm.eps "fig:"){width="5.0cm"}\
![Distribution of the likelihood as function of the for (a), (b) and $e^\pm\mu^\mp$ (c) decays.[]{data-label="fig:likelihoods"}](likelihood_BRem.eps "fig:"){width="5.0cm"}
pubboard/acknow\_PRL.tex
[99]{}
K. S. Babu and C. F. Kolda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 228 (2000); P. H. Chankowski and L. Slawianowska, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 054012 (2001); C. Bobeth [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 074014 (2001).
M. Misiak and J. Urban, Phys. Lett. B [**451**]{}, 161 (1999); G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. B [**548**]{}, 309 (1999).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}, 241802 (2006).
M. Blanke [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**0705**]{}, 013 (2007); R. A. Diaz, Eur. Phys. J. C [**41**]{}, 305 (2005); A. Ilakovac Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 036010 (2000).
A. J. Buras, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**34**]{}, 5615 (2003); G. D’Ambrosio [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**645**]{}, 155 (2002).
A. J. Buras [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**500**]{}, 161 (2001).
C. Bobeth [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**726**]{}, 252 (2005).
G. Isidori and A. Retico, JHEP [**0111**]{}, 001 (2001); G. Isidori and P. Paradisi, Phys. Lett. B [**639**]{}, 499 (2006).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, [221803]{} (2005).
Belle Collaboration, M.-C. Chang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, [111101(R)]{} (2003).
.
CLEO Collaboration, T. Bergfeld [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, [091102(R)]{} (2000).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods [**A479**]{}, 1 (2002).
S. Agostinelli [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods [**A506**]{}, 250 (2003).
S. L. Wu, Phys. Rep. [**107**]{}, 59 (1984).
G.C. Fox and S. Wolfram, , 1581 (1978).
R. A. Fisher, Annals Eugen. [**7**]{}, 179 (1936).
S. Brandt [*et al.*]{} Phys. Lett. [**12**]{}, 57 (1964); E. Farhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**39**]{}, 1587 (1977).
H. Albrecht [*et al.*]{}, \[ARGUS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**241**]{}, 278 (1990)
M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**555**]{}, 356 (2005).
B. Aubert [*et al.*]{} \[BABAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 012008 (2007).
R. Barlow, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**149**]{}, 97 (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove the existence of the dynamics automorphism group for Hamiltonian QCD on an infinite lattice in $\R^3$, and this is done in a C\*-algebraic context. The existence of ground states is also obtained. Starting with the finite lattice model for Hamiltonian QCD developed by Kijowski, Rudolph (cf. [@KR; @KR1]), we state its field algebra and a natural representation. We then generalize this representation to the infinite lattice, and construct a Hilbert space which has represented on it all the local algebras (i.e. kinematics algebras associated with finite connected sublattices) equipped with the correct graded commutation relations. On a suitably large C\*-algebra acting on this Hilbert space, and containing all the local algebras, we prove that there is a one parameter automorphism group, which is the pointwise norm limit of the local time evolutions along a sequence of finite sublattices, increasing to the full lattice. This is our global time evolution. We then take as our field algebra the C\*-algebra generated by all the orbits of the local algebras w.r.t. the global time evolution. Thus the time evolution creates the field algebra. The time evolution is strongly continuous on this choice of field algebra, though not on the original larger C\*-algebra. We define the gauge transformations, explain how to enforce the Gauss law constraint, show that the dynamics automorphism group descends to the algebra of physical observables and prove that gauge invariant ground states exist.'
author:
- |
[Hendrik Grundling]{}\
[Department of Mathematics,]{}\
[University of New South Wales,]{}\
[Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.]{}\
[[email protected]]{}\
[FAX: +61-2-93857123]{}\
- |
[Gerd Rudolph ]{}\
[Institut für Theoretische Physik,]{}\
[Universität Leipzig,]{}\
[Postfach 100 920, D-4109 Leipzig.]{}\
[[email protected]]{}\
[FAX: +49-341-9732548]{}
title: '**Dynamics for QCD on an infinite lattice**'
---
Introduction
============
In a previous paper ([@GrRu]) we constructed in a C\*-algebraic context a suitable field algebra which can model the kinematics of Hamiltonian QCD on an infinite lattice in $\R^3$. It was based on the finite lattice model for Hamiltonian QCD developed by Kijowski, Rudolph (cf. [@KR; @KR1]). We did not consider dynamics, and the construction and analysis of the dynamics for QCD on an infinite lattice is the main problem which we want to address in this paper. For reasons to be explained, we will not here directly use the C\*-algebra which we constructed before for dynamics construction, but will follow a different approach.
Whilst the algebra constructed in [@GrRu] contained all the information of the gauge structures required, and its representation space contained the physical representations, it suffered from the following defects.
- The true local algebras (i.e. the kinematics algebras for the model on finite sublattices) were not subalgebras of the constructed kinematics algebra. The kinematics algebra of [@GrRu] did contain isomorphic copies of the local algebras, whose multiplier algebras contained the local algebras, but these did not satisfy local graded-commutativity. That is, they did not graded-commute if they corresponded to disjoint parts of the lattice, unlike the true local algebras. This was due to a novel form of the infinite tensor product of nonunital algebras, where approximate identities replaced the identity in the infinite “tails" of the tensor products.
- As a consequence of this infinite tensor product, current methods of defining dynamics on lattice systems by suitable limits of the local dynamics did not apply, which made it very hard to construct dynamics for the full system.
Due to these problems, especially the latter one, we will here extend our focus to the multiplier algebra of our previous kinematics field algebra, and build an appropriate new kinematics field algebra in this setting. Our strategy will be to define a dynamics on a concrete C\*-algebra which is “maximally large” in the sense that it contains all the true local kinematics C\*-algebras, and it is contained in the multiplier algebra of our previous kinematics field algebra. We will then take our new kinematics field C\*-algebra to be the smallest subalgebra which contains all the true local kinematics C\*-algebras, and is preserved w.r.t. the dynamics. Thus, the dynamics itself, will create the kinematics algebra for the system. The methods we use for the proof come from the application and generalization of Lieb–Robinson bounds on lattice systems (cf. [@NaSi; @NaSi2]). Moreover, we will see that the dynamics is strongly continuous on our new kinematics algebra.
On the algebra we construct here, we are able to define both the dynamics and the gauge transformations of our model. We will prove that the dynamics automorphism group commutes with the action of the group of local gauge transformations, hence the dynamics automorphism group action descends to the algebra of physical observables. We will prove the existence of gauge invariant ground states, which therefore produces ground states on the algebra of physical observables.
The cost of using this new algebra, is that it contains infinitely many nonphysical representations, so one needs to restrict to the class of appropriate “regular” representations by hand. This should be compared with the use of the Weyl algebra for canonical systems, which contains many nonregular representations. It is a well-known practical necessity for the Weyl algebra to restrict representations by hand to regular representations when one analyzes physical systems. We are able to prove the existence of gauge invariant ground states which are regular.
Whereas each true local kinematics algebra (corresponding to a finite sublattice) has a unique ground state w.r.t. the local time evolution, for the infinite lattice limit, we do not presently have such a uniqueness property. The ground states are the weak \*-limit points of a sequence of “partial ground states”. This nonuniqueness needs further investigation. For the finite lattice, in a toy model the spectral problem for the lattice Hamiltonian has been solved exactly, yielding an explicit formula for the unique ground state, cf. [@HRS].
Our paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \[PM\] we state the model for the finite lattice taken from [@KR; @KR1], and give a very natural representation for it. We then generalize this representation for the infinite lattice in Sect. \[GFA\], and construct a Hilbert space $\cl H.$ which has represented on it all the local algebras ${\mathfrak A}_S$ (each associated with a finite sublattice $S$), with the correct (graded) commutation relations. We then define a conveniently large C\*-algebra $\al A._{\rm max}$ acting on this Hilbert space, and containing all the local algebras. In Sect. \[LDA\], we then define on $\al A._{\rm max}$ the “local automorphism groups" $\alpha_t^S$, i.e. those produced by the Hamiltonians of the finite sublattices $S$. Using a Lieb–Robinson bounds argument, we then prove in Sect. \[DMFA\] that for each $A\in \al A._{\rm max}$, that $\alpha_t^S(A)$ converges in norm as $S$ increases to the full lattice, to an element $\alpha_t(A)$, and this defines a one-parameter automorphism group $t\mapsto\alpha_t\in{\rm Aut}(\al A._{\rm max})$. This is the global automorphism group, and we use it to define in Sect. \[KARR\] our chosen minimal field algebra by $${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}:=C^*\Big( \bigcup_{S\in\al S.}\alpha_{\R}({\mathfrak A}_S ) \Big)
\subset\cl A._{\rm max} \subset\cl B.(\cl H.).$$ We also clarify the relation of ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ with the kinematics algebra previously constructed in [@GrRu]. We prove the existence of regular ground states in Sect. \[PGDA\], and in Sect. \[GTGL\] we define gauge transformations and consider enforcement of the Gauss law constraint.
The Kinematics Field Algebra {#FieldAlgebra}
============================
We consider a model for QCD in the Hamiltonian framework on an infinite regular cubic lattice in $\Z^3.$ For basic notions concerning lattice gauge theories including fermions, we refer to [@Seiler] and references therein.
We first fix notation. For the lattice, define a triple $\Lambda:=(\Lambda^0, \Lambda^1, \Lambda^2)$ as follows:
- $\Lambda^0:=\{(n,m,r)\in\R^3\,\mid\,n,\,m,\,r\in\Z\}=\Z^3$ i.e. $\Lambda^0$ is the unit cubic lattice and its elements are called sites.
- Let $\wt\Lambda^1$ be the set of all directed edges (or links) between nearest neighbours, i.e. $$\wt\Lambda^1:= \{(x,y)\in\Lambda^0\times\Lambda^0\,\mid\,y=x\pm \b e._i\;\;\hbox{for some $i$}\}$$ where the $\b e._i\in\R^3$ are the standard unit basis vectors. Let $\Lambda^1\subset\wt\Lambda^1 $ denote a choice of orientation of $\wt\Lambda^1,$ i.e. for each $(x,y)\in\wt\Lambda^1$, $\Lambda^1$ contains either $(x,y)$ or $(y,x)$ but not both. Thus the pair $(\Lambda^0,\Lambda^1)$ is a directed graph, and we assume that it is connected.
- Let $\wt\Lambda^2$ be the set of all directed faces (or plaquettes) of the unit cubes comprising the lattice i.e. $$\wt\Lambda^2:= \{(\ell_1,\ell_2,\ell_3,\ell_4)\in\big(\wt\Lambda^1\big)^4\,\mid\,Q_2\ell_i=Q_1\ell_{i+1}\;
\hbox{for}\;i=1,2,3,\;\hbox{and}\; Q_2\ell_4=Q_1\ell_1\}$$ where $Q_i:\Lambda^0\times\Lambda^0\to\Lambda^0$ is the projection onto the $i^{\hbox{th}}$ component. Note that for a plaquette $p=(\ell_1,\ell_2,\ell_3,\ell_4)\in\wt\Lambda^2,$ it has an orientation given by the order of the edges, and the reverse ordering is $\overline{p}=(\overline\ell_4,\overline\ell_3,\overline\ell_2,\overline\ell_1)$ where $\overline\ell={(y,x)}$ if $\ell={(x,y)}\in \wt\Lambda^1$. In analogy to the last point, we let $\Lambda^2$ be a choice of orientation in $\wt\Lambda^2$.
- If we need to identify the elements of $\Lambda^i$ with subsets of $\R^3$, we will make the natural identifications, e.g. a link $\ell=(x,y)\in\Lambda^1$ is the undirected closed line segment from $x$ to $y$.
- We also need to consider subsets of the lattice, so given a connected subgraph $S\subset(\Lambda^0, \Lambda^1)$, we let $\Lambda_S^0$ be all the vertices in $S$, $\Lambda_S^1\subset\Lambda^1$ is the set of links which are edges in $S$, and $\Lambda_S^2\subset\Lambda^2$ is the set of those plaquettes whose sides are all in $S$.
We recall the lattice approximation on $\Lambda$ for a classical matter field with a classical gauge connection field acting on it. Fix a connected, compact Lie group $G$ (the gauge structure group), and let ${\big(\Cn,\,(\cdot,\cdot)_\Cn\big)}$ be a finite dimensional complex Hilbert space (the space of internal degrees of freedom of the matter field) on which $G$ acts smoothly as unitaries, so we take $G\subset U(\Cn)$. Then the classical matter fields are elements of $\prod\limits_{x\in\Lambda^0}\Cn$, on which the local gauge group $\prod\limits_{x\in \Lambda^0}G=G^{\Lambda^0}=\big\{\zeta:\Lambda^0\to G\big\}$ acts by pointwise multiplication. The classical gauge connections are maps $\Phi:\Lambda^1\to G$, i.e. elements of $\prod\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}G$.
The full classical configuration space is thus $\big(\prod\limits_{x\in\Lambda^0}\Cn\big)\times
\big(\prod\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}G\big)$, and the local gauge group $\prod\limits_{x\in \Lambda^0}G$ acts on it by $$\label{ClassGTr}
\big(\prod_{x\in\Lambda^0}v_x\big)\times\big(\prod_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}g_\ell\big)\mapsto
\big(\prod_{x\in\Lambda^0}\zeta(x)\cdot v_x\big)\times\big(\prod_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}\zeta(x_\ell)\,g_\ell\,\zeta(y_\ell)^{-1}\big)$$ where $ \ell=(x_\ell,y_\ell)$ and $\zeta \in\prod\limits_{x\in \Lambda^0}G$. Note that the orientation of links in $\Lambda^1$ was used in the action because it treats the $x_\ell$ and $y_\ell$ differently.
This is the basic classical kinematical model for which the quantum counterpart is given below for finite lattices.
The finite lattice model. {#PM}
-------------------------
In this subsection we want to state the model for finite lattice approximation of Hamiltonian QCD in $\R^3$ developed by Kijowski, Rudolph [@KR; @KR1]. A more expanded version of this section is in [@GrRu]. This model is based on the model constructed in the classical paper of Kogut [@K] (which elaborates the earlier one of Kogut and Susskind [@KS]).
Fix a finite connected subgraph $S$, and let $\Lambda_S:=(\Lambda^0_S, \Lambda^1_S, \Lambda^2_S)$. For ease of notation, we will omit the subscript $S$ in this section. Given such a finite lattice $\Lambda^0$, the model quantizes the classical model on $\Lambda^0$ above, by replacing for each lattice site $x\in\Lambda^0$, the classical matter configuration space $\Cn$ with the algebra for a fermionic particle on $\Cn$ (the quarks), and for each link $\ell\in\Lambda^1$ we replace the classical connection configuration space $G$ by an algebra which describes a bosonic particle on $G$ (the gluons).
Equip the space of classical matter fields $\prod\limits_{x\in\Lambda^0}\Cn=\{f:\Lambda^0\to\Cn\}$ with the natural pointwise inner product ${\langle}f, h {\rangle}=\sum\limits_{x\in\Lambda^0}\big({f(x)},\, h(x)\big)_{\Cn}$, and take for the quantized matter fields the CAR-algebra ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda} := {\rm CAR}\big(\prod\limits_{x\in\Lambda^0}\Cn)$. That is, for each classical matter field $f\in\prod\limits_{x\in\Lambda^0}\Cn$, we associate a fermionic field $a(f)\in{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$, and these satisfy the usual CAR–relations: $$\{a(f), a(h)^*\} = {\langle}f, h {\rangle}{\mathbf{1}}\quad \hbox{ and } \quad \{a(f),a(h)\} = 0
\quad \mbox{ for } \quad f, h\in \prod\limits_{x\in\Lambda^0}\Cn$$ where $\{A,B\} := AB + BA$ and ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$ is generated by the set of all $a(f)$. As $\Lambda^0$ is finite, ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$ is a full matrix algebra, hence up to unitary equivalence it has only one irreducible representation.
In physics notation, the quark at $x$ is given by $a(\delta_x{\bf v}_i)=\psi_i(x)$ where ${\{{\bf v}_i\mid i=1,\ldots n\}}$ is an orthonormal basis for $\Cn$ and $\delta_x:\Lambda^0\to\R$ is the characteristic function of $\{x\}$. Further indices may be included if necessary, e.g. by putting $\Cn = \b W.\otimes\C^k$ where $\b W.$ has non–gauge degrees of freedom (such as the spinor part), and $\C^k$ has the gauge degrees of freedom.
To quantize the classical gauge connection fields $\prod\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}G,$ we take for a single link $\ell$ a bosonic particle on $G$. This is given in a generalized Schrödinger representation on $L^2(G)$ by the set of operators ${\{U_g,\;T_f\mid g\in G,\;f\in L^\infty(G)\}}$ where: $$\label{GSRp}
(U_g\varphi)(h):=\varphi(g^{-1}h)\quad\hbox{and}\quad\big(T_f\varphi)(h):=f(h)\varphi(h)\quad\hbox{for}\quad
\varphi\in L^2(G),$$ $g,\,h\in G$ and $f\in L^\infty(G)$, and it is irreducible in the sense that the commutant of ${U_G\cup T_{L^\infty(G)}}$ consists of the scalars. Note that there is a natural ground state unit vector $\psi_0\in L^2(G)$ given by the constant function $\psi_0(h)=1$ for all $h\in G$ (assuming that the Haar measure of $G$ is normalized). Then $U_g\psi_0=\psi_0$, and $\psi_0$ is cyclic w.r.t. the \*-algebra generated by ${U_G\cup T_{L^\infty(G)}}$ (by irreducibility).
The generalized canonical commutation relations are obtained from the intertwining relation $U_gT_fU^*_g=T\s\lambda_g(f).$ where $$\label{leftact}
\lambda:G\to\aut C(G)\, , \quad
\lambda_g(f)(h) := f(g^{-1} h) \quad\hbox{for}\quad g,\,h\in G$$ is the usual left translation. In particular, given $X\in\mathfrak{g}$, define its associated momentum operator $$\begin{aligned}
P_X:C^\infty(G)\to C^\infty(G)\quad&\hbox{by}&\quad
P_X\varphi:=i{d\over dt}U(e^{tX})\varphi\Big|_{t=0}\,.\\[1mm]
\hbox{Then}\qquad
\big[P_X,\,T_f\big]\varphi
&=& iT\s X^R(f). \varphi\qquad\hbox{for}\quad
f,\,\varphi\in C^\infty(G),\end{aligned}$$ where $X^R\in\ot X.(G)$ is the associated right-invariant vector field. As $P_X=dU(X)$, it defines a representation of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, and clearly $P_X\psi_0=0$.
To identify the quantum connection $\Phi(\ell)$ at link $\ell$ in this context, use the irreducible action of the structure group $G$ on $\C^k$ to define the function $\Phi_{ij}(\ell)\in C(G)$ by $$\label{Def-QuConn}
\Phi_{ij}(\ell)(g):=(e_i,ge_j),\quad g\in G,$$ where $\{ e_i\mid
i =1,\ldots,k\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\C^k$. Then the matrix components of the quantum connection are taken to be the operators $T_{\Phi_{ij}(\ell)}$, which we will see transform correctly w.r.t. gauge transformations. As the $\Phi_{ij}(\ell)$ are matrix elements of elements of $G$, there are obvious relations between them which reflect the structure of $G$. The C\*-algebra generated by the operators $\{ T_{\Phi_{ij}(\ell)}\,\mid\, i,\,j=1,\ldots,k\}$ is $T\s C(G).$.
To define gauge momentum operators, we first assign to each link an element of $\mathfrak{g}$, i.e. we choose a map $\Psi:\Lambda^1\to \mathfrak{g}.$ Given such a $\Psi$, take for the associated quantum gauge momentum at $\ell$ the operator $P\s\Psi(\ell).:C^\infty(G)\to C^\infty(G)$. The generalized canonical commutation relations are $$\label{genCCR}
\big[P\s\Psi(\ell).,\,T\s\Phi_{ij}(\ell).\big]=i\sum_mT\s\Psi(\ell)_{im}\Phi_{mj}(\ell).\quad\hbox{on}\quad C^\infty(G),$$ where $\Psi(\ell)_{im}:=(e_i,\Psi(\ell)e_m).$
To obtain the G–electrical fields at $\ell$, choose a basis ${\{Y_r\mid r=1,\ldots,{\rm dim}( \mathfrak{g})\}\subset \mathfrak{g}}$, then substitute for $\Psi$ the constant map $\Psi(\ell)=Y_r$ and set $E_r(\ell):=P_{Y_r}$. In the case that $G=SU(3)$, these are the colour electrical fields, and one takes the basis $\{Y_r\}$ to be the traceless selfadjoint Gell–Mann matrices satisfying ${\rm Tr}(Y_rY_s)=\delta_{rs}$. We then define $$E_{ij}(\ell):=\sum_r(Y_r)_{ij}E_r(\ell)=\sum_r(Y_r)_{ij}P\s{Y_r}.$$ and for these we obtain from $(\ref{genCCR})$ the commutation formulae in [@KR; @KR1] for the colour electrical field. Of particular importance for the dynamics, is the operator $E_{ij}(\ell) E_{ji}(\ell)$ (summation convention). We have $$E_{ij}(\ell) E_{ji}(\ell)=\sum_{r,s}(Y_r)_{ij}P\s{Y_r}.(Y_s)_{ji}P\s{Y_s}.
=\sum_{r,s}(Y_rY_s)_{ii}P\s{Y_r}.P\s{Y_s}.=n\sum_rP\s{Y_r}.^2$$ i.e. it is the Laplacian for the left regular representation $U:G\to\cl U.(L^2(G))$ which therefore commutes with all $U_g$. Below in Equation (\[PTfell\]) we will see that a gauge transform just transforms the Laplacian to one w.r.t. a transformed basis of $\mathfrak{g}$, which leaves the Laplacian invariant.
The full collection of operators which comprises the set of dynamical variables of the model is as follows. The representation Hilbert space is $$\cl H.=\cl H._F\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}L^2(G)\qquad\hbox{ where}\qquad
{\pi_F:{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}}\to\cl B.(\cl H._F)$$ is any irreducible representation of ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$. As $\Lambda^1$ is finite, $\cl H.$ is well–defined. Then $\pi_F\otimes\un:{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}\to\cl B.(\cl H.)$ will be the action of ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$ on $\cl H.$. The quantum connection is given by the set of operators $$\{{\widehat}{T}_{\Phi_{ij}(\ell)}^{(\ell)}\,\mid\,\ell\in \Lambda^1,\;i,j=1,\ldots, k\}\quad
\hbox{where}\quad {\widehat}{T}_f^{(\ell)}:=\un\otimes\big(\un\otimes\cdots\otimes\un\otimes T^{(\ell)}_f\otimes\un\otimes\cdots\otimes\un\big)$$ and $T^{(\ell)}_f$ is the multiplication operator on the $\ell^{\rm th}$ factor, hence ${\widehat}{T}_{\Phi_{ij}(\ell)}^{(\ell)}$ acts as the identity on all the other factors of $\cl H.$. Likewise, for the gauge momenta we take $${\widehat}{P}^{(\ell)}_{\Psi(\ell)}:=\un\otimes\big(\un\otimes\cdots\otimes\un\otimes P^{(\ell)}_{\Psi(\ell)}\otimes\un\otimes\cdots\otimes\un\big),\quad
\ell\in \Lambda^1$$ where $P^{(\ell)}_X$ is the $P_X$ operator on the subspace $C^\infty(G)\subset L^2(G)$ of the $\ell^{\rm th}$ factor. Note that if we set $g=\exp(t\Psi(\ell))$ in ${\widehat}{U}_g^{(\ell)}:=\un\otimes\big(\un\otimes\cdots\otimes\un\otimes{U}_g^{(\ell)}\otimes\un\otimes\cdots\otimes\un\big)$ where $U^{(\ell)}_g$ is the $U_g$ operator on the $\ell^{\rm th}$ factor, then this is a unitary one parameter group w.r.t. $t$, with generator the gauge momentum operator ${\widehat}{P}^{(\ell)}_{\Psi(\ell)}$. Thus the quantum G–electrical field ${\widehat}{E}_r$ is a map from $\Lambda^1$ to operators on the dense domain $\cl H._F\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}C^\infty(G)$, given by ${\widehat}{E}_r(\ell):={\widehat}{P}^{(\ell)}_{Y_r}$.
Next, to define gauge transformations, recall from Equation (\[ClassGTr\]) the action of the local gauge group $\gauc \Lambda=\prod\limits_{x\in \Lambda^0}G=\{\zeta:\Lambda^0\to G\}$ on the classical configuration space. For the Fermion algebra we define an action $\alpha^1:\gauc \Lambda \to\aut{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$ by $$\alpha_\zeta^1(a(f)):=a(\zeta\cdot f)\qquad \hbox{where}\qquad (\zeta\cdot f)(x):={\zeta(x)}f(x)\quad \hbox{for all}\quad x\in\Lambda^0,$$ and $f\in\prod\limits_{x\in\Lambda^0}\Cn$ since $f\mapsto \zeta\cdot f$ defines a unitary on $\prod\limits_{x\in\Lambda^0}\Cn$ where $\zeta\in\gauc \Lambda$. As ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$ has up to unitary equivalence only one irreducible representation, it follows that ${\pi_F:{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}}\to\cl B.(\cl H._F)$ is equivalent to the Fock representation, hence it is covariant w.r.t. $\alpha^1$, i.e. there is a (continuous) unitary representation $U^F:\gauc \Lambda\to \cl U.(\cl H._F)$ such that $$\pi_F(\alpha^1_\zeta(A))=U^F_\zeta\pi_F(A)U^F_{\zeta^{-1}}\quad\hbox{for}\quad A\in {\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}.$$
On the other hand, if the classical configuration space $G$ corresponds to a link $\ell=(x_\ell,y_\ell)$, then the gauge transformation is $\zeta\cdot g=
\zeta(x_\ell)\,g\,\zeta(y_\ell)^{-1}$ for all $g\in G$. Using this, we define a unitary $W_\zeta:L^2(G)\to L^2(G)$ by $$(W_\zeta\varphi)(h):=\varphi(\zeta^{-1}\cdot h)=\varphi(\zeta(x_\ell)^{-1}\,h\,\zeta(y_\ell))$$ using the fact that $G$ is unimodular, where the inverse was introduced to ensure that $\zeta\to W_\zeta$ is a homomorphism. Note that $W_\zeta\psi_0=\psi_0$. So for the quantum observables ${U_G\cup T_{L^\infty(G)}}$, the gauge transformation becomes $$\label{GTfell}
T_f\mapsto W_\zeta T_f W_\zeta^{-1}=T_{W_\zeta f}\quad\hbox{and}\quad
U_g\mapsto W_\zeta U_g W_\zeta^{-1}=U_{\zeta(x_\ell)g\zeta(x_\ell)^{-1}}$$ for $f\in L^\infty(G)\subset L^2(G)$ and $g\in G$. Moreover each $W_\zeta$ preserves the space $C^\infty(G)$, hence Equation (\[GTfell\]) also implies that $$\label{PTfell}
W_\zeta P_X W_\zeta^{-1}=P\s{\zeta(x_\ell)X\zeta(x_\ell)^{-1}}.\quad\hbox{for}\quad
X\in\mathfrak{g}.$$
Thus for the full system we define on $\cl H.=\cl H._F\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}L^2(G)$ the unitaries $$\label{LocalW}
{\widehat}{W}_\zeta:=U^F_\zeta\otimes\big(\bigotimes_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}W^{(\ell)}_\zeta\big),\quad
\zeta\in\gauc \Lambda$$ where $W^{(\ell)}_\zeta$ is the $W_\zeta$ operator on the $\ell^{\rm th}$ factor. Then the gauge transformation produced by $\zeta$ on the system of operators is given by ${\rm Ad}({\widehat}{W}_\zeta)$.
In particular, recalling $W_\zeta T\s\Phi_{ij}(\ell). W_\zeta^{-1}=T\s{W_\zeta \Phi_{ij}(\ell)}.$ we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\big(W_\zeta \Phi_{ij}(\ell)\big)(g)&=&\Phi_{ij}(\ell)(\zeta(x_\ell)^{-1}\,g\,\zeta(y_\ell))
=\big(e_i,\zeta(x_\ell)^{-1}\,g\,\zeta(y_\ell)e_j\big)\nonumber\\[1mm]
\label{PhiTfs}
&=&\sum_{n,m}[\zeta(x_\ell)^{-1}]_{in}\,\Phi_{nm}(\ell)(g)\,[\zeta(y_\ell)]_{mj}\end{aligned}$$ where $[\zeta(x_\ell)]_{in}=(e_i,\zeta(x_\ell)e_n)$ are the usual matrix elements, so it is clear that the indices of the quantum connection $T_{\Phi_{ij}(\ell)}$ transform correctly for the gauge transformation $\zeta^{-1}$.
Finally, we construct the appropriate field C\*-algebra for this model. For the fermion part, we already have the C\*-algebra ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda} = {\rm CAR}\big(\prod\limits_{x\in\Lambda^0}\Cn)$. Fix a link $\ell$, hence a specific copy of $G$ in the configuration space. Above in (\[leftact\]) we had the distinguished action $\lambda:G\to\aut C(G)$ by $$\lambda_g(f)(h) := f(g^{-1} h) \, \, , \, \,
f \in C(G),\; g,h\in G.$$ The generalized Schrödinger representation $(T,U)$ above in (\[GSRp\]) is a covariant representation for the action $\lambda:G\to\aut C(G)$ so it is natural to take for our field algebra the crossed product C\*-algebra $C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G $ whose representations are exactly the covariant representations of the $C^*$-dynamical system defined by $\lambda$. The algebra $C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G $ is also called the generalised Weyl algebra, and it is well–known that $C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\cong\cl K.\big(L^2(G)\big)$ cf. [@Rief] and Theorem II.10.4.3 in [@Bla1]. In fact $\pi_0\big(C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\big)=\cl K.\big(L^2(G)\big)$ where $\pi_0:C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\to\cl B.( L^2(G))$ is the generalized Schrödinger representation. Since the algebra of compacts $\cl K.\big(L^2(G)\big)$ has only one irreducible representation up to unitary equivalence, it follows that the generalized Schrödinger representation is the unique irreducible covariant representation of $\lambda$ (up to equivalence). Moreover, as $\psi_0$ is cyclic for $\cl K.\big(L^2(G)\big)$, the generalized Schrödinger representation is unitary equivalent to the GNS–representation of the vector state $\omega_0$ given by $\omega_0(A):={(\psi_0,\pi_0(A)\psi_0)}$ for $A\in
C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G$.
Note that the operators $U_g$ and $T_f$ in equation (\[GSRp\]) are not compact, so they are not in $\cl K.\big(L^2(G)\big)=\pi_0\big(C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\big)$, but are in fact in its multiplier algebra. This is not a problem, as a state or representation on $C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G$ has a unique extension to its multiplier algebra, so it is fully determined on these elements. If one chose $C^*(U_G\cup T_{L^\infty(G)})$ as the field algebra instead of $C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G$, then this would contain many inappropriate representations, e.g. covariant representations for $\lambda:G\to\aut C(G)$ where the implementing unitaries are discontinuous w.r.t. $G$. Thus, our choice for the field algebra of a link remains as ${C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G}\cong\cl K.\big(L^2(G)\big)$. Clearly, as the momentum operators $P_X$ are unbounded, they cannot be in any C\*-algebra, but they are obtained from $U_G$ in the generalized Schrödinger representation.
We combine these C\*-algebras into the kinematic field algebra, which is $${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda} :=
{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda} \otimes \bigotimes_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}\big(C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\big)$$ which is is well–defined as $\Lambda^1$ is finite, and the cross–norms are unique as all algebras in the entries are nuclear. (If $\Lambda^1$ is infinite, the tensor product ${\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}\big(C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\big)}$ is undefined, as $C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G$ is nonunital). Moreover, since $C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\cong\cl K.\big(L^2(G)\big)$ and $\cl K.(\cl H._1)\otimes\cl K.(\cl H._2)\cong\cl K.(\cl H._1\otimes\cl H._2),$ it follows that $$\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}\big(C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\big)\cong\cl K.\big(
\mathop{\otimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}L^2(G)\big)\cong\cl K.(\cl L.)$$ as $\Lambda^1$ is finite, where $\cl L.$ is a generic infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space. So $${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda} ={\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda} \otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}\big(C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\big)\cong
{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda} \otimes\cl K.\big(\mathop{\otimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}L^2(G)\big)\cong\cl K.(\cl L.)$$ as ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$ is a full matrix algebra. This shows that for a finite lattice there will be only one irreducible representation, up to unitary equivalence. Also, ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is simple, so all representations are faithful.
The algebra ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is faithfully and irreducibly represented on $\cl H.=\cl H._F\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}L^2(G)$ by $\pi=\pi_F\otimes\big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}\pi_{\ell}\big)$ where $\pi_\ell:C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\to L^2(G)$ is the generalized Schrödinger representation for the $\ell^{\rm th}$ entry. Then $\pi\big({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$ contains in its multiplier algebra the operators ${\widehat}{T}^{(\ell)}_{\Phi_{ij}(\ell)},\;{\widehat}{U}^{(\ell)}_g$ for all $\ell\in \Lambda^1$.
To complete the picture, we also need to define the action of the local gauge group on ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$. Recall that in $\pi$ it is given by $\zeta\to{\rm Ad}({\widehat}{W}_\zeta)$, and this clearly preserves $\pi\big({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)=\cl K.(\cl H.)$ and defines a strongly continuous action $\alpha$ of $\gauc \Lambda$ on $\pi\big({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$ (hence on ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda} $) as $\zeta\to{\widehat}{W}_\zeta$ is strong operator continuous. By construction ${(\pi,{\widehat}{W})}$ is a covariant representation for the C\*-dynamical system given by $\alpha:\gauc \Lambda \to\aut{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$. As $\gauc \Lambda=\prod\limits_{x\in \Lambda^0}G$ is compact, we can construct the crossed product ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\rtimes_\alpha \gauc \Lambda$ which has as representation space all covariant representations of $\alpha:\gauc \Lambda \to\aut{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$. As it is convenient to have an identity in the algebra, our full field algebra for the system will be taken to be: $$\al F._e:=({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\oplus\C)\rtimes_\alpha (\gauc \Lambda)$$ where ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\oplus\C$ denotes ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ with an identity adjoined. This has a unique faithful representation on ${\mathcal{H}}$ corresponding to the covariant representation ${(\pi,{\widehat}{W})}$.
We consider two types of gauge invariant observables for lattice QCD which appeared in the literature (cf. [@KS]).
- We start with gauge invariant variables of pure gauge type, and consider the well-known Wilson loops cf. [@Wilson]. To construct a Wilson loop, we choose an oriented loop $L=\{\ell_1,\ell_2,\ldots,
\ell_m\}\subset\Lambda^1$, $\ell_j=(x_j,y_j)$, such that $y_j=x_{j+1}$ for $j=1,\ldots,{m-1}$ and $y_m=x_1$. Let $G_k=G$ be the configuration space of $\ell_k$. Denoting the components of a gauge potential $\Phi$ by $\Phi_{ij}(\ell_k)\in C(G_k)$ as in equation , the matrix components of the quantum connection at $\ell_k$ are given by $T_{\Phi_{ij}(\ell_k)}$. To construct the gauge invariant observable associated with the loop, define (summing over repeated indices): $$\begin{aligned}
W(L)&:=&\Phi_{i_1i_2}(\ell_1)(g_1)\,\Phi_{i_2i_3}(\ell_3)(g_2)\cdots \Phi_{i_{m-1}i_1}(\ell_m)(g_m)\\[1mm]
&=&(e_{i_1},g_1g_2\cdots g_me_{i_1})= {\rm Tr}(g_1g_2\cdots g_m)\,.
\end{aligned}$$ (Note that to perform the product we need to fix identifications of $G_i$ with $G$.) This defines a gauge invariant element $W(L)\in C(G_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes C(G_m)={C(G_1\times\cdots G_m)}$. To see the gauge invariance, just note that $$\big(\zeta\cdot\Phi)(\ell)\big(\zeta\cdot\Phi)(\ell')=
\zeta(x_\ell)\,\Phi(\ell)\,\zeta(y_\ell)^{-1}\zeta(x_{\ell'})\,\Phi(\ell')\,\zeta(y_{\ell'})^{-1}
=\zeta(x_\ell)\,\Phi(\ell)\,\Phi(\ell')\,\zeta(y_{\ell'})^{-1}$$ if $y_\ell=x_{\ell'}$ (i.e. $\ell'$ follows $\ell$), and use the trace property for $W(L)$.
Wilson loops of particular importance are those where the paths are plaquettes, i.e. $L={(\ell_1,\ell_2,\ell_3,\ell_4)}\in\Lambda^2$ as such $W(L)$ occur in the lattice Hamiltonian. As remarked above, as $C(G_j)\subset M({C(G_j)\rtimes_\lambda G_j})$, it is not actually contained in $\cl L._{\ell_j}$. We embed $C(G_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes C(G_m)$ (hence $W(L)$) in $M({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$ by letting it act as the identity in entries not corresponding to $\{\ell_1,\ell_2,\ell_3,\ell_4\}.$
- Another method of constructing gauge invariant observables, is by Fermi bilinears connected with a Wilson line (cf. [@KS]). Consider a path $C=\{\ell_1,\ell_2,\ldots,
\ell_m\}\subset\Lambda^1$, $\ell_j=(x_j,y_j)$, such that $y_j=x_{j+1}$ for $j=1,\ldots,m-1$. We take notation as above, so $G_k=G$ is the configuration space of $\ell_k,$ and $\Phi_{ij}(\ell_k)(g_k):=(e_i,g_ke_j)$, $g_k\in G_k$. To construct a gauge invariant observable associated with the path, consider (with summation convention): $$\begin{aligned}
Q(C)&:=& \psi^*_{i_1}(x_1)\,\Phi_{i_1i_2}(\ell_1)\,\Phi_{i_2i_3}(\ell_3)\cdots \Phi_{i_{m-1}i_m}(\ell_m)\, \psi_{ i_m}(y_m)\\[1mm]
&\in& {\mathfrak F}_{S}\otimes C(G_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes C(G_m)
\end{aligned}$$ where $S\subseteq\Lambda^0$ contains the path and we assume $\Cn=\C^k$ (otherwise $\Cn=\C^k\times{\bf W}$ and there are more indices). Then $ Q(C)$ is gauge invariant. As above, we embed ${\mathfrak F}_{S}\otimes C(G_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes C(G_m)$ in $M({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$ in the natural way.
In the representation $\pi=\pi_F\otimes\big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}\pi_{\ell}\big)$ it is also possible to build unbounded observables as gauge invariant operators. For example we can build gauge invariant combinations of the gluonic and the colour electric field generators, and in the finite lattice context, such operators were analyzed in [@KR1; @JKR]. As an example of such a gauge invariant operator, in the context of a finite lattice, we state the Hamiltonian, where we disregard terms by which $H$ has to be supplemented in order to avoid the fermion doubling problem. We first need to add spinor indices, hence take $\Cn = \b W.\otimes\C^k$ where $\b W.\cong\C^4$ will be the spinor part on which the $\gamma$-matrices act. If $\{w_1,\ldots,w_4\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\b W.$ and $\{e_1,\ldots,e_k\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\C^k$, then w.r.t. the orthonormal basis $\{w_j\otimes e_n\mid j=1,\ldots,4,\,
n =1,\ldots,k\}$ of $\Cn$, we obtain the indices $$a(w_j\otimes e_n\cdot\delta_x)=:\psi_{jn}(x)$$ for the quark field generators, where the subscript $j$ is the spinor index, and the $n$ is the gauge index. Then the Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Hamiltonian}
H & = & \tfrac{a}{2} \sum_{\ell \in \Lambda^1}
E_{ij}(\ell) E_{ji}(\ell)
+ \tfrac{1}{2 g^2 a}\sum_{p \in \Lambda^2}
( W (p) + W(p)^*) \nonumber \\
& + & i\tfrac{a}{2} \sum_{\ell \in \Lambda^1}
\bar\psi_{jn}(x_\ell) \big[\underline\gamma\cdot(y_\ell-x_\ell)\big]_{ji}
\Phi_{nm} (\ell)\psi_{im} (y_\ell) + h.c.
\nonumber \\
& + & ma^3 \sum_{x \in \Lambda^0} \bar \psi_{jn} (x) \psi_{jn}(x)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ is the assumed lattice spacing; $W (p)$ is the Wilson loop operator for the plaquette $p= (\ell_1, \ell_2 ,\ell_3, \ell_4)$; the vector $y_\ell-x_\ell$ for a link $\ell=(x_\ell,y_\ell)$ is the vector of length $a$ pointing from $x_\ell$ to $y_\ell$ and h.c. means the Hermitean conjugate. As usual for spinors, $ \bar \psi_{jn} (x)=\psi_{in}(x)^*(\gamma_0)_{ij}$, and we use the standard gamma-matrices. We have omitted the flavour indices. The summands occurring in are either Laplacians, Wilson loop operators or Fermi bilinears, hence they are all gauge invariant, hence are observables, some unbounded.
The above Hamiltonian suffers from the well-known fermion doubling problem (cf. [@FL01]);- the latter can be cured by passing e.g. to Wilson fermions [@Wilson2]. This modification does not affect the arguments below, hence we focus our analysis on the naive Hamiltonian given by (\[Hamiltonian\]). Below in Sect. \[LDA\] we will consider the dynamics produced by this Hamiltonian.
The Fermion algebra for an infinite lattice. {#FAlg}
--------------------------------------------
It is unproblematic to specify the Fermion field on an infinite lattice $\Lambda=(\Lambda^0, \Lambda^1, \Lambda^2)$:\
[**Assumption:**]{} [*Assume the quantum matter field algebra on $\Lambda$ is: $$\label{fermifieldalgebra}
{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda} := \CAR \ell^2(\Lambda^0,\Cn). =C^*\big(\mathop{\bigcup}_{x\in\Lambda^0}{\mathfrak F}_x\big)$$ where ${\mathfrak F}_x:=\CAR V_x.$ and $V_x:=\{f\in\ell^2(\Lambda^0,\Cn)\,\mid\, f(y)=0\;\;\hbox{if}\;\; y\not=x\}\cong \Cn.$ We interpret ${\mathfrak F}_x\cong\CAR \Cn.$ as the field algebra for a fermion at $x.$ We denote the generating elements of $\CAR \ell^2(\Lambda^0,\Cn).$ by $a(f),$ $f\in\ell^2(\Lambda^0,\Cn),$ and these satisfy the usual CAR–relations: $$\label{eq:car}
\{a(f), a(g)^*\} = {\langle}f, g {\rangle}{\mathbf{1}}\quad \hbox{ and } \quad \{a(f),a(g)\} = 0
\quad \mbox{ for } \quad f, g \in \ell^2(\Lambda^0,\Cn)$$ where $\{A,B\} := AB + BA$.*]{}\
Note that the odd parts of ${\mathfrak F}_x$ and ${\mathfrak F}_y$ w.r.t. the fields $a(f)$ anticommute if $x\not=y.$ Moreover, as $\Lambda^0$ is infinite, ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$ has inequivalent irreducible representations.
We have the following inductive limit structure. Let $\cl S.$ be a directed set of finite connected subgraphs $S\subset(\Lambda^0, \Lambda^1)$, such that $\bigcup\limits_{S\in\cl S.}S=(\Lambda^0, \Lambda^1)$, where the partial ordering is set inclusion. Note that $S_1\subseteq S_2$ implies $\Lambda_{S_1}^i\subseteq\Lambda_{S_2}^i$ and $\bigcup\limits_{S\in\cl S.}\Lambda_S^i=\Lambda^i.$ Define ${\mathfrak F}_{S}:=C^*\big(\mathop{\cup}\limits_{x\in\Lambda_S^0}{\mathfrak F}_x\big)\subset{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$ and then ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}=\ilim{\mathfrak F}_{S}$ is an inductive limit w.r.t. the partial ordering in $\cl S..$
This defines the quantum matter fields on the lattice sites, and to obtain correspondence with the physics notation, we choose an appropriate orthonormal basis in $\Cn$ and proceed as before for a finite lattice.
A maximal C\*-algebra for dynamics construction. {#GFA}
------------------------------------------------
In this section we wish to define a concrete C\*-algebra which is “maximally large” in the sense that it contains all the true local C\*-algebras, as well as the (bounded) terms of the local Hamiltonians. In the next section we will then define the dynamics automorphisms on it, and finally we will then take our new field C\*-algebra to be the smallest subalgebra which contains all the true local C\*-algebras, and is preserved w.r.t. the dynamics. Thus, the dynamics itself will create the field algebra for the system. The gauge transformations will be added later.
Recall from above that for every link $\ell$ we have a generalised Weyl algebra ${C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G}
\cong\cl K.\big(L^2(G)\big)$, for which we have a generalized Schrödinger representation $\pi_0:C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\to\cl B.\big(L^2(G)\big)$ such that $\pi_0\big(C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\big)=\cl K.\big(L^2(G)\big)$. Explicitly, it is given by $\pi_0(\varphi\cdot f)=\pi_1(\varphi)\pi_2( f)$ for $\varphi\in L^1(G)$ and $f\in C(G)$ where $$(\pi_1(\varphi)\psi)(g):=\int\varphi(h)\psi(h^{-1}g)\,{\rm d}h \qquad\hbox{and}\qquad
(\pi_2(f)\psi)(g):=f(g)\psi(g)$$ for all $\psi\in L^2(G)$. Note that by irreducibility, the constant vector $\psi_0=1$ is cyclic and normalized (assuming normalized Haar measure on $G$).
We start by taking an infinite product of generalized Schrödinger representations, one for each $\ell\in\Lambda^1$, w.r.t. the reference sequence ${(\psi_0,\psi_0,\ldots)}$ where $\psi_0=1$ is the constant vector (cf.[@vN]). Thus the space $\al H._\infty$ is the completion of the pre–Hilbert space spanned by finite combinations of elementary tensors of the type $$\varphi_1\otimes\cdots\otimes \varphi_k\otimes\psi_0\otimes\psi_0\otimes\cdots,\quad\varphi_i\in \al H._i= L^2(G),\;
k\in\N$$ w.r.t. the pre–inner product given by $$\left(\varphi_1\otimes\cdots\otimes \varphi_k\otimes\psi_0\otimes\psi_0\otimes\cdots,\;
\varphi'_1\otimes\cdots\otimes \varphi'_k\otimes\psi_0\otimes\psi_0\otimes\cdots\right)_\infty
:=\prod_{i=1}^k(\varphi_i,\varphi'_i)\,,$$ and we assume the usual entry-wise tensorial linear operations for the elementary tensors. Denote the reference vector by $\psi_0^\infty:=\psi_0\otimes\psi_0\otimes\cdots$.
Fix a finite nonempty connected subgraph $S$ of $(\Lambda^0, \Lambda^1)$, and let $$\Lambda_S:=(\Lambda^0_S, \Lambda^1_S, \Lambda^2_S).$$ Then $\al L._S:={\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\big(C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\big)}$ acts on $\al H._\infty$ as a product representation of $\pi_0$ where each factor $\al L._\ell:=C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G$ acts on the factor of $\al H._\infty$ corresponding to $\ell$. In fact if $[\cdot]$ denotes closed span, then $$[\al L._S\psi_0^\infty]=\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\al H._\ell\Big)\otimes
\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_S}\psi_0\subset\al H._\infty.$$ Thus all $\al L._S$ are faithfully imbedded in $\al B.(\al H._\infty)$, and if $S$ and $S'$ are disjoint, $\al L._S$ and $\al L._{S'}$ commute.
Now consider the Fock representation $\pi_{\rm Fock}:{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}\to\al B.(\al H._{\rm Fock})$ of the CAR–algebra with vacuum vector $\Omega$. The Hilbert space on which we define our infinite lattice model is $$\al H.:=\al H._{\rm Fock}\otimes\al H._\infty.$$ Then by ${\mathfrak F}_{S}\subset{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$, we also have a product representation of the local field algebras ${\mathfrak A}_S:={\mathfrak F}_{S}\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\cl L._\ell$ on $\al H.$. If $S$ and $S'$ are disjoint, then ${\mathfrak A}_S$ and ${\mathfrak A}_{S'}$ will graded–commute w.r.t. the Fermion grading. If we have containment i.e., $R\subset S$, then ${\mathfrak F}_{R}\subset{\mathfrak F}_{S}$, but we have $\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_R}\cl L._\ell\not\subset
\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\cl L._\ell$ because $\al K.(\al H._1)\otimes\un\not\subset\al K.(\al H._1\otimes\al H._2)$ if $\al H._2$ is infinite dimensional. However w.r.t. the natural operator product we have ${\mathfrak A}_R\cdot{\mathfrak A}_S={\mathfrak A}_S$, hence ${\mathfrak A}_R\subset M({\mathfrak A}_S)$, as the action of ${\mathfrak A}_R$ on ${\mathfrak A}_S$ is nondegenerate.
Note that the Fermion grading also produces a grading unitary $U_F$ on $\al H._{\rm Fock}$ as the second quantization of -1 acting on $\ell^2(\Lambda^0,\Cn)$. This grading coincides with the even-odd grading for $n\hbox{-particle}$ vectors in $\al H._{\rm Fock}$. Naturally $U_F$ extends to $\al H.:=\al H._{\rm Fock}\otimes\al H._\infty$ as $U_F\otimes\un$, which extends by conjugation the Fermion grading to all of $\cl B.(\al H.)$.
The local graded commutation properties above are crucial for our construction of local dynamics, and this property will be preserved in our definition of a maximal C\*-algebra on which we will construct the dynamics. For each finite connected subgraph $S$ of $(\Lambda^0, \Lambda^1)$, we define $$\al H._S:= [{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]\otimes[\al L._S\psi_0^\infty],\qquad\cl B._S:= \cl B.(\al H._S).$$ To see how to imbed $ \cl B.(\al H._S)\subset \cl B.(\al H.)$, note that ${\mathfrak F}_{S}$ is finite dimensional, hence so is $[{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]$ and as the restriction of $\pi_{\rm Fock}({\mathfrak F}_{S})$ to $[{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]$ is just the Fock representation of ${\mathfrak F}_{S}$, we obtain from irreducibility that $\cl B.([{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega])= {\mathfrak F}_{S}$ on $[{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]$. Thus $$\cl B._S=\cl B.(\al H._S)=\cl B.( [{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]\otimes[\al L._S\psi_0^\infty])
=\cl B.([{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega])\otimes \cl B.([\al L._S\psi_0^\infty])
={\mathfrak F}_{S}\otimes\cl B.([\al L._S\psi_0^\infty])$$ where the third equality follows from [@KR83 Example 11.1.6]. Let ${\mathfrak F}_{S}\subset{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$ act on $\al H._{\rm Fock}$ as part of the Fock representation of ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$. As $$[\al L._S\psi_0^\infty]=\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\al H._\ell\Big)\otimes
\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_S}\psi_0\subset\al H._\infty,$$ we can extend $\cl B.([\al L._S\psi_0^\infty])$ to $\al H._\infty$ by letting its elements act as the identity on those factors of $\al H._\infty$ corresponding to $\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_S$, i.e. $$\label{BSisFB}
\cl B._S
=\pi_{\rm Fock}({\mathfrak F}_{S})\otimes\cl B.\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\al H._\ell\Big)
\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_S}\un.$$ Thus we have obtained the embedding $ \cl B.(\al H._S)\subset \cl B.(\al H.)$, and we have containments $ \cl B.(\al H._S)\subseteq \cl B.(\al H._T)$ if $S\subseteq T$. Note that the restriction of this embedded copy of $ \cl B.(\al H._S)$ to $\al H._S\subset\al H.$ gives a faithful representation, but it is nonzero outside $\al H._S$ as it contains the identity. Now we can define: $$\al A._{\rm max}:=\ilim \cl B._S = C^*\Big(\bigcup_{S\in\al S.} \cl B.(\al H._S) \Big)$$ where in the last inductive limit and union, $S$ ranges over the directed set $\al S.$ of all finite connected subgraphs of $(\Lambda^0, \Lambda^1)$. Here and below, we will assume that $\al S.$ does not contain the empty set, so we can ignore this trivial special case.
Note that if we use the grading unitary above to extend the Fermion grading to all of $\cl B.(\al H.)$, then if $S$ and $S'$ are disjoint, then $\cl B.(\al H._S)\supset{\mathfrak A}_S$ and $\cl B.(\al H._{S'})
\supset{\mathfrak A}_{S'}$ will graded–commute. Note that a similar inductive limit cannot be done for the local algebras ${\mathfrak A}_S$ as it is NOT true that $S\subset S'$ implies ${\mathfrak A}_S\subset{\mathfrak A}_{S'}$. An operator $A\in\cl B.(\al H.)$ will be said to have [*support in*]{} $S$ if $S$ is the smallest connected graph for which $A\in\cl B.(\al H._S)=\cl B._S$.
As $\al A._{\rm max}$ contains all the local algebras ${\mathfrak A}_S$, we aim to define the full dynamics on $\al A._{\rm max}$, and then generate the new field algebra in $\al A._{\rm max}$ from the orbits of the local ones. At the end of the next section we will show that $\al A._{\rm max}$ is contained in the multiplier algebra of the kinematics field algebra we constructed previously in [@GrRu].
Dynamics {#Dynamics}
========
Next, we want to define the dynamics on $\al A._{\rm max}:=\ilim \cl B._S $ corresponding to the heuristic Hamiltonian given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HamiltonianInft}
H & = & \tfrac{a}{2} \sum_{\ell \in \Lambda^1}
E_{ij}(\ell) E_{ji}(\ell)
+ \tfrac{1}{2 g^2 a}\sum_{p \in \Lambda^2}
( W (p) + W(p)^*) \nonumber \\
& + & i\tfrac{a}{2} \sum_{\ell \in \Lambda^1}
\bar\psi_{jn}(x_\ell) \big[\underline\gamma\cdot(y_\ell-x_\ell)\big]_{ji}
\Phi_{nm} (\ell)\psi_{im} (y_\ell) + h.c.
\nonumber \\
& + & ma^3 \sum_{x \in \Lambda^0} \bar \psi_{jn} (x) \psi_{jn}(x)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the difference with (\[Hamiltonian\]) is that now the sums are over an infinite lattice, so are not yet properly defined. The unbounded operators in the first summand are defined on the appropriate factor of $\al H._\infty$, and all calculations will be done concretely, i.e. in terms of operators on $\al H.:=\al H._{\rm Fock}\otimes\al H._\infty$, and we will not explicitly indicate the representations $\pi_0$ and $\pi_{\rm Fock}$. Otherwise, notation is as before.
The summands occurring in are all gauge invariant (locally) and hence are observables, some unbounded. All summands also have Fermion degree zero, hence for these summands graded local commutativity becomes just ordinary local commutativity with elements of the algebra $\al A._{\rm max}:=\ilim \cl B._S $.
Below we will follow the familiar technique for defining the dynamics of lattice systems by first defining it for each $S\in\cl S.$, then proving that these “local automorphism groups" have a pointwise norm limit which defines a dynamics automorphism for the full algebra (cf. [@BR2]).
The local dynamics automorphism groups. {#LDA}
---------------------------------------
Now for a fixed $\ell$, in the representation $\pi_0$ on $L^2(G)$ the operator $E_{ij}(\ell) E_{ji}(\ell)$ (summation convention) is just the group Laplacian, hence it is defined on the domain $C^\infty(G)\subset L^2(G)$, and it is essentially selfadjoint as it produces a positive quadratic form. These are the only unbounded terms in $H$. Given $S\in\cl S.$ we define the local Hamiltonian $H_S$ by summing only over the restricted lattice $\Lambda_{S}$, thus: $$\begin{aligned}
H_S&=& H_S^{\rm loc}+H_S^{\rm int}\qquad\hbox{on}\qquad \cl H._{\rm Fock}\otimes\cl D._S
\qquad\hbox{where} \\[2mm]
H_S^{\rm loc} & := & \tfrac{a}{2} \sum_{\ell \in \Lambda^1_S}
E_{ij}(\ell) E_{ji}(\ell)+ma^3 \sum_{x \in \Lambda^0_S} \bar \psi_i (x) \psi_i(x)
\qquad\hbox{on}\qquad \cl H._{\rm Fock}\otimes\cl D._S \\[1mm]
H_S^{\rm int} & := & \tfrac{1}{2 g^2 a}\sum_{p \in \Lambda^2_S}
( W (p) + W(p)^*) +i\tfrac{a}{2} \sum_{\ell \in \Lambda^1_S}
\bar\psi_{jn}(x_\ell) \big[\underline\gamma\cdot(y_\ell-x_\ell)\big]_{ji}
\Phi_{nm} (\ell)\psi_{im} (y_\ell) + h.c.\end{aligned}$$ where $\cl D._S\subset\bigotimes\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}L^2(G)$ is the span of those elementary tensors such that if $\ell\in\Lambda^1_S$, then in the $\ell\hbox{-th}$ entry it takes its value in $C^\infty(G)$ but otherwise it is unrestricted. One may write this as $\cl D._S=\bigotimes\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}C^\infty(G)\otimes\bigotimes\limits_{\ell'\not\in\Lambda^1_S}L^2(G)$ (infinite tensor products are w.r.t. the reference vector $\psi_0^\infty$). Note that $H_S^{\rm loc}$ is an unbounded essentially selfadjoint (positive) operator which affects the individual sites and links independently (so produces free time evolution), and that the interaction term $H_S^{\rm int}$ is bounded. In fact the free time evolution is just a tensor product of the individual free time evolutions: $$U^{\rm loc}_S(t):=\exp(it\bar{H}_S^{\rm loc})=U^{\rm CAR}_S(t)\otimes
\bigotimes_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}U_\ell(t)\otimes\bigotimes\limits_{\ell'\not\in\Lambda^1_S}{\mathbf{1}}$$ where $U^{\rm CAR}_S(t)=\exp\big(itma^3 \sum\limits_{x \in \Lambda^0_S} \bar \psi_i (x) \psi_i(x)\big)\in{\mathfrak F}_{S}$ and $U_\ell(t):=\exp(it\overline{E_{ij}(\ell) E_{ji}(\ell)})$ (the overline notation $\bar{H}_S^{\rm loc}$ and $\overline{E_{ij}(\ell) E_{ji}(\ell)}$ indicates the closure of the essentially selfadjoint operators). The local free time evolutions $\alpha^{\rm loc}_S(t):={\rm Ad}(U^{\rm loc}_S(t))$ will preserve each $\cl B._{S'}, $ $S'\in\al S.$, hence preserves $\al A._{\rm max}=\ilim \cl B._S $ because it acts componentwise. However $\alpha^{\rm loc}$ is not strongly continuous i.e. pointwise norm continuous, as $H_S^{\rm loc}$ is unbounded and $\cl B._S=\cl B.(\al H._S)$ (cf. Prop. 5.10 in [@GrN14]).
As $U^{\rm CAR}_S(t)\in{\mathfrak F}_{S}\subset{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda},$ we have that $\alpha^{\rm CAR}_S(t):={\rm Ad}(U^{\rm CAR}_S(t))$ clearly preserves both ${\mathfrak F}_{S}$ and ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}.$ Moreover $t\mapsto\alpha^{\rm CAR}_S(t)$ is uniformly norm continuous as the generator $ma^3 \sum\limits_{x \in \Lambda^0_S} \bar \psi_i (x) \psi_i(x)$ is bounded. Observe that $\alpha^{\rm loc}_S(t)$ satisfies the compatibility condition that if $R\subset S$, then $\alpha^{\rm loc}_S(t)$ preserves the subalgebra $\al B._R\subset\al B._S$ and its restriction on it coincides with $\alpha^{\rm loc}_R(t)$, as is clear from the tensor product construction. We have that ${\rm Ad}(U^{\rm loc}_S(t))$ defines a one parameter group $t\mapsto\alpha^{\rm loc}_S(t)\in{\rm Aut}(\al A._{\rm max})$ which preserves $\al B._S$, and is the identity on any $\al B._R$ where $R\cap S=\emptyset$. Next, note that as the (bounded) interaction Hamiltonian $H_S^{\rm int}\in \al B._S,$ its commutator produces a derivation on $\al A._{\rm max}$, which preserves $\al B._S$ i.e. $ [H_S^{\rm int},\al B._S]\subseteq \al B._S$.
To be more precise, consider the individual terms in the finite sums comprising $ H_S^{\rm int}$. Recall that for $p={(\ell_1,\ell_2,\ell_3,\ell_4)}\in\Lambda^2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
W(p)&\in& C(G_{\ell_1})\otimes\cdots\otimes C(G_{\ell_4})={C(G_{\ell_1}\times\cdots G_{\ell_4})}\subset M(
{\cal L}_{S}) \subseteq \al B._S \qquad
\hbox{if}\qquad p\subset S\\[1mm]
\hbox{and}\;
&& \bar\psi_{jn}(x_\ell) \big[\underline\gamma\cdot(y_\ell-x_\ell)\big]_{ji}
\Phi_{nm} (\ell)\psi_{im} (y_\ell)\in {\mathfrak F}_{S}\otimes C(G_\ell)\subset \al B._S
\end{aligned}$$ where $\ell=(x,y)\subset S$. Thus the commutator with $ H_S^{\rm int}$ defines a bounded derivation on $\al A._{\rm max}$, which preserves $\al B._S$. For each $S\in\cl S.$ we have a local time evolution $\alpha^S:\R\to{\rm Aut}\big(\al A._{\rm max}\big)$ which preserves $\pi(\al B._S)$ and acts trivially on $\al A._{\rm max}$ outside of it, given by $$\alpha^S_t:={\rm Ad}(U_S(t))\quad\hbox{and}\quad
U_S(t):=\exp(itH_S).$$ Due to the interaction terms, we do not expect that $R\subset S$ implies that $\alpha^S$ will coincide with $\alpha^R$ on $\al B._R\subset\al B._S$. By construction, $(\pi,U_S)$ is a covariant irreducible representation for $\alpha_S:\R\to{\rm Aut}(\al A._{\rm max})$. The generator $H_S= H_S^{\rm loc}+H_S^{\rm int}$ of its implementing unitary group $U_S$ has a positive unbounded part $H_S^{\rm loc}$ and a bounded interaction part $H_S^{\rm int}$, hence it is bounded from below. As $H_S$ is unbounded, $\alpha^S$ is not strongly continuous on $\al B._S$. However, on the local algebras ${\mathfrak A}_S\subset\al B._S$ we have:
\[localauto\] Let $R,\,S\in\al S.$ with $R\subseteq S$. For each $A\in{\mathfrak A}_S$ we have that $\; t\mapsto \alpha^R_t(A)\;$ is continuous, i.e. the restriction of $\alpha^R$ to ${\mathfrak A}_S$ is strongly continuous.
Recall that ${\mathfrak A}_S:={\mathfrak F}_{S}\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\cl L._\ell$ acts faithfully on $$\al H._S:= [{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]\otimes[\al L._S\psi_0^\infty]\subset\cl H.\quad\hbox{where}\quad
[\al L._S\psi_0^\infty]=\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\al H._\ell\Big)\otimes
\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_S}\psi_0\subset\al H._\infty.$$ As $S$ is finite, $[{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]$ is finite dimensional, and so by $\al L._S
=\al K.\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\al H._\ell\Big)$ we conclude that ${\mathfrak A}_S\restriction\al H._S\subseteq\al K.(\al H._S)$. Now $\alpha^R_t={\rm Ad}(U_R(t))$ where $U_R(t)=\exp(itH_R)$, and $U_R(t)$ preserves $\al H._S$ and is the identity on any $\al H._{S'}$ where $S'$ is disjoint from $S$. Thus for $A\in{\mathfrak A}_S$, $\alpha^R_t(A)$ becomes just the conjugation of a compact operator by a strong operator continuous one parameter unitary group, and this is well known to be norm continuous in the parameter (the strict topology on $\al B.(\al H.)=M(\al K.(\al H.))$ is the $\sigma\hbox{--strong}$ \*–topology).
The analogous converse statement will be proven below in the proof of Theorem \[GlobDynCont\], i.e. that if $R\subset S$, then $\; t\mapsto \alpha^S_t(A)\;$ is continuous for $A\in{\mathfrak A}_R$. As ${\mathfrak A}_R\not\subset{\mathfrak A}_S$ and $\alpha^S_t$ need not preserve ${\mathfrak A}_R$, this is not obvious.
Existence of the global dynamics automorphism group. {#DMFA}
----------------------------------------------------
We want to apply arguments of Nachtergaele and Sims in [@NaSi] to establish the existence of the full infinite lattice dynamics on $\al A._{\rm max}$. Here we will supply all the necessary details to adapt their argument to our situation.
Return to the faithful representation $\pi=\pi_{\rm Fock}\otimes\pi_\infty$, on $\cl H.=\cl H._{\rm Fock}\otimes\cl H._\infty$ where $\cl H._\infty=\bigotimes\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1}L^2(G_\ell)$ is defined w.r.t. the reference vector $\psi_0\otimes\psi_0\otimes\cdots$. All calculations below will be done concretely in this representation, but to limit notation it will not usually be indicated. As before, we fix the directed set $\cl S.$ of finite connected subgraphs of $(\Lambda^0,\Lambda^1)$, where the partial ordering is set inclusion. Note that for each link $\ell\in\Lambda^1$, we can identify a graph in $\cl S.$ (also denoted by $\ell$) as the graph consisting of the endpoints $(x_\ell,y_\ell)$ for vertices, and the edge from $x_\ell$ to $y_\ell$. Likewise, we can identify any plaquette $p\in\Lambda^2$ with a graph in $\cl S.$. Then $$\al A._{\rm max}=\ilim \cl B._S = C^*\Big(\bigcup_{S\in\al S.} \cl B.(\al H._S) \Big)
\qquad\hbox{and}\qquad
{\mathfrak F}_{S}\otimes{\cal L}_{S}
\subset \cl B.(\al H._S).$$ Recall that for each $S\in\cl S.$ we have a local time evolution $\alpha^S:\R\to{\rm Aut}\big(\al A._{\rm max}\big)$ which preserves $\pi(\al B._S)$ and acts trivially on $\al A._{\rm max}$ outside of it, given by $\alpha^S_t={\rm Ad}(U_S(t))$. We will show below that for each $A\in \al B._R,$ $R\subset S$ that $\alpha^S_t(A)$ converges as ${S\nearrow\Z^3},$ where ${S\nearrow\Z^3}$ indicates that we take the limit over increasing sequences in $\cl S.$ such that the union of the graphs in the sequence is the entire connected graph ${(\Lambda^0,\,\Lambda^1)}$ for the lattice.
We now want to apply arguments in [@NaSi] to establish the existence of an infinite lattice dynamics on $ \al A._{\rm max}$. We first revisit notation. Fix $S\in\cl S.$, then $$\begin{aligned}
H_S&=& H_S^{\rm loc}+H_S^{\rm int}\qquad\hbox{on}\qquad \cl H._{\rm Fock}\otimes\cl D._S
\qquad\hbox{where} \\[2mm]
H_S^{\rm loc} & := & \sum_{\ell \in \Lambda^1_S}H_\ell+\sum_{x \in \Lambda^0_S}H_x\qquad\hbox{where}\\[2mm]
H_\ell&:=&\tfrac{a}{2}
E_{ij}(\ell) E_{ji}(\ell)\qquad\hbox{and}\qquad H_x:=ma^3 \bar \psi_i (x) \psi_i(x)\\[2mm]
H_S^{\rm int} & := & \sum_{p \in \Lambda^2_S}\widetilde{W}(p) + \sum_{\ell \in \Lambda^1_S}B(\ell)
\qquad\hbox{where}\quad \widetilde{W}(p):= \tfrac{1}{2 g^2 a}( W (p) + W(p)^*) \\[2mm]
\hbox{and}\qquad B(\ell)&:=&
i\tfrac{a}{2}
\bar\psi_{jn}(x_\ell) \big[\underline\gamma\cdot(y_\ell-x_\ell)\big]_{ji}
\Phi_{nm} (\ell)\psi_{im} (y_\ell) + h.c.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly $H_S^{\rm int}\in \al B._S$ and $\sum_{x \in \Lambda^0_S}H_x\in \al B._S.$ The only terms of $H_S$ not in the $ \al B._S$ are the unbounded $H_\ell$. Moreover the operator norm $\| \widetilde{W}(p)\|=:\|\widetilde{W}\|$ is independent of $p$ and $\|B(\ell)\|=:\|B\|$ is independent of $\ell.$ Below we will frequently need the following notation:- if $A\in\al B._S$ then $$A(t):=e^{itH_S^{\rm loc}}A\,e^{-itH_S^{\rm loc}}\in\al B._S\,.$$
\[GlobDynExist\] With notation as above, we have for all $A\in \al A._{\rm max}$ and $t\in\R$ that the norm limit $$\lim_{S\nearrow\Z^3}\alpha^S_t(A)=:\alpha_t(A)$$ exists, and defines an automorphism group $t\mapsto\alpha_t\in{\rm Aut}(\al A._{\rm max})$. Furthermore, for each $T>0$, the limit is uniform w.r.t. $t\in[-T,T]$.
[**Proof:**]{} Fix $T>0,$ a nonempty $R\subset S$ and let $A\in\al B._R$. First we want to show that the limit of $\alpha^S_t(A)$ as ${S\nearrow\Z^3}$ exists for $|t|<T$. Fix a strictly increasing sequence $\{S_n\}_{n\in\N}\subset\cl S.$ such that ${S_n\nearrow\Z^3}$ as $n\to\infty$. The limit we obtain below will be independent of the choice of sequence $\{S_n\}_{n\in\N}\subset\cl S.$ (given any two such sequences, each term of one sequence will be contained in some term of the other one, which allows one to form a new increasing sequence containing elements of both).
For the proof, we need to show that $\{\alpha^{S_n}_t(A)\}_{n\in\N}$ is Cauchy. Now for $R\subseteq S_n$: $$\alpha^{S_n}_t(A)=\tau^{S_n}_t\big( e^{itH_{S_n}^{\rm loc}} A e^{-itH_{S_n}^{\rm loc}} \big)
=\tau^{S_n}_t\big( e^{itH_R^{\rm loc}} A e^{-itH_R^{\rm loc}} \big)=\tau^{S_n}_t\big( A(t) \big)$$ where $\tau^{S}_t:={\rm Ad}(e^{itH_S}e^{-itH_S^{\rm loc}})$ so as $A(t)\in\al B._R$, it suffices to show that the sequence $\{\tau^{S_n}_t(A)\}_{n\in\N}$ is Cauchy for all $A\in\al B._R$.
Fix $S\in\cl S.$, consider the strong operator continuous map $U_S:\R\times\R\to\cl U.(\cl H.)$ given by $$U_S(t,s):=e^{itH_S^{\rm loc}}e^{i(s-t)H_S}e^{-isH_S^{\rm loc}}$$ and note that $U_S(t,t)=\un$, $U_S(t,s)^*=U_S(s,t)$ and $\tau^{S}_t(A)=U_S(0,t)AU_S(t,0)$. As $H_S$ and $H_S^{\rm loc}$ differ by a bounded operator, they have the same domain $\cl D.$ and this domain is preserved by both unitary groups $e^{itH_S}$ and $e^{itH_S^{\rm loc}}$, hence by $U_S(t,s)$ and so for $\psi\in\cl D.$ we have $$\frac{d}{dt}U_S(t,s)\psi=ie^{itH_S^{\rm loc}}( H_S^{\rm loc}- H_S )e^{i(s-t)H_S}e^{-isH_S^{\rm loc}}\psi
=-iH_S^{\rm int}(t)U_S(t,s)\psi$$ where $H_S^{\rm int}(t):=e^{itH_S^{\rm loc}}H_S^{\rm int}e^{-itH_S^{\rm loc}}$. Likewise, for $\psi\in\cl D.$ we have $$\frac{d}{ds}U_S(t,s)\psi=iU_S(t,s)H_S^{\rm int}(s)\psi.$$ Now by Lemma \[Lemma1\] in the Appendix, we conclude that these relations hold on all of $\cl H.$. Let $R\subset S_n\subset S_m$ (hence $n<m$) then by the fundamental theorem of calculus $$\tau^{S_m}_t(A)-\tau^{S_n}_t(A)=\int_0^t\frac{d}{ds}\Big(U_{S_m}(0,s)U_{S_n}(s,t)A\,U_{S_n}(t,s)U_{S_m}(s,0)\Big)\,ds$$ where the differential and integral is w.r.t. the strong operator topology. The integrand is for any $\psi\in\cl H.$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\frac{d}{ds}\,U_{S_m}(0,s)U_{S_n}(s,t)A\,U_{S_n}(t,s)U_{S_m}(s,0)\psi\\[1mm]
&=&iU_{S_m}(0,s)\Big[(H_{S_m}^{\rm int}(s)-H_{S_n}^{\rm int}(s)), U_{S_n}(s,t)A\,U_{S_n}(t,s)\Big]U_{S_m}(s,0)\psi\\[1mm]
&=&iU_{S_m}(0,s)e^{isH_{S_n}^{\rm loc}}\Big[{N}(s), \alpha^{S_n}_{s-t}(A(t))\Big]e^{-isH_{S_n}^{\rm loc}}U_{S_m}(s,0)\psi
\qquad\hbox{where}\\[3mm]
{N}(s)&:=&e^{-isH_{S_n}^{\rm loc}}(H_{S_m}^{\rm int}(s)-H_{S_n}^{\rm int}(s))e^{isH_{S_n}^{\rm loc}}
=e^{isH_{S_m\backslash S_n}^{\rm loc}} H_{S_m}^{\rm int}e^{-isH_{S_m\backslash S_n}^{\rm loc}} -H_{S_n}^{\rm int}\\[1mm]
&=&{\rm Ad}\Big(e^{isH_{S_m\backslash S_n}^{\rm loc}} \Big)\Big(\sum_{p \in \Lambda^2_{S_m}
\backslash \Lambda^2_{S_n}}\widetilde{W}(p) + \sum_{\ell \in \Lambda^1_{S_m}\backslash \Lambda^1_{S_n}}B(\ell)\Big)\\[2mm]
&=&{\rm Ad}\Big(e^{isH_{S_m\backslash S_n}^{\rm loc}} \Big)\Big(\sum_{q \in \Lambda^i_{S_m}
\backslash \Lambda^i_{S_n}}\Psi(q)\Big)
\qquad\qquad\hbox{and}\\[2mm]
A(t)&=& e^{itH_R^{\rm loc}} A e^{-itH_R^{\rm loc}}=e^{itH_{S_n}^{\rm loc}} A e^{-itH_{S_n}^{\rm loc}}\end{aligned}$$ where the last sum is over $\Lambda^i_{S_m}\backslash \Lambda^i_{S_n}:=\Lambda^1_{S_m}\backslash \Lambda^1_{S_n}
\cup\Lambda^2_{S_m}\backslash \Lambda^2_{S_n}$ and $\Psi(p):=\widetilde{W}(p)$ for plaquette $p$, and $\Psi(\ell):=B(\ell)$ for a link $\ell$. Then $\|\Psi\|:=\max\{\|{\widetilde}{W}\|,\|B\|\}\geq\|\Psi(q)\|$ for all $q$.
The support of ${N}(s)$ is contained in $S_m\backslash(S_n)_0$ which is defined as the set of all the lattice points in $S_m$ (and links between them) obtained from either links in $\Lambda^1_{S_m}\backslash \Lambda^1_{S_n}$ or plaquettes in $\Lambda^2_{S_m}\backslash \Lambda^2_{S_n}$. Now ${N}(s)$ is a sum of terms with support in $q \in \Lambda^i_{S_m}
\backslash \Lambda^i_{S_n}$, and only those for which $q$ has a point in $S_n$ will have nonzero commutant with $\al B._{S_n} $. Thus for $B\in \al B._{S_n}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
[N(s),B]&=& [{\widetilde}{N}(s),B]\qquad\hbox{where}\nonumber\\[1mm]
\label{primesum}
{\widetilde}{N}(s) & := &
{\rm Ad}\Big(e^{isH_{S_m\backslash S_n}^{\rm loc}} \Big)\Big(\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q \in \Delta_{S_m}(
S_n)}\Psi(q)\Big)\qquad\hbox{and}\\[1mm]
\label{bdry}
\Delta_{T}(R)&:=&\{Z\subset T\,\big|\,Z\cap R\not=\emptyset\not=Z\cap(T\backslash R)\},\end{aligned}$$ and the prime on the sum indicates that it is restricted by requiring $q$ to be a link or plaquette.
Thus, using Lemma \[Lemma2\] in the Appendix, and the fact that $\cl H.$ is separable, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\big\|\tau^{S_m}_t(A)-\tau^{S_n}_t(A)\| &\leq & \int_{t-}^{t^+}\Big\|\Big[{N}(s), \alpha^{S_n}_{s-t}(A(t))\Big]\Big\|\,ds\nonumber\\[2mm]
\label{ComIneq}
&=& \int_{t-}^{t^+}\Big\|\Big[{\widetilde}{N}(s), \alpha^{S_n}_{s-t}(A(t))\Big]\Big\|\,ds\end{aligned}$$ where $t^-={\rm min}\{0,t\}$ and $t^+={\rm max}\{0,t\}$, using the fact that $\alpha^{S_n}_{s-t}(A(t))\in \al B._{S_n}$. We will now estimate $\big\|\big[{\widetilde}{N}(s), \alpha^{S_n}_{s-t}(A(t))\big]\big\|$ (a method known as Lieb-Robinson bounds).
We first define the auxiliary function $$f(t):= \big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}(\beta_{-t}(A))\big]\in \al B._{S_m},$$ where $\beta_t:={\rm Ad}(e^{it(H_{S_n}^{\rm loc}+H_R^{\rm int})})$, $A\in \al B._R$, $R\subset S_n$, and $D$ is any bounded operator with support in $S_m\backslash(S_n)_0$ (we have ${\widetilde}{N}(s)$ in mind). Then $\|f(0\|\leq 2\|A\|\|D\|\delta^{S_n}_R$ where $\delta^{S_n}_R=0$ if $R\cap S_m\backslash(S_n)_0=\emptyset$ (hence $\big[D, A\big]=0$) and one otherwise.
We claim that $\beta_t$ preserves $\al B._R$. To see this, note that both $\alpha^{\rm loc}_{S_n}(t):={\rm Ad}(e^{itH_{S_n}^{\rm loc}})$ and $\alpha^{\rm int}_{R}(t):={\rm Ad}(e^{itH_R^{\rm int}})$ preserve $\al B._R$, hence restrict to $\al K.(\al H._R)\subset \al B._R=\al B.(\al H._R)$. Then for these restrictions $\alpha^{\rm loc}_{S_n}$ is a $C_0$-group (i.e. strongly continuous), and $\alpha^{\rm int}_{R}$ is uniformly continuous (with bounded generator). Then the sum of the generators of these two groups is again a generator of a $C_0$-group on $\al K.(\al H._R)$ by Theorem 3.1.33 in [@BR1], and this $C_0$-group extends uniquely to an automorphic action of $\R$ on $M(\al K.(\al H._R))$. However the sum of the generators of the two groups on $\al K.(\al H._R)$ coincides with the generator of the W\*-action $\beta_t$, hence $\beta_t$ preserves $\al B._R$.
Now $\alpha^{S_n}_{t}\circ\beta_{-t}={\rm Ad}\big(V(t,-t)\big)$ where $V(s,t):=\exp{(isH_{S_n})}\exp{(it(H_{S_n}^{\rm loc}+H_R^{\rm int}))}$. As $V(s,t)$ is strong operator continuous in $s,\,t$ and both $H_{S_n}$ and $(H_{S_n}^{\rm loc}+H_R^{\rm int})$ have the same domain, which is preserved by these unitaries, it follows from strong differentiation on the domain and Lemma \[Lemma1\] in Appendix, that for all $\psi\in\cl H.$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}V(t,-t)\psi&=&ie^{itH_{S_n}}(H_{S_n}^{\rm int}-H_{R}^{\rm int})e^{-it(H_{S_n}^{\rm loc}+H_R^{\rm int})}\psi
=i(H_{S_n}^{\rm int}-H_{R}^{\rm int})(t)\,V(t,-t)\psi.
\\[2mm]
\hbox{Thus:}\qquad&&\\[2mm]
\frac{d}{dt}f(t)\psi&=&i\Big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}(\big[(H_{S_n}^{\rm int}-H_{R}^{\rm int}),\,\beta_{-t}(A)\big])\Big]\psi\\[2mm]
&=&i\Big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}\Big(\big[\sum_{q \in \Lambda^i_{S_n}
\backslash \Lambda^i_{R}}\Psi(q),
\,\beta_{-t}(A)\big]\Big)\Big]\psi\\[2mm]
&=&i\Big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}\Big(\big[\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q\in \Delta_{S_n}(R)} \Psi(q),
\,\beta_{-t}(A)\big]\Big)\Big]\psi\end{aligned}$$ where we used $\beta_{-t}(A)\in \al B._R$ in the third step. Next, we define $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde}{H}_{R}^{\rm int}&:=&\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q\in \Delta_{S_n}(R)} \Psi(q),\quad\hbox{then}\\[2mm]
\frac{d}{dt}V(t,-t)\psi &=&i\Big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}(\big[{\widetilde}{H}_{R}^{\rm int},
\,\beta_{-t}(A)\big])\Big]\psi\\[2mm]
&=&i\big[\alpha^{S_n}_{t}({\widetilde}{H}_{R}^{\rm int}),f(t)\big]\psi
-i\Big[ \alpha^{S_n}_{t}(\beta_{-t}(A)),\big[ D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}({\widetilde}{H}_{R}^{\rm int}) \big]\Big]\psi.\end{aligned}$$ As the first term is a commutator with a bounded operator, it is a bounded linear map on $\al B._{S_m}$, hence by Lemma \[Lemma3\] in the appendix we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|f(t\|&\leq&\|f(0)\|+2\|A\|\int_{t^-}^{t^+}\left\| \big[ D, \alpha^{S_n}_{r}({\widetilde}{H}_{R}^{\rm int}) \big] \right\|\,dr,
\\[2mm]
\frac{\big\|\big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}(\beta_{-t}(A))\big]\big\|}{2\|A\|} &\leq &\|D\|\delta^{S_n}_R +
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q\in\Delta_{S_n}(R)} \int_{t^-}^{t^+}\left\| \big[ D, \alpha^{S_n}_{r}(\Psi(q)) \big] \right\|\,dr.
$$ As $\beta_t:={\rm Ad}(e^{it(H_{S_n}^{\rm loc}+H_R^{\rm int})})$ preserves $\al B._R$, we can replace $A$ by $\beta_t(A)$ to get the estimate $$\label{CommToIterate}
\frac{\big\|\big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}(A)\big]\big\|}{2\|A\|} \leq \|D\|\delta^{S_n}_R+
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q\in\Delta_{S_n}(R)} \int_{t^-}^{t^+}\left\| \big[ D, \alpha^{S_n}_{r}(\Psi(q)) \big] \right\|\,dr\,.
$$ If $\delta^{S_n}_R=0$, this inequality is potentially better than the naive inequality $$\big\|\big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}(A)\big]\big\|\leq 2\|A\|\|D\|$$ which will be the case below when we let $S_n$ become large. The inequality $(\ref{CommToIterate})$ can now be iterated as $\Psi(q)\in \al B._{q}$. If we substitute $\Psi(q)$ for $A$ in $(\ref{CommToIterate})$ we get $$\frac{\big\|\big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}(\Psi(q))\big]\big\|}{2\|\Psi\|} \leq
\|D\|\delta^{S_n}_{q} +
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}\limits_{q'\in\Delta_{S_n}(q)}
\int_{t^-}^{t^+}\left\| \big[ D, \alpha^{S_n}_{r}(\Psi(q')) \big] \right\|\,dr.$$ Substitution of this into the integrand of $(\ref{CommToIterate})$ and iterating produces: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\big\|\big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}(A)\big]\big\|}{2\|A\|} &\leq &\|D\|\delta^{S_n}_R+
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q\in\Delta_{S_n}(R)}2\|D\|\|\Psi\|\delta^{S_n}_{q} \int_{t^-}^{t^+}1\,dr\\[1mm]
+\;2\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q\in\Delta_{S_n}(R)}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q'\in\Delta_{S_n}(q)}
\|\Psi\|\int_{t^-}^{t^+}\int_{r^-}^{r^+}\left\| \big[ D, \alpha^{S_n}_{r'}(\Psi(q')) \big] \right\|\,dr'\,dr\\[1mm]
&\leq&\|D\|\Big(\delta^{S_n}_R+2\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q\in\Delta_{S_n}(R)}
\|\Psi\|\delta^{S_n}_{q} |t|\\[1mm]
&&\qquad\qquad+\;4\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q\in\Delta_{S_n}(R)}
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q'\in\Delta_{S_n}(q)}
\|\Psi\|^2\delta^{S_n}_{q'} |t|^2/2\Big)\\[1mm]
+\;4\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q\in\Delta_{S_n}(R)}\;\,
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q'\in\Delta_{S_n}(q)}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q'' \in \Delta_{S_n}(q')}
\|\Psi\|^2\int_{t^-}^{t^+}\int_{r_1^-}^{r_1^+}\int_{r_2^-}^{r_2^+}
\left\| \big[ D, \alpha^{S_n}_{r_3}(\Psi(q'')) \big] \right\|\,dr_3\,dr_2\,dr_1\,.\end{aligned}$$ At the $N^{\rm th}$ iteration we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\big\|\big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}(A)\big]\big\|}{2\|A\|} &\leq &
\|D\|\Big(\delta^{S_n}_R+\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{k=1}^N\frac{(2\|\Psi\||t|)^k}{k!}a_k\Big)
+R_N\\[1mm]
\hbox{where}\qquad a_k := \mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q_1\in\Delta_{S_n}(R)} &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q_2 \in\Delta_{S_n}(q_1)}\cdots
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q_k \in\Delta_{S_n}(q_{k-1})}
\delta^{S_n}_{q_k} \\[1mm]
R_N:=2^N\|\Psi\|^N\!\!\!\!\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q_1\in\Delta_{S_n}(R)}
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q_2 \in\Delta_{S_n}(q_1)}
\!\!\!\!\!\!&\cdots&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q_{N+1} \in\Delta_{S_n}(q_N) } \\[1mm]
\times &&
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\int_{t^-}^{t^+}\int_{r_1^-}^{r_1^+}\!\!\!\!\cdots\!\!\int_{r^-_{N-1}}^{r_{N-1}^+}
\left\| \big[ D, \alpha^{S_n}_{r_{N+1}}(\Psi(q_{N+1})) \big] \right\|\,dr_{N+1}\!\!\cdots dr_1\,.\end{aligned}$$ To prove that the iteration converges, we need to estimate the remainder term. The integral is bounded by $ 2\|\Psi\|\,\|D\| |t|^{N+1}/(N+1)!$ so we concentrate on counting the number of terms in the sums.
Let $S_n$ be the lattice cube with corner vertices $(\pm n,\pm n,\pm n)$ and $R=S_d$ for $d$ fixed, then for $d<n$ we have that as a link $\ell \in \Delta_{S_n}(R)$ must have one point in $R$ and one point outside, the pairs of endpoints of these links are uniquely specified by the points in $S_n\backslash S_d$ with one nearest neighbour in $S_d$. For each of the six faces of $R=S_d$ there are $(2d+1)^2$ such points, hence $$|\Delta_{S_n}(R)\cap\Lambda^1|=6(2d+1)^2,$$ where we ignored the fact that links have two possible orientations, because $\Lambda^1$ only contains one orientation for each link. (We used the notation $|Z|$ for the cardinality of a set $Z$).
To estimate the number of plaquettes $p\in \Delta_{S_n}(R)$, note that as at least one side of a $p\in \Delta_{S_n}(R)$ must be a link $\ell \in \Delta_{S_n}(R)$, and given a link, there are 4 possible plaquettes it can belong to, we get $$|\Delta_{S_n}(R)\cap\Lambda^2|\leq 4\times|\Delta_{S_n}(R)\cap\Lambda^1|= 24(2d+1)^2.$$ We therefore have the estimate $$\label{sumest}
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q \in \Delta_{S_n}(R)}1
\leq 30(2d+1)^2.$$ Next we want to estimate the size of $\Delta_{S_n}(q)\cap(\Lambda^1\cup\Lambda^2)$. If $q$ is a link, then there are 10 links in $\Delta_{S_n}(q)\cap\Lambda^1$ for $n$ large enough, and 20 plaquettes in $\Delta_{S_n}(q)\cap\Lambda^2$ (4 for which $q$ is a side, and 16 for which the plaquette has only one vertex in common with $q$). If $q$ is a plaquette, then there are 16 links in $\Delta_{S_n}(q)\cap\Lambda^1$ for $n$ large enough, and 32 plaquettes in $\Delta_{S_n}(q)\cap\Lambda^2$ (8 in the plane of $q$, and 24 perpendicular to the plane of $q$). Thus the number of terms in $\Delta_{S_n}(q)$ is less than or equal to the maximum of 30 and 48, i.e. 48. Thus we have $$\|R_N\|\leq 30(2d+1)^2 (48)^N
\|D\|( 2\|\Psi\| |t|)^{N+1}/(N+1)!$$ and it is clear for a fixed $t$ that this converges to $0$ as $N\to\infty$. We conclude that the iteration converges. Thus $$\label{iterarg}
\frac{\big\|\big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}(A)\big]\big\|}{2\|A\|} \leq
\|D\|\Big(\delta^{S_n}_R+\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{(2\|\Psi\||t|)^k}{k!}a_k\Big).$$ Next, we want to estimate the coefficients $a_k$. Assuming as above that $S_n$ is the lattice cube with corner vertices $(\pm n,\pm n,\pm n)$ and $R=S_d$ for $d$ fixed, then using the estimates above, we have $$a_1=\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q \in \Delta_{S_n}(R)} \delta^{S_n}_{q}
\leq 30(2d+1)^2.$$ Recalling that $\delta^{S_n}_R=0$ if $R\cap S_m\backslash(S_n)_0=\emptyset$, if we keep $R$ fixed and let $n$ become large, then $a_1=0$. We can also use the estimates above for $$a_k = \mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q_1 \in \Delta_{S_n}(R)}
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q_2 \in \Delta_{S_n}(q_1)} \cdots
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q_k \in \Delta_{S_n}(q_{k-1}) }
\delta^{S_n}_{q_k}
$$ Note that the sequence $$(q_1,q_2,\ldots,q_k)\quad\hbox{with}\quad q_i \in \Delta_{S_n}(q_{i-1})$$ specifies a continuous path where the steps are either links or plaquettes, starting from a $q_1\in \Delta_{S_n}(R)$ which has a point in $R$. As $\Delta_{S_n}(S_r)\cap(\Lambda^1\cup\Lambda^2)\subset S_{r+1}$ and $\delta^{S_n}_{S_r}=0$ if $r<n-2$ we conclude that $\delta^{S_n}_{q_k}=0$ whenever $k<n-d-2$. Thus $$a_k = \mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q_1 \in \Delta_{S_n}(R)}
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q_2 \in \Delta_{S_n}(q_1)} \cdots
\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q_k \in \Delta_{S_n}(q_{k-1}) }
\delta^{S_n}_{q_k}
\leq 30(2d+1)^2(48)^{k-1}\qquad\hbox{if}\quad k\geq n-d-2,$$ and $a_k=0$ otherwise. A substitution into (\[iterarg\]) produces: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\frac{\big\|\big[D, \alpha^{S_n}_{t}(A)\big]\big\|}{2\|A\|} \leq
\|D\|\Big(\delta^{S_n}_{S_d}+\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{(2\|\Psi\||t|)^k}{k!}a_k\Big)\nonumber \\[1mm]
&\leq& \|D\|\Big(\delta^{S_n}_{S_d}+\sum_{k=n-d-2}^\infty\frac{(2\|\Psi\||t|)^k}{k!}
30(2d+1)^2(48)^{k-1}\Big) \nonumber \\[1mm]
\label{newLRs}
&=&\|D\|(2d+1)^2\sum_{k=n-d-2}^\infty\frac{5(96\|\Psi\||t|)^k}{8(k!)}
\qquad\hbox{if $n>d+4$.}
\end{aligned}$$ In order to estimate the integrand in (\[ComIneq\]), we make the substitutions into Eq. (\[newLRs\]) $$D\rightarrow {\widetilde}{N}(s)={\rm Ad}\Big(e^{isH_{S_m\backslash S_n}^{\rm loc}} \Big)\Big(\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q \in \Delta_{S_m}(
S_n)}\Psi(q)\Big),\qquad A\rightarrow A(t),\qquad t\rightarrow s-t,$$ where $s\in[t_-,t_+]$. Then we obtain $$\|{\widetilde}{N}(s)\|=\Big\|\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q \in \Delta_{S_m}(
S_n)}\Psi(q)\Big\|\leq\|\Psi\|\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q \in \Delta_{S_m}(
S_n)}1\leq \|\Psi\|30(2n+1)^2$$ by the estimates above. As it is obvious that $\|A(t)\|=\|A\|$ and $|s-t|\leq|t|$, we obtain from Eq. (\[newLRs\]) that if $n>d+4$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\big\|\big[{\widetilde}{N}(s), \alpha^{S_n}_{s-t}(A(t))\big]\big\| &\leq&
2\|{\widetilde}{N}(s)\|\|A\|(2d+1)^2\sum_{k=n-d-2}^\infty
\frac{5(96\|\Psi\||t|)^k}{8(k!)}\\[1mm]
&\leq& 2\|A\|\|\Psi\|30(2n+1)^2(2d+1)^2\sum_{k=n-d-2}^\infty
\frac{5(96\|\Psi\||t|)^k}{8(k!)}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Substitution of this into (\[ComIneq\])gives for $n>d+4$:\
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{NewCsumIneq}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\big\|\tau^{S_m}_t(A)-\tau^{S_n}_t(A)\|\nonumber\\[1mm]
&\leq&60\|A\|\|\Psi\|(2d+1)^2(2n+1)^2
\int_{t-}^{t^+}\sum_{k=n-d-2}^\infty\frac{5(96\|\Psi\||t|)^k}{8(k!)}\,ds\nonumber\\[1mm]
&=&\frac{75}{2}\|A\|\|\Psi\||t|(2d+1)^2(2n+1)^2\sum_{k=n-d-2}^\infty
\frac{(96\|\Psi\||t|)^{k}}{k!}\nonumber\\[1mm]
&\leq&\frac{75}{192}\|A\|(2d+1)^2(2n+1)^2
\frac{(96\|\Psi\||t|)^{n-d-1}}{(n-d-2)!}\exp\big(96\|\Psi\||t|\big)\,.\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that this converges to zero as $n\to\infty$ for any $t$. Furthermore, by first taking the limit $m\to\infty$, the estimate in (\[NewCsumIneq\]) also shows that the limit in $n$ is uniform for $t\in[-T,T]$ for a fixed $T$. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[GlobDynExist\].\
\[alphadiscont\] With notation as above, we have for some $A\in\al A._{\rm max}$ that $t\mapsto\alpha_t(A)$ is not norm continuous, i.e. $\alpha$ is not strongly continuous on $\al A._{\rm max}$.
Assume the contrary, i.e. that $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}(\al A._{\rm max})$ is strongly continuous. Then it has a densely defined generator on $\al A._{\rm max}$, which we can perturb by a bounded generator $B$ to obtain a new strongly continuous action $\alpha^B:\R\to{\rm Aut}(\al A._{\rm max})$. Fix $S\in\cl S.$ as a large enough lattice cube and recall that $H_S= H_S^{\rm loc}+H_S^{\rm int}$ where $H_S^{\rm int}\in \al B._S\subset\al A._{\rm max}. $ Let the bounded perturbation $B$ then be $$B(A):=i[-H_S^{\rm int},A],\quad A \in \al A._{\rm max}.$$ Fix a strictly increasing sequence $\{S_n\}_{n\in\N}\subset\cl S.$ such that ${S_n\nearrow\Z^3}$ as $n\to\infty$, and $S\subseteq S_1$, and recall that $\alpha_t(A)=\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}\alpha^{S_n}_t(A)$. It suffices to prove that $\alpha_t^B(A)=\lim\limits_{n\to \infty}\alpha^{S_n,B}_t(A)$ where $\alpha^{S_n,B}_t:={\rm Ad}(\exp(it(H_{S_n}-H_S^{\rm int})))$. This is because on any subset $Z\subset S$ which cannot be reached by a link or plaquette with a point on the boundary of $S$, we have that $\alpha^{S_n,B}_t$ (hence $\alpha_t^B$) coincides with the free time evolution ${\rm Ad}(\exp(itH_Z^{\rm loc}))$. As the free time evolution preserves $\al B._Z\subset\al A._{\rm max}$ and is not strongly continuous on it, this contradicts with the strong continuity of $\alpha_t^B$. Recall the Dyson series for bounded perturbations (cf. [@BR1 Theorem 3.1.33]): $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\alpha_t^B(A)=\alpha_t(A)+\\
&&\!\!\!\!\sum_{n=1}^\infty (-i)^n\int_0^t dt_1\int_0^{t_1}dt_2\cdots\int_0^{t_{n-1}}dt_n\big[
\alpha_{t_n}(H_S^{\rm int}),\big[\alpha_{t_{n-1}}(H_S^{\rm int}),\ldots[\alpha_{t_1}(H_S^{\rm int}),\alpha_t(A)]\ldots\big]\big].\end{aligned}$$ Now each multiple commutator in the integrands $$\big[
\alpha_{t_n}(H_S^{\rm int}),\big[\alpha_{t_{n-1}}(H_S^{\rm int}),\ldots[\alpha_{t_1}(H_S^{\rm int}),\alpha_t(A)]\ldots\big]\big]$$ can be replaced by the norm limit $$\lim_{k\to \infty}\big[\alpha^{S_k}_{t_n}(H_S^{\rm int}),\ldots[\alpha^{S_k}_{t_1}(H_S^{\rm int}),\alpha^{S_k}_t(A)]\ldots\big]$$ and as these norm limits are uniform on compact intervals in the time parameters, the limits can be taken through the (weak operator convergent) integrals to produce: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_t^B(A)
&=&\lim_{k\to \infty}\Big\{\alpha^{S_k}_t(A)+\\
\sum_{n=1}^\infty\!\!\!\!\! &(-i)^n&\!\!\!\!\!\int_0^t dt_1\cdots\int_0^{t_{n-1}}dt_n
\big[\alpha^{S_k}_{t_n}(H_S^{\rm int}),\ldots[\alpha^{S_k}_{t_1}(H_S^{\rm int}),\alpha^{S_k}_t(A)]\ldots\big]\Big\}\\[2mm]
&=&\lim_{k\to \infty}\alpha^{S_k,B}_t(A)\end{aligned}$$ as required.
Kinematics algebras and regular representations. {#KARR}
------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we will define our new kinematics algebra, show its relation to the kinematics field algebra we previously constructed in [@GrRu], and consider the class of regular states and representations.
Having obtained the time evolution $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}(\al A._{\rm max})$, we can now define our kinematics algebra as $${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}:=C^*\Big( \bigcup_{S\in\al S.}\alpha_{\R}({\mathfrak A}_S ) \Big)
\subset\cl A._{\rm max} \subset\cl B.(\cl H.).$$ which is the minimal C\*-algebra which contains all the local field algebras, and is preserved by the dynamics. Note that $\alpha$ does not preserve the local algebras. For the full field algebra, one should take a crossed product w.r.t. the actions of desirable transformations, such as gauge transformations (see below). First, we want to show that the dynamics group $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$ is in fact strongly continuous on ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$.
\[GlobDynCont\] With notation as above, we have for all $A\in {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ that $t\mapsto\alpha_t(A)$ is norm continuous, i.e. $\alpha$ is strongly continuous on ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$.
It suffices to prove continuity of $t\mapsto\alpha_t(A)$ for $A\in{\mathfrak A}_R$ and $R\in\al S.$ arbitrary. Fix an $A\in{\mathfrak A}_R$, then $$\|\alpha_t(A)-A\|\leq\|\alpha_t(A)-\alpha^S_t(A)\|+\|\alpha^S_t(A)-A\|$$ for any $S$. Fix a $\varepsilon>0$, then by Theorem \[GlobDynExist\] there is an $S\in\al S.$ such that ${\|\alpha_t(A)-\alpha^S_t(A)\|}<\varepsilon/2$ for all $t\in[-1,1]$, and it also holds for all larger $S$. Fix such an $S$ such that $S\supset R$, and assume that $t\mapsto\alpha_t^S(A)$ is norm continuous (this will be proven below). So $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\alpha_t^S(A)=A$, hence there is a $\delta>0$ such that $\|\alpha^S_t(A)-A\|<\varepsilon/2$ for all $t\in[-\delta,\delta]$. Thus if $|t|<\min\{1,\delta\}$, we get that $\|\alpha_t(A)-A\|\leq\varepsilon$, i.e. $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\alpha_t(A)=A$ as required.
It remains to prove that $t\mapsto\alpha_t^S(A)$ is norm continuous for $A\in{\mathfrak A}_R$, $R\subset S$ (note that $\alpha_t^S$ need not preserve ${\mathfrak A}_R$). Let $\tau^{S}_t:={\rm Ad}(e^{itH_S}e^{-itH_S^{\rm loc}})$, then $$\alpha^{S}_t(A)=\tau^{S}_t\big( e^{itH_{S}^{\rm loc}} A e^{-itH_{S}^{\rm loc}} \big)
=\tau^{S}_t\big( e^{itH_R^{\rm loc}} A e^{-itH_R^{\rm loc}} \big) $$ hence it suffices to show that the maps $t\mapsto\tau^{S}_t(B)$ and $t\mapsto{\rm Ad}\big(e^{itH_R^{\rm loc}}\big)(A)=:A(t)$ are both norm continuous for $A,\, B\in{\mathfrak A}_R$. For the map $t\mapsto A(t)$, recall that $$e^{itH_R^{\rm loc}}=U^{\rm CAR}_R(t)\otimes
\bigotimes_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_R}U_\ell(t)\otimes\bigotimes\limits_{\ell'\not\in\Lambda^1_R}{\mathbf{1}}$$ where $U^{\rm CAR}_R(t)=\exp\big(itma^3 \sum\limits_{x \in \Lambda^0_R} \bar \psi_i (x) \psi_i(x)\big)\in{\mathfrak F}_{R}$ and $U_\ell(t):=\exp(it\overline{E_{ij}(\ell) E_{ji}(\ell)})$. As the generator of $U^{\rm CAR}_R(t)$ is bounded, $t\mapsto U^{\rm CAR}_R(t)$ is norm continuous. As $${\mathfrak A}_R ={\mathfrak F}_R \otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_R}\al L._\ell
\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_R}\un$$ where $\al L._\ell:=C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G$ acts on the factor $\al H._\ell$ of $\al H._\infty$ as the algebra of compacts $\al K.(\al H._\ell)$ and $t\mapsto U_\ell(t)KU_\ell(-t)$ is norm continuous for a compact operator $K\in\al K.(\al H._\ell)$, it follows that the map $t\mapsto A(t)$ is norm continuous.
Finally, as $t\mapsto\alpha^{S}_t\in{\rm Aut}(\al B._S)$ is a bounded perturbation of the weak operator continuous one–parameter automorphism group $t\mapsto{\rm Ad}\big(e^{itH_S^{\rm loc}}\big)$ on $\al B._S\supset{\mathfrak A}_R$, we may express its cocycle $\tau^{S}_t={\rm Ad}(e^{itH_S}e^{-itH_S^{\rm loc}})$ as a Dyson series: (cf. [@BR1 Theorem 3.1.33]): $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\tau^{S}_t(B)=B+\\[1mm]
&&\!\!\!\!\sum_{n=1}^\infty i^n\int_0^t dt_1\int_0^{t_1}dt_2\cdots\int_0^{t_{n-1}}dt_n\big[
H_S^{\rm int}(t_n),\big[H_S^{\rm int}(t_{n-1}),\ldots[H_S^{\rm int}(t_1),B]\ldots\big]\big],\end{aligned}$$ where $H_S^{\rm int}(t):={\rm Ad}\big(e^{itH_S^{\rm loc}}\big)(H_S^{\rm int})$ and thus $\|H_S^{\rm int}(t)\|=\|H_S^{\rm int}\|<\infty$. Thus we obtain the estimate $$\big\|\tau^{S}_t(B)-\tau^{S}_{t'}(B)\big\|
\leq\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\big|t^n-(t')^n \big|}{n!}
2^n\|H_S^{\rm int}\|^n\|B\|\,.$$ It is clear that this convergent series approaches zero when $t\to t'$, hence also $t\mapsto\tau^{S}_t(B)$ is continuous, from which it follows that $t\mapsto\alpha_t^S(A)$ is norm continuous for $A\in{\mathfrak A}_R$, as required.
Thus ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is a convenient field algebra, in fact we can construct for it the crossed product for the time evolution, which is not possible for $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}(\al A._{\rm max})$.
Next we want to examine covariant representations for the automorphism group $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$, and consider the question of ground states. As the action $\alpha$ is a strongly continuous action of a locally compact group, it defines a C\*-dynamical system in the usual sense. Therefore we can construct its crossed product (cf. [@Ped]), and each representation of the crossed product produces a covariant representation for $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$. We therefore obtain a rich supply of covariant representations. However, for physics, the physically appropriate class of representations should be regular in the following sense:
A representation $\pi$ of ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is [**regular**]{} if its restriction to each local algebra ${\mathfrak A}_S$, $S\in \cl S.$, is nondegenerate (i.e. $\pi({\mathfrak A}_S)$ has no nonzero null spaces). A state is regular if its GNS representation is regular.
Note for a regular covariant representation $\pi$, that $\pi$ is also nondegenerate on all the time evolved local algebras $\alpha_t({\mathfrak A}_S )$.
The reasons why physical representations should be regular, are as follows. First, one requires that the local observables do not all have zero expectation values w.r.t. any (normalized) vector state in the representation, i.e. the local observables in the field algebra should be visible in any physically realizable state of the system. Second, observe that the local Hamiltonians $H_S$ in the defining representation have compact resolvents (see the next subsection below), hence ${(i\un-H_S)^{-1}}\in {\mathfrak A}_S$. Thus, if a representation $\pi$ of ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is degenerate on ${\mathfrak A}_S$, then ${\pi((i\un-H_S)^{-1})}$ has a nonzero kernel, hence it cannot be the resolvent of an operator (cf. Theorem 1 in [@Yos p 216]), thus the observable $H_S$ does not exist in this representation. Also observe, that this definition of regularity coincides with the one used in [@BuGr2; @GrN09].\
We now discuss the relation of the kinematics field algebra we constructed before in [@GrRu] with the kinematics field algebra ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ we constructed here. (For the full field algebras we need to add identities and construct crossed products w.r.t. gauge transformations and time evolutions). The reader in a hurry may omit the rest of this subsection.
The kinematics field algebra constructed in [@GrRu] is ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda} :=
{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda} \otimes {\cal L}[E]$ where ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$ is the Fermion algebra associated with $\Lambda$, and $ {\cal L}[E]$ is a new “infinite tensor product” of the algebra of compact operators. Concretely, ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is represented on $\al H.=\al H._{\rm Fock}\otimes\al H._\infty$ as a tensor product representation as follows. We let the Fermion algebra ${\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda}$ act in the Fock representation on $\al H._{\rm Fock}$. Next, to see how $ {\cal L}[E]$ acts on $\al H._\infty$, recall first that $\al H._\infty$ is the completion of the pre–Hilbert spanned by finite combinations of elementary tensors of the type $$\varphi_1\otimes\cdots\otimes \varphi_k\otimes\psi_0\otimes\psi_0\otimes\cdots,\quad\varphi_i\in \al H._i= L^2(G),\;
k\in\N\,.$$ Choose an increasing sequence of commuting finite dimensional projections $\{E_n\}_{n\in\N}\subset \cl K.\big(L^2(G)\big)
=\pi_0\big(C(G)\rtimes_\lambda G\big)$ which is an approximate identity for $\cl K.\big(L^2(G)\big)$ and with $\psi_0\in E_nL^2(G)$ for all $n$. (By [@GrRu] there exists a choice of $\{E_n\}_{n\in\N}$ which is invariant w.r.t. a certain action of $G\times G$, but we will not insist on this point here.) Then elementary tensors of the form $$A_1\otimes A_2\otimes\cdots\otimes A_k\otimes E_{n_{k+1}}\otimes E_{n_{k+2}}\otimes\cdots,\qquad
A_i\in\cl B.(\al H._i),\; n_j\in\N$$ act entrywise on $\al H._\infty$ in a consistent way, so they define operators in $\cl B.(\al H._\infty)$. In particular $ {\cal L}[E]$ is the C\*-algebra generated by those elementary tensors where all $A_i\in\cl K.(\al H._i)$, and we now have represented ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ on $\al H.$. (In [@GrRu] we allowed the approximate identity $\{E_n\}_{n\in\N}$ to be different for different entries, but this generality is not needed).
For a finite connected subgraph $S\in\al S.$ of $(\Lambda^0, \Lambda^1)$, we obviously have the subalgebra ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_S:={\mathfrak F}_{S}\otimes{\cal L}_{S}[E]$ where ${\cal L}_{S}[E]$ is the C\*-algebra generated in $\cl B.(\al H._\infty)$ by those elementary tensors of the type $$\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}K_\ell\Big)\otimes
\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_S}E_\ell,\qquad K_\ell\in\cl K.(\cl H._\ell)$$ where $E_\ell$ denotes an element of $\{E_n\}_{n\in\N}$ placed in the position of the tensor product corresponding to the link $\ell$. As $\cl K.(\cl H._1)\otimes\cl K.(\cl H._2)=\cl K.(\cl H._1\otimes\cl H._2)$ we have in fact that ${\cal L}_{S}[E]$ is the closure of the space spanned by $$\big\{K\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_S}E_\ell\;\Big|\;K\in \cl K.(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\cl H._\ell),\; E_\ell\in \{E_n\}_{n\in\N}\big\}.$$ Thus by compactness of the projections $E_n$, we have ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_S\subset {\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_T$ if $S\subset T$. This should be contrasted with ${\mathfrak A}_S\subset M({\mathfrak A}_T)$ for the local algebras. Now $${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda} =\ilim{\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_S=\ilim\big({\mathfrak F}_{S}\otimes{\cal L}_{S}[E]\big).$$
Recall that for a finite connected subgraph $S\in\al S.$ of $(\Lambda^0, \Lambda^1)$, we defined $$\begin{aligned}
\al H._S&:=& [{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]\otimes[\al L._S\psi_0^\infty],\qquad\cl B._S:= \cl B.(\al H._S)\subset \cl B.(\al H.),\\[1mm]
\al A._{\rm max}&:=&\ilim \cl B._S = C^*\Big(\bigcup_{S\in\al S.} \cl B.(\al H._S) \Big),\end{aligned}$$ where an element of $\cl B.(\al H._S)$ acts as the identity on the factors $\al H._\ell$ of $\al H._\infty$ corresponding to $\ell\not\in S$. By Equation (\[BSisFB\]), we realized $\cl B._S$ on $\cl H.$ by $$\cl B._S
=\pi_{\rm Fock}({\mathfrak F}_{S})\otimes\cl B.\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\al H._\ell\Big)
\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_S}\un.$$ The spanning elementary tensors for ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ are all of the form $$A_F\otimes K_S\otimes K_Q\otimes E_{n_{k+1}}\otimes E_{n_{k+2}}\otimes\cdots,\qquad A_F\in\pi_{\rm Fock}({\mathfrak F}_{R}),$$ for $R=\{1,2,\ldots,k\}\supset S$, $ Q=R\backslash S $ and $K_\lambda\in
\cl K.\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_\lambda}\al H._\ell\Big)$ for $\lambda\in\{S,Q\}$. Thus the product of an elementary tensor in $\cl B._S$ with such a tensor can only change the first two factors, and will again produce an elementary tensor of this kind. As the action of $\cl B.(\cl H.)$ on $\cl K.(\cl H.)$ is nondegenerate, this implies that $\cl B._S$ is in the multiplier algebra of ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$. Thus for the C\*-algebra they generate we also have $\al A._{\rm max}\subset M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$. As the kinematics field algebra ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ we constructed here is contained in $\al A._{\rm max}$, we conclude that also ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\subset M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$. This implies that every representation of ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ extends uniquely (on the same space) to ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$, but not conversely. Every representation of ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ which is obtained from a nondegenerate representation of ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ in this manner is regular, which is the content of the next lemma:-
\[LemRegRep\] Given, in the notation above that ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\subset M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$, let $\pi$ be a nondegenerate representation of ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$, and let ${\widetilde}\pi$ be the unique extension of $\pi$ on the same Hilbert space to $M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$. Then ${\widetilde}\pi\restriction {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is regular. Likewise, if ${\widetilde}\omega$ is the unique extension of a state $\omega$ on ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ to a state on $M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$, then ${\widetilde}\omega\restriction {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is regular.
By Theorem A.2(vii) of [@GrN14], it suffices for the first part to show that ${\mathfrak A}_S\cdot{\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is strictly dense in ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ for all $S\in{\cal S}$. Recall from above that on $\cl H.$, we have ${\mathfrak A}_S={\mathfrak F}_{S}\otimes\al K.\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\al H._\ell\Big)
\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_S}\un$, and that ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is spanned by the elementary tensors $$A_F\otimes K_S\otimes K_Q\otimes E_{n_{k+1}}\otimes E_{n_{k+2}}\otimes\cdots,\qquad A_F\in\pi_{\rm Fock}({\mathfrak F}_{R}),$$ for $R=\{1,2,\ldots,k\}\supset S$, $ Q=R\backslash S $ and $K_\lambda\in
\cl K.\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_\lambda}\al H._\ell\Big)$ for $\lambda\in\{S,Q\}$. Let $\{Y_i\}_{i\in\N}\subset\al K.\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\al H._\ell\Big)$ be an approximate identity for $\al K.\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\al H._\ell\Big)$, then $\un_F\otimes Y_i\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_S}\un\in {\mathfrak A}_S$ where $\un_F$ is the identity of ${\mathfrak F}_{R}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\Big(\un_F\otimes Y_i\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_S}\un\Big)\Big(
A_F\otimes K_S\otimes K_Q\otimes E_{n_{k+1}}\otimes E_{n_{k+2}}\otimes\cdots\Big)\\[1mm]
\qquad\qquad =A_F\otimes Y_iK_S\otimes K_Q\otimes E_{n_{k+1}}\otimes E_{n_{k+2}}\otimes\cdots\qquad\qquad\qquad\\[1mm]
\qquad\qquad\qquad \longrightarrow A_F\otimes K_S\otimes K_Q\otimes E_{n_{k+1}}\otimes E_{n_{k+2}}\otimes\cdots
\qquad\hbox{as}\; i\to\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Thus ${\mathfrak A}_S\cdot{\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is dense in ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$, and as the strict topology is weaker than the norm topology, this implies strict density. As $S$ is arbitrary, this proves that ${\widetilde}\pi\restriction {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is regular.
If ${\widetilde}\omega$ is the unique extension of a state $\omega$ on ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ to a state on $M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$, then $\pi_{{\widetilde}\omega}$ is the unique extension of $\pi_\omega$ on the same Hilbert space to $M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$. This is because ${\widetilde}\omega$ is strictly continuous on $M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$, hence $\pi_{{\widetilde}\omega}:M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)\to\cl B.(\cl H._{{\widetilde}\omega})$ is strictly continuous w.r.t. the strong operator topology of $\cl B.(\cl H._{{\widetilde}\omega})$. By the strict density of ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ in $M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$ we get that $${[\pi_{{\widetilde}\omega}(M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big))\Omega_{{\widetilde}\omega}]}
={[\pi_{{\widetilde}\omega}({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})\Omega_{{\widetilde}\omega}]}
={[\pi_{\omega}({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})\Omega_{\omega}]}
=\cl H._\omega.$$ Then $\pi_{{\widetilde}\omega}$ is regular by the first part, hence ${\widetilde}\omega\restriction {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is regular.
By adapting the (lengthy) proof of Theorem 3.6 in [@GrN09], we can also prove the converse, i.e. that if a representation of ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is regular, then it is obtained from a nondegenerate representation of ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ by the unique extension to $M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$ on the same space. However, this will not be needed here.
Ground states for the global dynamics. {#PGDA}
--------------------------------------
Next we want to examine covariant representations for the automorphism group ${\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})}$. and consider the question of ground states. For physics, only covariant representations where the generator of time translations is positive is acceptable, and even more, for these representations ground states are needed. As $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$ is a continuous action of an amenable group, it certainly has invariant states, but the difficult parts are to prove regularity and the spectrum condition for such an invariant state, establishing it as a regular ground state. To construct a ground state and establish its properties, we will follow a familiar method from [@BuGr2].
First, we need to consider the local Hamiltonians in greater detail. As the restriction to $\cl H._S$ of the embedded copy of $\cl B._S=\cl B.(\cl H._S)\subset\cl A._{\rm max}$ is faithful, we will do the analysis on $$\cl H._S=
[{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]\otimes[\al L._S\psi_0^\infty]=
[{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}L^2(G)
\otimes\bigotimes\limits_{\ell'\not\in\Lambda^1_S}\psi_0\subset\cl H..$$ Separating the bounded and unbounded parts of $H_S$ on $\cl H._S$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
H_S&=& H_S^{(0)}+H_S^{\rm bound}\qquad\hbox{on}\qquad
[{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]\otimes{\widetilde}{\cl D.}_S\subset\cl H._S\subset
\cl H._{\rm Fock}\otimes\cl H._\infty\qquad\hbox{where:}\\[1mm]
H_S^{(0)} &:=& \tfrac{a}{2} \sum_{\ell \in \Lambda^1_S}
E_{ij}(\ell) E_{ji}(\ell),\qquad H_S^{\rm bound}\in\cl B.(\cl H._S)\qquad\hbox{and}\\[1mm]
{\widetilde}{\cl D.}_S&=&\bigotimes\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}C^\infty(G)\otimes\bigotimes\limits_{\ell'\not\in\Lambda^1_S}\psi_0.\end{aligned}$$ Now $H_S^{(0)}=\un\otimes R_S\otimes\un$ where $R_S$ is the group Laplacian for the compact Lie group $G_S:=\prod\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}G$ on $L^2(G_S)\cong\bigotimes\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}L^2(G)$. Thus by the theory of elliptic operators on compact Riemannian manifolds, we conclude that for $R_S$ its eigenvalues are isolated, and its eigenspaces are finite dimensional, cf. Theorem III.5.8 in [@LM89] and [@BH79]. Thus it has compact resolvent, i.e. $(i\un-R_S)^{-1}\in\al K.(L^2(G_S))$. As $ [{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]$ is finite dimensional, this is also true for $H_S^{(0)}$ on $ [{\mathfrak F}_{S}\Omega]\otimes{\widetilde}{\cl D.}_S\subset\cl H._S$, i.e. $\big(i\un-H_S^{(0)}\big)^{-1}\in\al K.(\cl H._S)$. Then $$(i\un-H_S)^{-1}=\big(i\un-H_S^{(0)}\big)^{-1}+ (i\un-H_S)^{-1} H_S^{\rm bound}\big(i\un-H_S^{(0)}\big)^{-1}\in\al K.(\cl H._S)$$ hence $H_S=H_S^{(0)}+H_S^{\rm bound}$ also has discrete spectrum with finite dimensional eigenspaces. As $ H_S^{(0)}$ is positive and unbounded, and $H_S^{\rm bound}$ is bounded, $H_S$ is bounded from below. Thus the lowest point in the spectrum of $H_S$ is an eigenvalue $\lambda_S^{\rm grnd}\in\R$ with finite dimensional eigenspace $\cl E._S\subset\cl H._S$. Fix a normalized eigenvector $\Omega_S\in\cl E._S\subset\cl H._S\subset\cl H.$. We conclude that the vector state $\omega_S(\cdot):={\big(\Omega_S,\,\cdot\,\Omega_S\big)}$ is a ground state for the local time evolution $\alpha^S:\R\to{\rm Aut}\big(\al A._{\rm max}\big)$ (and for its restriction to subalgebras such as ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$). In the original representation, $${\widetilde}{H}_S:=H_S-\un \lambda_S^{\rm grnd}$$ will be the positive Hamiltonian for $\alpha^S_t={\rm Ad}\big(\exp(it{\widetilde}{H}_S)\big)$ with smallest eigenvalue zero.
To construct a regular ground state for $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$ on ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$, we proceed as follows. Fix a strictly increasing sequence $\{S_n\}_{n\in\N}\subset\cl S.$ such that ${S_n\nearrow\Z^3}$ as $n\to\infty$. For each $n\in\N$ choose a state $\omega_n$ on $\cl B.(\cl H.)$ in the norm closed convex hull of vector states $$A\mapsto{\big(\Omega_{S_n},\, A\,\Omega_{S_n}\big)},\qquad A\in\cl B.(\cl H.), $$ where $\Omega_{S_n}\in\cl H._{S_n}$ ranges over the normalized vectors in the eigenspace $\cl E._{S_n}$ of $H_{S_n}$. This sequence $\{\omega_n\}_{n\in\N}$ need not converge, but by the Banach–Alaoglu theorem, the closed unit ball in $\cl B.(\cl H.)^*$ is compact in the weak \*–topology, hence the sequence $\{\omega_n\}_{n\in\N}$ has weak \*–limit points, and these limit points are states. From such weak \*–limit points we now want to show that we can obtain regular ground states on ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$. First we prove regularity.
\[RegSt\] In the context above, for the increasing sequence ${S_n\nearrow\Z^3}$ we fix $S_n$ to be the lattice cube with corner vertices $(\pm n,\pm n,\pm n)$, which produces the sequence $\{\omega_n\}_{n\in\N}$. Let $\omega_\infty$ be a weak \*–limit point of $\{\omega_n\}_{n\in\N}\subset\cl B.(\cl H.)^*$. Then the restriction of $\omega_\infty$ to ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\subset\cl B.(\cl H.)$ is regular.
We have to prove that $\pi^o_\infty({\mathfrak A}_S)$ is nondegenerate on $\al H.^o_\infty$ for all $S\in\al S.$, where ${(\pi^o_\infty,\Omega^o_\infty,\al H.^o_\infty)}$ denotes the GNS–data of $\omega_\infty\restriction{\mathfrak A}_\Lambda$.
First consider $\omega_\infty$ on all of $\cl B.(\cl H.)$ with GNS–data ${({\widetilde}\pi_\infty,{\widetilde}\Omega_\infty,{\widetilde}{\al H.}_\infty)}$. The GNS–data set of $\omega_\infty$ restricted to any subalgebra $\al A.\subset\cl B.(\cl H.)$ is just given by the subspace ${[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty(\al A.){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty]}\subset{\widetilde}{\al H.}_\infty$ with the action of ${\widetilde}\pi_\infty(\al A.)$ on it, with cyclic vector ${\widetilde}\Omega_\infty$. In particular, $\al H.^o_\infty$ is identified (i.e. unitarily equivalent) to $$[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty({\mathfrak A}_\Lambda){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty]
=\Big[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty\Big(C^*\Big( \bigcup_{S\in\al S.}\alpha_{\R}({\mathfrak A}_S )\Big)\Big){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty \Big].
$$ We will prove below that $\|\omega_\infty\restriction{\mathfrak A}_{S_n}\|=1$ for all $n$. Assuming this, then on each $M({\mathfrak A}_{S_n})$, $\omega_\infty$ is uniquely determined by its restriction to ${\mathfrak A}_{S_n}$ (cf. Prop. 2.11.7 in [@Dix]). Let ${(\pi_\infty^{S_n},\Omega_\infty^{S_n},\al H._\infty^{S_n})}$ denote the GNS–data of $\omega_\infty\restriction M({\mathfrak A}_{S_n})$, then this means that $\pi_\infty^{S_n}$ is strictly continuous w.r.t. the strong operator topology of $\cl B.(\al H._\infty^{S_n})$. Then, using the strict density of ${\mathfrak A}_{S_n}$ in $M({\mathfrak A}_{S_n})$, we obtain as in the proof of Lemma \[LemRegRep\] that $$\left[\pi_\infty^{S_n}\big(M({\mathfrak A}_{S_n})\big)\Omega_\infty^{S_n}\right]
=\left[\pi_\infty^{S_n}\big({\mathfrak A}_{S_n}\big)\Omega_\infty^{S_n}\right]=\al H._\infty^{S_n}.$$ In fact, using strict density of $C^*\Big( \bigcup\limits_{S\subseteq S_n}\alpha_{\R}^{S_n}({\mathfrak A}_S ) \Big)
\subseteq M({\mathfrak A}_{S_n})$, we have $$\Big[\pi_\infty^{S_n}\big(C^*\Big( \bigcup_{S\subseteq S_n}\alpha_{\R}^{S_n}({\mathfrak A}_S )
\Big)\big)\Omega_\infty^{S_n}\Big]
=\left[\pi_\infty^{S_n}\big({\mathfrak A}_{S_n}\big)\Omega_\infty^{S_n}\right]=\al H._\infty^{S_n}.$$ Using the identification above of $\al H._\infty^{S_n}$ with a subspace of ${\widetilde}{\al H.}_\infty$, this means that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pASnO}
\left[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty\big(M({\mathfrak A}_{S_n})\big){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty\right]
&=&
\Big[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty\big(C^*\Big( \bigcup_{S\subseteq S_n}\alpha_{\R}^{S_n}({\mathfrak A}_S )
\Big)\big){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty\Big] \nonumber \\[1mm]
\label{pASnO}
&=&\Big[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty\big({\mathfrak A}_{S_n}\big){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty\Big]=\al H._\infty^{S_n}
\subset{\widetilde}{\al H.}_\infty .\end{aligned}$$ Note that that if $n<m$ then $M({\mathfrak A}_{S_n})\subset M({\mathfrak A}_{S_m})$ hence equation (\[pASnO\]) implies that $$\Big[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty\big({\mathfrak A}_{S_n}\big){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty\Big]\subseteq
\Big[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty\big({\mathfrak A}_{S_m}\big){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty\Big].$$ Moreover, by Theorem \[GlobDynExist\] we have $\alpha_t(A)=\lim\limits_{S\nearrow\Z^3}\alpha^S_t(A)$ hence $\alpha_t(A)$ for $A\in {\mathfrak A}_\Lambda$ is in the norm closure of ${\bigcup\limits_{n\in\N} \bigcup\limits_{S\subseteq S_n}\alpha_{\R}^{S_n}({\mathfrak A}_S )}$ and so from (\[pASnO\]) we see $$\label{piALO}
\al H.^o_\infty=
[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty({\mathfrak A}_\Lambda){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty]
=\Big[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty\Big(C^*\Big( \bigcup_{S\in\al S.}\alpha_{\R}({\mathfrak A}_S )\Big)\Big){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty \Big]
=\Big[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty\Big(\bigcup_{n\in\N}{\mathfrak A}_{S_n} \Big){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty \Big].$$ Therefore, to prove for a fixed $S$ that $\pi^o_\infty({\mathfrak A}_S)$ is nondegenerate on $\al H.^o_\infty$, it suffices to prove that it is nondegenerate on each of the spaces ${\big[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty\big({\mathfrak A}_{S_n} \big){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty \big]}$ as they are increasing in $n$, and their union is dense in $\al H.^o_\infty$. Let $k\in \N$ be large enough so that $S\subset S_k$ then for all $n\geq k$ we have that ${\mathfrak A}_S\subset M({\mathfrak A}_{S_n})$ and as ${\mathfrak A}_S$ acts nondegenerately on ${\mathfrak A}_{S_n}$, we have for any approximate identity $\{e_\gamma\}_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\subset{\mathfrak A}_S$ that $\lim\limits_\gamma e_\gamma A=A$ for all $A\in {\mathfrak A}_{S_n}$. Thus $$\lim_\gamma\big({\widetilde}\pi_\infty(e_\gamma)-\un\big)\big[{\widetilde}\pi_\infty\big({\mathfrak A}_{S_n} \big){\widetilde}\Omega_\infty \big]
=0$$ for all $n\geq k$, hence on all of $\al H._\infty$. Thus $\pi^o_\infty({\mathfrak A}_S)$ is nondegenerate on $\al H.^o_\infty$ for all $S\in\al S.$, i.e. $\omega_\infty$ restricted to ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\subset\cl B.(\cl H.)$ is regular.
It remains to prove that $\|\omega_\infty\restriction{\mathfrak A}_{S_n}\|=1$ for all $n$. We will follow the proof of Lemma 7.3 in [@BuGr2]. Let $m>n\in\N$ and on $\cl H._{S_m}\subset\cl H.$ consider the operators ${\widetilde}H_n:={\widetilde}H_{S_n},\;{\widetilde}H_m:={\widetilde}H_{S_m}$ and ${\widetilde}H_{m\backslash n}:={\widetilde}H_{S_m\backslash S_n}$, and use analogous notation for $\lambda_m:=\lambda_{S_m}^{\rm grnd}$ etc. As $[{\widetilde}H_{m\backslash n},{\widetilde}H_n]=0$ these operators have a joint dense domain on which ${\widetilde}H_m$ is defined by $${\widetilde}H_m = {\widetilde}H_n + {\widetilde}H_{m\backslash n} + \mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q\in \Delta_{S_m}(S_n)} \Psi(q) +
(\lambda_n+\lambda_{m\backslash n}-\lambda_m)\un$$ using notation from before in (\[primesum\]) and (\[bdry\]), as the additional terms are bounded. Let $\Omega$ be a normalized joint eigenvector for $ {\widetilde}H_n$ and ${\widetilde}H_{m\backslash n}$ for the eigenvalue $0$, then $$0\leq(\Omega,{\widetilde}H_m \Omega)=\Big(\Omega, \mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q\in \Delta_{S_m}(S_n)} \Psi(q)\Omega\Big)
+\lambda_n+\lambda_{m\backslash n}-\lambda_m.$$ Now recalling the estimate (\[sumest\]), we have $$\mathop{\mathord{\sum}'}_{q \in \Delta_{S_m}(S_n)}\|\Psi\|
\leq 30(2n+1)^2\|\Psi\|.$$ Thus the previous inequality gives $$\lambda_n+\lambda_{m\backslash n}-\lambda_m\geq -30(2n+1)^2\|\Psi\|,$$ hence $${\widetilde}H_m + 60(2n+1)^2\|\Psi\|\un\geq {\widetilde}H_n.$$ Thus for all $\mu>0$ we have for the resolvents: $$\big({\widetilde}H_m + (\mu + 60(2n+1)^2\|\Psi\|)\un\big)^{-1}\leq ({\widetilde}H_n +\mu\un)^{-1}\leq 1/\mu\,.$$ From this we obtain $$\mu\big(\mu + 60(2n+1)^2\|\Psi\|\big)^{-1}
\leq \omega_m\big( \mu({\widetilde}H_n +\mu\un)^{-1} \big)
\leq 1.$$ As $\omega_\infty$ is a weak \*–limit point of $\{\omega_n\}_{n\in\N}\subset\cl B.(\cl H.)^*$, there is a subsequence $\{\omega_{n_k}\}_{k\in\N}
\subset\{\omega_n\}_{n\in\N}$ which converges to $\omega_\infty$ in the weak \*–topology. We thus obtain $$\label{resolvineq}
\mu\big(\mu + 60(2n+1)^2\|\Psi\|\big)^{-1}\leq\lim_{k\to\infty}\omega_{n_k}(\mu({\widetilde}H_n +\mu\un)^{-1})
=\omega_\infty(\mu({\widetilde}H_n +\mu\un)^{-1})\leq 1.$$ Above we saw that on $\cl H._{S_n}$ we have $({\widetilde}H_n +\mu\un)^{-1}\in\cl K.(\cl H._{S_n})$, hence on $\cl H.$ we have $$({\widetilde}H_n +\mu\un)^{-1}\in {\mathfrak A}_{S_n}={\mathfrak F}_{S_n}\otimes\al K.\Big(\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_{S_n}}\al H._\ell\Big)
\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\not\in\Lambda^1_{S_n}}\un.$$ This proves by (\[resolvineq\]) that $\|\omega_\infty\restriction{\mathfrak A}_{S_n}\|=1$ for all $n$.
\[InvSt\] Assuming as above an increasing sequence ${S_n\nearrow\Z^3}$ of lattice cubes, with $\omega_\infty$ a weak \*–limit point of $\{\omega_n\}_{n\in\N}\subset\cl B.(\cl H.)^*$, then $\omega_\infty\restriction\cl A._{\rm max}$ is invariant w.r.t. the automorphism group $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}(\cl A._{\rm max})$.
Let $\{\omega_{n_k}\}_{k\in\N}$ be a subsequence weak \*–converging to $\omega_\infty$. Observe that for any $A\in\cl A._{\rm max}$ and $B\in\cl B.(\cl H.)$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\big|\omega_{n_k}(B\alpha^{S_{n_k}}_t(A)\! )&-&\!\omega_\infty(B\alpha_t(A))\big|\\[1mm]
&\leq& \big|\omega_{n_k}(B\alpha^{S_{n_k}}_t(A)-B\alpha_t(A))\big|
+\big|\omega_{n_k}(B\alpha_t(A))-\omega_\infty(B\alpha_t(A))\big|\\[1mm]
&\leq & \|B\|\big\|\alpha^{S_{n_k}}_t(A)-\alpha_t(A)\big\|
+\big|\omega_{n_k}(B\alpha_t(A))-\omega_\infty(B\alpha_t(A))\big|\,.\end{aligned}$$ As the last expression goes to $0$ for $k\to\infty$, we get that $$\label{lkioBS}
\lim\limits_{k\to\infty}\omega_{n_k}(B\alpha^{S_{n_k}}_t(A))=\omega_\infty(B\alpha_t(A)).$$ Next observe that as the vector states $A\mapsto{\big(\Omega_{S_n},\, A\,\Omega_{S_n}\big)}$ are invariant w.r.t. $\alpha^{S_n}$, so is any state in their norm closed convex hull, so $\omega_n$ is $\alpha^{S_n}\hbox{--invariant.}$ Thus $$\omega_\infty(\alpha_t(A))=\lim_{k\to\infty}\omega_{n_k}(\alpha^{S_{n_k}}_t(A))
=\lim_{k\to\infty}\omega_{n_k}(A)=\omega_\infty(A)\,,$$ hence $\omega_\infty$ is invariant for $\alpha$.
Consider the restriction of $\omega_\infty$ to ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\subset M\big({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\big)$. Denote the GNS–data of $\omega\restriction {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ by ${(\pi^o_\infty,\Omega^o_\infty,\al H.^o_\infty,U^o_\infty)}$ where $$U^o_\infty(t)\pi^o_\infty(A)\Omega^o_\infty=\pi^o_\infty(\alpha_t(A))\Omega^o_\infty\quad\forall\,A\in{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}.$$ Then $(\pi^o_\infty, U^o_\infty)$ is a covariant pair for $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}( {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$, in particular $t\mapsto U^o_\infty(t)$ is a weak operator continuous unitary group. This follows directly from the strong continuity of $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$ obtained in Theorem \[GlobDynCont\].
Note that for $\omega_\infty\restriction\cl A._{\rm max}$, the analogous statement need not be true, because $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}(\cl A._{\rm max})$ is not strongly continuous (cf. Lemma \[alphadiscont\]). Finally, to establish that $\omega_\infty$ is a ground state, we need to prove that the generator of $U^o_\infty(t)$ is nonnegative.
\[groundState\] Assuming as above an increasing sequence ${S_n\nearrow\Z^3}$ of lattice cubes, with $\omega_\infty$ a weak \*–limit point of $\{\omega_n\}_{n\in\N}\subset\cl B.(\cl H.)^*$, then $\omega_\infty\restriction{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is a regular ground state for $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$.
By the preceding lemmas, all that remains to be proven, is that the generator of $U^o_\infty$ is nonnegative. Let $h$ be a Schwartz function on $\R$, then we need to prove that $U^o_\infty(h):=\int h(t)U^o_\infty(t)\,dt =0$ when ${\rm supp}({\widehat}{h})\subset (-\infty,0)$. Fix a Schwartz function such that ${\rm supp}({\widehat}{h})\subset (-\infty,0)$. By (\[piALO\]) it suffices to prove for all $A\in {\mathfrak A}_{S_n}$ and $n\in\N$ that $$0= U^o_\infty(h) \pi^o_\infty(A)\Omega^o_\infty=\int h(t)U^o_\infty(t) \pi^o_\infty(A)\Omega^o_\infty\,dt
= \int h(t) \pi^o_\infty(\alpha_t(A))\Omega^o_\infty\,dt.$$ Let $B\in{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ arbitrary, and let $\{\omega_{n_k}\}_{k\in\N}$ be a subsequence weak \*–converging to $\omega_\infty$. Then by equation (\[lkioBS\]) we have $$\Big(\pi^o_\infty(B^*)\Omega^o_\infty,\, U^o_\infty(h) \pi^o_\infty(A)\Omega^o_\infty\Big) =
\int h(t) \omega_\infty(B\alpha_t(A))\,dt
=\lim_{k\to\infty}\int h(t)\,\omega_{n_k}(B\alpha^{S_{n_k}}_t(A))\,dt$$ using the dominated convergence theorem to take the limit through the integral. Observe that if $\omega_{n_k}$ is a vector state, i.e. $\omega_{n_k}(\cdot)={(\Omega_{S_{n_k}},\cdot\,\Omega_{S_{n_k}})}$ with $\Omega_{S_{n_k}}\in
\cl E._{S_{n_k}}$, then by ${\widetilde}{H}_{S_{n_k}}\Omega_{S_{n_k}}=0$ and $\alpha^{S_{n_k}}_t={\rm Ad}\big(e^{it{\widetilde}{H}_{S_{n_k}}}\big)$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\int h(t)\,\omega_{n_k}(B\alpha^{S_{n_k}}_t(A))\,dt
&=& \int h(t)\big(\Omega_{S_{n_k}},\,B e^{it{\widetilde}{H}_{S_{n_k}}} A\,\Omega_{S_{n_k}}\big)\,dt\\[1mm]
&=&\big(\Omega_{S_{n_k}},\,B\int h(t) e^{it{\widetilde}{H}_{S_{n_k}}}\,dt\,A\Omega_{S_{n_k}}\big)
=0\end{aligned}$$ where the strong operator integral $\int h(t) e^{it{\widetilde}{H}_{S_{n_k}}}\,dt=0$ because ${\widetilde}{H}_{S_{n_k}}\geq 0$ and ${\rm supp}({\widehat}{h})\subset (-\infty,0)$. It follows that this also holds if $\omega_{n_k}$ is any state in the norm closed convex hull of these vector states. Then $$\int h(t) \omega_\infty(B\alpha_t(A))\,dt
=\lim_{k\to\infty}\int h(t)\,\omega_{n_k}(B\alpha^{S_{n_k}}_t(A))\,dt=0\,.$$ As $B$ is arbitrary, it follows that $U^o_\infty(h) \pi^o_\infty(A)\Omega^o_\infty=0$ for all $A\in {\mathfrak A}_{S_n}$ and $n\in\N$ hence $U^o_\infty(h)=0$.
Note that there are several sources of nonuniqueness for ground states in this argument. Apart from the possibility of different weak \*–limit points of $\{\omega_n\}_{n\in\N}$, there are also different choices of $\omega_n$ as the lowest eigenspace $\cl E._{S_n}$ of $H_{S_n}$ over which $\Omega_{S_n}$ ranges may have dimension higher than one.
Gauge transformations and constraint enforcement. {#GTGL}
=================================================
To conclude this work, we need to define gauge transformations, enforce the Gauss law and identify the physically observable subalgebra. This analysis was essentially done in [@GrRu], but below we recall the details for completeness. After enforcement of constraints, we will consider how the time evolution automorphism group descends to the algebra of physical observables, and prove the existence of a ground state for it.
By construction ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda} \subset\cl B.(\cl H.)$, hence to define gauge transformations on ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ it suffices to define a unitary representation of the gauge group on $\cl H.$ which implements the correct gauge transformations on the local subalgebras ${\mathfrak A}_S\subset{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$.
The local gauge transformations on the lattice $\Lambda^0$ is the group of maps $\gamma:\Lambda^0\to G$ of finite support, i.e. $$\gauc\Lambda := G^{(\Lambda^0)}=\big\{\gamma:\Lambda^0\to G\,\mid\,\big|{\rm supp}(\gamma)\big|<\infty\big\},\qquad
{\rm supp}(\gamma):=\{x\in\Lambda^0\,\mid\,\gamma(x)\not=e\}.$$ This is an inductive limit indexed by the finite subsets $S\subset\cl S.$, of the subgroups ${\rm Gau}_S \Lambda:=\{\gamma:\Lambda^0\to G\,\mid\,{\rm supp}(\gamma)\subseteq S\}
\cong\prod\limits_{x\in S}G$, and we give it the inductive limit topology. It acts on each local field algebra ${\mathfrak A}_S={\mathfrak F}_{S}\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}\cl L._\ell$ by a product action as above in Sect. \[PM\], implemented by a unitary (cf. (\[LocalW\])) $${\widehat}{W}_\zeta:=U^F_\zeta\otimes\big(\bigotimes_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}W^{(\ell)}_\zeta\big),\quad
\zeta\in\gauc \Lambda_S,$$ on $\cl H._F\otimes\mathop{\bigotimes}\limits_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_S}L^2(G)$. Here $U^F_\zeta$ is the second quantization on the fermionic Fock space $\cl H._F$ of the transformation $f\to \zeta\cdot f$ where $(\zeta\cdot f)(x):={\zeta(x)}f(x)$ for all $x\in\Lambda_S^0$ and $f\in\Cn_S$, hence $U^F_\zeta$ implements the automorphism $\alpha^1:\gauc \Lambda_S \to\aut{\mathfrak F}_{\Lambda_S}$ by $\alpha_\zeta^1(a(f)):=a(\zeta\cdot f)$. The $W^{(\ell)}_\zeta$ are copies of the unitaries $W_\zeta:L^2(G)\to L^2(G)$ by $$(W_\zeta\varphi)(h):=\varphi(\zeta^{-1}\cdot h)=\varphi(\zeta(x_\ell)^{-1}\,h\,\zeta(y_\ell)).$$ For the full infinite lattice, these unitaries generalize naturally to $\al H.:=\al H._{\rm Fock}\otimes\al H._\infty$ by the same formulae, as each $\zeta\in\gauc \Lambda$ is of finite support, i.e. $${\widehat}{W}_\zeta:=U^F_\zeta\otimes\big(\bigotimes_{\ell\in\Lambda^1_{{\rm supp}'(\gamma)}}W^{(\ell)}_\zeta\big),\quad
\zeta\in\gauc \Lambda$$ where $U^F_\zeta$ is again the second quantization on the fermionic Fock space $\al H._{\rm Fock}$ of the map $f\to\zeta\cdot f$. Here ${\rm supp}'(\gamma)$ denotes the subgraph of $\Lambda$ consisting of all the links which have at least one point in ${\rm supp}(\gamma)$. Hence $\Lambda^1_{{\rm supp}'(\gamma)}$ consists of the links which have at least one point in ${\rm supp}(\gamma)$. In this notation, we assumed that ${\widehat}{W}_\zeta$ acts as the identity on those factors of $\cl H._\infty$ corresponding to $\ell\not\in{\rm supp}'(\gamma)$.
This produces a unitary representation ${\widehat}{W}:\gauc \Lambda\to\al U.(\al H.)$. Then the gauge transformation produced by $\zeta$ on the system of operators is given by ${\rm Ad}({\widehat}{W}_\zeta)$, and on the local algebras it produces the same gauge transformations as in Subsect. \[PM\]. It is clear also that these gauge transformations preserve $$\al A._{\rm max}=\ilim \cl B._S = C^*\Big(\bigcup_{S\in\al S.} \cl B.(\al H._S) \Big)$$ hence we can use ${\rm Ad}({\widehat}{W}_\zeta)$ to define gauge transformations on our maximal algebra.
Next we recall that the local Hamiltonians $H_S$ are constructed from gauge invariant terms, and hence ${\rm Ad}({\widehat}{W}_\zeta)(e^{itH_S})=e^{itH_S}$ and so for $\alpha_t^S:={\rm Ad}(e^{itH_S})$ we have ${\alpha_t^S\circ {\rm Ad}({\widehat}{W}_\zeta)}={\rm Ad}({\widehat}{W}_\zeta)\circ\alpha_t^S$. Thus for the global time evolutions on $ \al A._{\rm max}$ we get from Theorem \[GlobDynExist\] that for all $A\in \al A._{\rm max}$ and $\zeta\in\gauc \Lambda$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\widehat}{W}_\zeta\,\alpha_t(A)\,{\widehat}{W}_\zeta^*&=& {\widehat}{W}_\zeta\Big(\lim_{S\nearrow\Z^3}\alpha^S_t(A)\Big){\widehat}{W}_\zeta^*
=\lim_{S\nearrow\Z^3} {\widehat}{W}_\zeta\alpha^S_t(A) {\widehat}{W}_\zeta^*\\[1mm]
&=&\lim_{S\nearrow\Z^3}\alpha^S_t\big({\widehat}{W}_\zeta A{\widehat}{W}_\zeta^* \big)
=\alpha_t\big({\widehat}{W}_\zeta A{\widehat}{W}_\zeta^* \big)\end{aligned}$$ i.e. the global time evolution also commutes with the gauge transformations. This implies that the gauge transformations ${\rm Ad}({\widehat}{W}_\zeta)$ will preserve all orbits of the global time evolution, and hence ${\rm Ad}({\widehat}{W}_\zeta)$ preserves our kinematics algebra ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}:=C^*\Big( \bigcup_{S\in\al S.}\alpha_{\R}({\mathfrak A}_S ) \Big)$. By restriction, the gauge transformations are therefore well-defined on ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$, and we will denote the action by $\beta:\gauc \Lambda\to{\rm Aut}({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$. Note that using ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}\subset M({\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$ this action is the canonical extension of the one on ${\widehat}{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ defined in [@GrRu].
Finally, we would like to enforce the Gauss law constraint and identify the physical subalgebra. In [@GrRu] we already did this for the local algebras ${\mathfrak A}_S$ in Theorem 4.12, and proved in Theorem 4.13 that the traditional constraint enforcement method - taking the gauge invariant part of the algebra, then factoring out the residual constraints - produced results coinciding with those of the T–procedure (cf. [@GrSrv]). As the time evolution automorphism group commutes with the gauge transformations, it will respect the constraint reduction, hence define a time evolution automorphism group on the algebra of physical observables.
The concrete constraint reduction in the defining representation of ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda} \subset\cl B.(\cl H.)$ starts with the representation ${\widehat}{W}:\gauc \Lambda\to\al U.(\al H.)$ of the gauge group which implements the gauge transformations. One defines the gauge invariant subspace $$\al H._G:=\{\psi\in\al H.\,\mid\,{\widehat}{W}_\zeta\psi=\psi\;\;\forall\,\zeta\in\gauc \Lambda\}$$ and observes that the cyclic vector $\Omega\otimes\psi_0^\infty$ is in $\al H._G$. Let $P_G$ be the projection onto $\al H._G$, then an $A\in\cl B.(\cl H.)$ commutes with $P_G$ iff both $A$ and $A^*$ preserve $\al H._G$. Thus our observables are in $$\{P_G\}'\cap {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda} \subseteq P_G \cl B.(\cl H.)P_G + (\un-P_G) \cl B.(\cl H.)(\un-P_G).$$ The final step of constraining consists of restricting $\{P_G\}'\cap {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ to $\al H._G$, which means that we discard the second part of the decomposition above. On the local algebras $ {\mathfrak A}_S$ this will produce a copy of the algebra of compact operators on the gauge invariant part of $\al H._S$ by Theorem 4.13 in [@GrRu]. The algebra generated by the orbit of the time evolutions of these reduced local algebras will be a particularly important subalgebra of algebra of physical observables, as it is constructed purely from the original physical observables with no involvement of the gauge variables.\
[**Remark:**]{}\
The terminology we use here comes from the T–procedure (cf. [@GrSrv]), where the algebra consistent with the constraints is called the observable algebra (here it is $\{P_G\}'\cap {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$), and the final algebra obtained from it by factoring out the ideal generated by the constraints is called the algebra of physical observables. This is different from the terminology in [@KR; @JKR] where the observable algebra is the final algebra obtained by factoring out the ideal generated by the constraints from the algebra of gauge invariant variables.\
To conclude this section, we will next prove that there are gauge invariant ground states. By Proposition 4.2 in [@GrRu] these produce Dirac states on the original algebra, hence states on the algebra of physical observables (cf. Theorem 4.5 in [@GrRu]). Such a state on the algebra of physical observables is a ground state w.r.t. the time evolution automorphism group on the algebra of physical observables which is descended from the one on ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$.
There is a gauge invariant regular ground state for $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$.
Recall from Theorem \[groundState\], that if we take an increasing sequence ${S_n\nearrow\Z^3}$ of lattice cubes, with $\omega_\infty$ a weak \*–limit point of $\{\omega_n\}_{n\in\N}\subset\cl B.(\cl H.)^*$, then $\omega_\infty\restriction{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$ is a regular ground state for $\alpha:\R\to{\rm Aut}({\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda})$. Here each $\omega_n$ is in the closed convex hull of vector states $$A\mapsto{\big(\Omega_{S_n},\, A\,\Omega_{S_n}\big)},\qquad A\in\cl B.(\cl H.)$$ and $\Omega_S\in\cl H._S$ ranges over the normalized eigenvectors of the lowest point in the spectrum of $H_S$. It is clear that if the sequence $\{\omega_n\}_{n\in\N}\subset\cl B.(\cl H.)^*$ consists of gauge invariant states, then so are its weak \*–limit points, hence it suffices to show for any $S_n\in\al S.$ that we can find $\omega_n$ chosen as above, which is invariant w.r.t. conjugation by the unitaries ${\widehat}{W}:\gauc \Lambda\to\al U.(\al H.)$.
As ${\widehat}{W}(\gauc \Lambda)$ commutes with each $H_S$, it leaves its eigenspaces invariant, and ${\widehat}{W}(\gauc \Lambda)$ restricted to $\al H._S$ is just ${\widehat}{W}({\rm Gau}_S \Lambda )$. This group is compact, hence by the Peter-Weyl theorem, each eigenspace of $H_S$ in $\al H._S$ decomposes into finite dimensional subspaces on which ${\widehat}{W}({\rm Gau}_S \Lambda )$ acts irreducibly. Choose for the lowest eigenspace $\cl E._S\subset\al H._S$ of $H_S$ such an irreducible component of ${\widehat}{W}({\rm Gau}_S \Lambda )$ contained in it, and denote the finite dimensional component space by $V_S\subseteq\cl E._S$. Denote the unit sphere of $V_S$ by $E_S$. By finite dimensionality of $V_S$, $E_S$ is compact. Consider the map $\eta:\al H.\to\al B.(\al H.)^*$ by $\eta(\psi)(A):={(\psi,A\psi)}$ for $\psi\in\al H.$, $A\in\al B.(\al H.)$. Then $\eta$ is continuous w.r.t. the Hilbert space topology and the w\*-topology of $\al B.(\al H.)^*$, hence $\eta$ takes compact sets to compact sets. In particular $\eta(E_S)\subset{\got S}(\al B.(\al H.))$ (denoting the state space of $\al B.(\al H.)$), is compact in the w\*-topology. Denote the norm closed convex hull of $\eta(E_S)$ by ${\got S}_S$, and observe that it is contained in the finite dimensional subspace of $\al B.(\al H.)^*$ spanned by the functionals $A\mapsto{(v_i,Av_j)}$, $A\in\al B.(\al H.)$, where $v_i$ and $v_j$ range over some orthonormal basis $\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}$ of $V_S$. As all Hausdorff vector topologies of a finite dimensional vector space coincide (cf. [@Sch Theorem I.3.2]), we conclude from norm boundedness and closure, that ${\got S}_S$ is compact w.r.t. the w\*-topology.
As $E_S$ is invariant as a set w.r.t. the action of ${\widehat}{W}({\rm Gau}_S \Lambda )$, we conclude that $\eta(E_S)$ is invariant w.r.t. the action of ${\rm Gau}_S \Lambda$ on $\al B.(\al H.)^*$ by $$\varphi\mapsto\varphi_\zeta,\quad\hbox{where}\quad\varphi_\zeta(A):=\varphi(
{\widehat}{W}_\zeta A {\widehat}{W}_\zeta^*)$$ for $\zeta\in {\rm Gau}_S \Lambda$, $A\in \al B.(\al H.)$ and $\varphi\in \al B.(\al H.)^*$. As the action comes from automorphisms on $\al B.(\al H.)$, it extends to an affine action on the closed convex hull ${\got S}_S$, which is w\*-compact. This action is continuous in the w\*-topology, hence as ${\rm Gau}_S \Lambda$ is amenable (as it is compact), we obtain that there is an invariant point ${\widehat}\omega_S\in{\got S}_S$ (cf. [@Pie Theorem 5.4]). However, the action of ${\rm Gau}_S \Lambda$ on ${\got S}_S$ is just the restriction of the action of ${\rm Gau} \Lambda$ on ${\got S}(\al B.(\al H.))$ to ${\got S}_S$, hence ${\widehat}\omega_S\in{\got S}_S$ is gauge invariant, and can be restricted to ${\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda}$. This concludes the proof that there are gauge invariant ground states.
Conclusions.
============
In the preceding, we have proven the existence of the dynamical automorphism group for QCD on an infinite lattice, and obtained a suitable minimal field algebra on which it acts. This pair defines a C\*-dynamical system in the sense that it is strongly continuous. We proved the existence of regular ground states, and discussed how to enforce the Gauss law constraint.
Clearly much more remains to be done, e.g
- There is no uniqueness proven or analyzed for the ground states. One needs to determine the properties of the set of ground states.
- The form and structure of the physical observable algebra needs to be determined more explicitly.
- Existence of the dynamics is not enough, some useful approximation schemes are needed to connect with present analysis on finite lattices.
Appendix
========
\[Lemma1\] If $B,\; V:\R\to\al B.(\cl H.)$ are bounded strong operator continuous maps, and satisfy $$\label{ddtVA}
\frac{d}{dt}V(t)\psi=B(t)\psi\qquad\forall\,t\in\R$$ for all $\psi$ in some dense subspace $\al D.$ of $\al H.$, then the relation (\[ddtVA\]) holds for all $\psi\in\al H.$.
A version of this lemma is proven in Prop. 2.1 (iii) in [@NaSi2], but as that proof is indirect, we give a direct proof here. We will use the notation $\|V\|:=\sup\limits_{t\in\R}\|V(t)\|$ and $\|B\|:=\sup\limits_{t\in\R}\|B(t)\|$. By integration of (\[ddtVA\]) we obtain for all $\psi\in\al D.$ and $h\not=0$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\big(V(t+h)-V(t)\big)\psi &=& \int_t^{t+h}B(s)\psi\,ds \qquad\forall\,\psi\in\al D.,\qquad\hbox{and hence:}\\[1mm]
\Big\|\frac{1}{h}\big(V(t+h)-V(t)\big)\psi\Big\| &\leq& \frac{1}{|h|}\int_{t_-}^{t_+}\|B(s)\psi\|\,ds
\leq\|B\|\,\|\psi\|\end{aligned}$$ where $t_-:=\min(t, t+h)$ and $t_+:=\max(t, t+h)$. As $\frac{1}{h}\big(V(t+h)-V(t)\big)$ for fixed $t,\,h$ is bounded, and $\al D.$ is dense, this implies that $\|\frac{1}{h}\big(V(t+h)-V(t)\big)\|\leq\|B\|.$ Let $$D_h:=\frac{1}{h}\big(V(t+h)-V(t)\big)-B(t)\quad\hbox{hence}\quad \|D_h\|\leq 2\|B\|.$$ We want to prove that $\lim\limits_{h\to 0} D_h\varphi=0$ for all $\varphi\in\al H.$, i.e. that (\[ddtVA\]) holds on all of $\al H.$. Let $\varphi\in\al H.$ and choose a sequence $\psi_n\in\al D.$ such that $\psi_n\to\varphi$. Fix an $\varepsilon >0$. For any $n\in\N$: $$\|D_h\varphi\|\leq\|D_h(\varphi-\psi_n)\|+\|D_h\psi_n\|\leq 2\|B\|\,\|\varphi-\psi_n\|+\|D_h\psi_n\|.$$ Choose an $n$ such that $2\|B\|\,\|\varphi-\psi_n\|<\varepsilon/2$. By the limit in (\[ddtVA\]) there is a $\delta>0$ such that $|h|<\delta$ implies $\|D_h\psi_n\|<\varepsilon/2$, and hence $\|D_h\varphi\|<\varepsilon$. Thus $\lim\limits_{h\to 0} D_h\varphi=0$ as required.
\[Lemma2\] If $A:\R\to\al B.(\cl H.)$ is a measurable map w.r.t. the strong operator topology, and $\cl H.$ is separable, then $A:\R\to\al B.(\cl H.)$ is a measurable map w.r.t. the norm topology. Then for any bounded interval $I$ we have $$\Big\|\int_I A(t)\, dt\Big\|\leq \int_I\| A(t)\| dt.$$
(cf. Eq. (12) in [@NaSi2])\
By assumption, $t\mapsto\|A(t)\psi\|$ is measurable for each $\psi\in\cl H.$. Consider the supremum $$\|A(t)\|=\sup\{\|A(t)\psi\|\,\mid\,\psi\in\cl H.,\;\|\psi\|\leq 1\}.$$ As $\cl H.$ is separable, there is a countable dense set in the closed unit ball of $\cl H.$, which we can arrange into a sequence $(\psi_n)_{n\in\N}$ and hence obtain $$\|A(t)\|=\sup\{\|A(t)\psi_n\|\,\mid\,n\in\N\}.$$ However, the supremum of a sequence of measurable functions is measurable, hence $t\mapsto\|A(t)\|$ is measurable. For the Bochner integral of $t\mapsto A(t)\psi\in\cl H.$ we thus obtain $$\Big\|\Big(\int_I A(t)\, dt\Big)\psi\Big\|=\Big\|\int_I A(t)\psi\, dt\Big\|\leq
\int_I\| A(t)\psi\| dt\leq \int_I\| A(t)\| dt\cdot\|\psi\|.$$ By taking the supremum over $\psi$ in the closed unit ball of $\cl H.$ we obtain that\
$\Big\|\int_I A(t)\, dt\Big\|\leq \int_I\| A(t)\| dt.$
\[Lemma3\] Let $A,\; B:\R\to\al B.(\cl H.)$ be strong operator continuous maps, such that $A(t)^*=A(t)$ and $\|A(t)\|<M$ for all $t$ for a fixed $M$, and assume that $\cl H.$ is separable. Then for any $t_0\in\R$ and $f_0\in\al B.(\cl H.)$, there is a unique strong operator differentiable map $f:\R\to\al B.(\cl H.)$ such that $$\frac{d}{dt}f(t)\psi = i[f(t),A(t)]\psi+B(t)\psi\quad\forall\,\psi\in\cl H.,\quad
\hbox{and}\quad f(t_0)=f_0\in\al B.(\cl H.).$$ This solution $f$ of the IVP satisfies the estimate $$\|f(t)\|\leq \|f(t_0)\|+\int_{t_-}^{t_+}\|B(s)\|ds\qquad\forall\,t\in\R$$ where $t_-:=\min\{t_0,t\}$ and $t_+:=\max\{t_0,t\}$.
(cf. Lemma 2.2 in [@NaSi2])\
We first prove uniqueness of the solution. Given two solutions $f_1,\,f_2,$ then for all $\psi\in\cl H.$ we have $$(f_1(t)-f_2(t))\psi=\int_{t_0}^t\frac{d}{ds}\big(f_1(s)-f_2(s)\big)\psi \,ds
=\int_{t_0}^t i\big[f_1(s)-f_2(s),A(s)\big]\psi \,ds\,.$$ By Lemma \[Lemma2\] we thus obtain $$\|(f_1(t)-f_2(t))\|\leq \int_{t_-}^{t_+} \left\|\big[f_1(s)-f_2(s),A(s)\big]\right\| \,ds
\leq 2M \int_{t_-}^{t_+} \left\|f_1(s)-f_2(s)\right\| \,ds.$$ Gronwall’s Lemma then proves that $f_1(t)-f_2(t)=0$ and hence we have uniqueness.
Next, we prove existence of the solution $f$, and for this we recall the Dyson series for propagators, cf. Theorem X.69 in [@ReSi2], where the properties below are proven. The norm convergent Dyson series is $$U(t,t_0):=\un + \sum_{n=0}^\infty i^n\int_{t_0}^t\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\cdots\int_{t_0}^{t_{n-1}}A(t_1)\cdots A(t_n)\,dt_n\cdots dt_1$$ which is a unitary, and the integrals are defined w.r.t. the strong operator topology. Its basic properties are $U(t,t)=\un$, $U(t,s)^*=U(s,t)$, $U(r,s)U(s,t)=U(r,t)$ and $U(s,t)$ is strong operator differentiable in both entries. As $U(t,s)$ satisfies the equations $$i\frac{d}{dt}U(t,t_0)\psi=-A(t)U(t,t_0)\psi \qquad\hbox{and}\qquad i\frac{d}{dt}U(t,t_0)^*\psi = U(t,t_0)^*A(t)\psi$$ for all $\psi\in\cl H.$, it is easy to verify that $$f(t):=U(t,t_0)\Big(f_0+\int_{t_0}^tU(s,t_0)^* B(s)U(s,t_0)\,ds
\Big)U(t,t_0)^*$$ satisfies $$\frac{d}{dt}f(t)\psi = i[f(t),A(t)]\psi+B(t)\psi\quad\forall\,\psi\in\cl H.,\quad
\hbox{and}\quad f(t_0)=f_0\in\al B.(\cl H.).$$ (We used the fact that the product of strong operator differentiable maps is again strong operator differentiable). Then $$\|f(t)\|\leq\|f_0\|+\Big\| \int_{t_0}^tU(s,t_0)^* B(s)U(s,t_0)\,ds \Big\|$$ and application of Lemma \[Lemma2\] to the last integral produces the claimed estimate.
Acknowledgements. {#acknowledgements. .unnumbered}
=================
We wish to thank Professors B. Nachtergaele and R. Sims for clarifying their work in [@NaSi] to us in a number of emails and sending us their manuscript of [@NaSi2].
[99]{}
Blackadar, B.: Operator Algebras. Springer 2006
Bratteli, O., Robinson, D. W.: Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 1, Springer 1987 New York Inc.
Bratteli, O.; Robinson, D.W.: Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics II. Equilibrium States, Models in Quantum Statistical Mechanics. Springer–Verlag, New York 1981
Bruening, J., Heintze, E.: Representations of compact Lie groups and elliptic operators. Invent. Math. [**50**]{}, 169–203 (1979)
Buchholz, D., Grundling, H.: The resolvent algebra: A new approach to canonical quantum systems. Journal of Functional Analysis [**254**]{}, 2725–2779 (2008)
Dixmier, J.: C\*-algebras. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company 1977
Fang, Y-Z., Luo, X-Q. : arXiv: hep-lat/0108025v1 (2001)
Grundling, H., Neeb, K-H.: Full regularity for a C\*-algebra of the Canonical Commutation Relations, Rev. Math. Phys. [**21**]{} (2009), 587–613
Grundling, H., Rudolph, G.: QCD on an infinite lattice. Commun. Math. Phys. **318**, 717–766 (2013)
Grundling, H.: Quantum constraints. Rep. Math. Phys. [**57**]{}, 97-120 (2006)
Grundling, H., and K.-H. Neeb, [*Crossed products of $C^*$-algebras for singular actions*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. [**266**]{} (2014), 5199–5269
J. Huebschmann, G.Rudolph and M. Schmidt: A Gauge Model for Quantum Mechanics on a Stratified Space, Commun. Math. Phys. 286 (2009) 459-494
Jarvis, P. D., Kijowski, J. and Rudolph, G. : On the Structure of the Observable Algebra of QCD on the Lattice. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38 (2005) 5359-5377
Kadison, R. V., and Ringrose, J. R., Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras II, New York, Academic Press 1983
Kijowski, J., Rudolph, G.: On the Gauss law and global charge for quantum chromodynamics. J. Math. Phys. [**43**]{} (2002) 1796-1808
Kijowski, J., Rudolph, G.: Charge superselection sectors for QCD on the lattice, J. Math. Physics Vol. 46, 032303 (2005)
Kogut, J., Susskind, L.: Hamiltonian formulation of Wilson’s lattice gauge theories. Phys. Rev. D [**11**]{}, 395–408 (1975)
Kogut, J.: Three Lectures on Lattice Gauge Theory. CLNS-347 (1976), Lecture Series Presented at the International Summer School, McGill University, June 21-26, 1976
Lawson, H.B., Michelson, M-L.: Spin Geometry. Princeton University Press, Princeton 1989
Nachtergaele, B., Sims, R.: Lieb-Robinson bounds in quantum many-body physics. Contemp. Math. 529, p141, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI: (2010).\
This published argument contains some errors and omissions. A corrected version of the argument is in [@NaSi2].
Nachtergaele, B., Sims, R.: On the dynamics of lattice systems with unbounded on-site terms in the Hamiltonian. arXiv:1410.8174v1
G. K. Pedersen, $C^*$-Algebras and their Automorphism Groups. Academic Press 1989, London
J.–P. Pier, Amenable ocally compact groups. John Wiley & sons 1984, New York.
Reed, M., Simon, B.: Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics, Vol 2. Academic Press, San Diego, 1975.
Rieffel, M.A.: On the uniqueness of the Heisenberg commutation relations, Duke Mathematical Journal 39 (1972), 745–752
Schaefer, H., H.: Topological vector spaces. Macmillan company, 1966, New York
Seiler, E.: Gauge Theories as a Problem of Constructive Quantum Field Theory and Statistical Mechanics, Lecture Notes in Phys., vol. 159, Springer (1982)\
Seiler, E.: “Constructive Quantum Field Theory: Fermions”, in Gauge Theories: Fundamental Interactions and Rigorous Results, eds. P. Dita, V. Georgescu, R. Purice
v. Neumann, J. On infinite direct products. Comp. Math. 6, 1–77. Collected Works, Vol. 3, Chapter 6. (ed. A.H. Taub), Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York, Paris 1961.
Wilson, K.G.: Confinement of quarks. Phys. Rev. D10, 2445 (1974)
Wilson, K.G.: Quarks and strings on a lattice, p69 in New phenomena in subnuclear physics. Part A. Proceedings of the International School of Subnuclear Physics, Erice 1975, A. Zichichi (ed.) Plenum Press 1977
Yosida, K.: Functional Analysis. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York 1980.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This contribution gives a brief overview of the theoretical ideas underlying our current understanding of the early Universe. Confronting the predictions of the early Universe models with cosmological observations, in particular of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations, will improve our knowledge about the physics of the primordial Universe.'
address: |
APC (Astroparticules et Cosmologie), CNRS-Université Paris 7\
10, rue Alice Domon et Léonie Duquet, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- David Langlois
title: Glimpses into the early Universe
---
\#1[[[\#1]{}\^]{}]{} \#1[[[\#1]{}\^]{}]{}
¶[[P]{}]{}
Ł[[L]{}]{}
Introduction
============
Inflation is today the main theoretical framework to describe the early Universe. In thirty years of existence, inflation, in contrast with earlier competitors, has survived the confrontation with cosmological data, which have tremendously improved over the years. Indeed, the fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) had not yet been measured when inflation was invented, whereas they give us today a remarkable picture of the cosmological perturbations in the early Universe. In the future, one can hope that even more precise observations will allow us to test inflation further, and also to discriminate between the many different possible realizations of inflation.
This contribution discusses the basic ideas underlying inflation (many more details can be found in e.g. [@cargese]) and some more recent results.
Cosmological evolution
======================
Modern cosmology is based on the theory of general relativity, according to which our Universe is described by a four-dimensional geometry $g_{\mu\nu}$ that satisfies Einstein’s equations \[einstein\] G\_R\_-12 R g\_=8G T\_, where $R_{\mu\nu}$ is the Ricci tensor, $R\equiv g^{\mu\nu}R_{\mu\nu}$ the scalar curvature and $T_{\mu\nu}$ the energy-momentum tensor of the matter distribution.
The basic assumption of cosmology, which has been confirmed by observations so far, is to consider, as a first approximation, the universe as being homogeneous and isotropic. This leads to the FLRW (Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker) spacetimes, with metric ds\^2=-dt\^2+a\^2(t), \[RW\] where $\kappa=0,-1,1$ determines the curvature of spatial hypersurfaces: respectively flat, elliptic or hyperbolic. Moreover, the matter content compatible with homogeneity and isotropy is necessarily characterized by an energy-momentum tensor of the form \[T\] T\^\_[ ]{}=[Diag]{} where $\rho$ corresponds to an energy density and $P$ to a pressure.
Substituting the metric (\[RW\]) and the energy-momentum tensor (\[T\]) into Einstein’s equations (\[einstein\]) gives the Friedmann equations, $$\begin{aligned}
H^2\equiv\left({\dot a\over a}\right)^2 = {8\pi G \over 3}\rho- {\kappa\over a^2},\qquad
{\ddot a\over a} = -{4\pi G\over 3}\left(\rho+3 P\right)\, ,
\label{friedmann}\end{aligned}$$ which govern the time evolution of the scale factor $a(t)$. There are several types of matter in the Universe, in particular pressureless matter (baryonic matter and the mysterious dark matter) and a gas of cosmological photons, characterized by a temperature $T$, which scales like $1/a(t)$. Going backwards in time, radiation dominates, with higher and higher temperatures in the early Universe.
From an observational point of view, the two most important events in cosmological history are : i) nucleosynthesis ($T\sim 0.1$ MeV), when the lightest nuclei were formed; ii) last scattering ($T\sim 3000$ K), when the Universe became quasi-transparent (due to the sudden suppression of interactions between photons and matter, as nuclei and electrons combined into neutral atoms). Photons that were emitted at that epoch are observed in the CMB radiation, discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson. In 1992, the COBE satellite detected its anisotropies at a level of $10^{ -5}$. Since then, these fluctuations have been measured with increasing precision, lately by the WMAP satellite and in the near future, by the Planck satellite. One of the main goals of primordial cosmology is to explain the origin of these primordial fluctuations.
Inflation
=========
Inflation is a phase of accelerated expansion, i.e. $\ddot a>0$, in the early Universe. Initially, inflation was introduced to provide an explanation for several puzzles of the standard hot Big Bang model, in particular the flatness problem (or why the present spatial geometry is so close to Euclidean geometry) and the horizon problem (or why the CMB sky is so homogeneous on scales larger than the causal horizon at the time of last scattering, as defined in the standard Big Bang model). But it was realized, soon after, that inflation also gives a very natural explanation for the origin of primordial perturbations: they simply arise from quantum vacuum fluctuations that got amplified when their wavelength, proportional to the scale factor, is stretched out beyond the Hubble radius $H^{-1}$.
The simplest way to get inflation is to assume the existence of a scalar field, governed by the action \[action\_scalar\_field\] S\_=d\^4x(-[12]{}\^\_-V()) , where $g\equiv {\rm det} (g_{\mu\nu})$ and $V(\phi)$ is the potential of the scalar field. In a FLRW spacetime, the energy density and pressure are respectively given by =[12]{}\^2+V(), P=[12]{}\^2-V() . Whenever the kinetic energy is negligible with respect to the potential energy, the equation of state is effectively $P\simeq -\rho$, which leads to an acceleration, according to the second Friedmann equation in (\[friedmann\]). This can happen in the so-called slow-roll regime, for sufficiently flat potentials.
Cosmological perturbations
==========================
Let us now consider the perturbations during inflation. In addition to the scalar field perturbation $\delta\phi$, one must take into account the metric perturbations as well and introduce the (scalarly) perturbed metric ds\^2= -(1+2A)dt\^2+ 2 a(t) \_iB dx\^idt+ a\^2(t)dx\^idx\^j . Using Einstein’s equations and coordinate freedom, it can be shown that there is in fact a single dynamical scalar degree of freedom, Q+ . It can be seen either as a pure scalar field perturbation (in a coordinate system such that $\psi=0$) or as a pure metric perturbation $\R$ (up to the factor $\dot\phi/H$) if one chooses the uniform scalar field hypersurfaces as constant time hypersurfaces. Its dynamics is governed by the action S=[12]{}d d\^3x ,za where it is convenient to use the new variable $u\equiv a Q$ and the conformal time $\tau$ ($d\tau=dt/a$).
Let us now quantize $u$ by following the standard procedure of quantum field theory. One treats $u$ as a quantum field denoted $\hat u$, which can be expanded in Fourier space as \[Fourier\_quantum\] u (, x)=[1(2)\^[3/2]{}]{}d\^3k {[a]{}\_[k]{} u\_k() e\^[i k.x]{} + [a]{}\_[k]{}\^u\_k\^\*() e\^[-i k.x]{} }, where the $\hat a_{\vec k}^\dagger$ and $\hat a_{\vec k}$ are creation and annihilation operators that satisfy the usual commutation rules. In the slow-roll regime, the expansion is quasi-de Sitter (i.e. such that $\dot H\ll H^2$) with $a\simeq -1/H\tau$, and $z''/z\simeq a''/a\simeq 2/\tau^2$ (where $\tau$ grows from $-\infty$ to $0$). The most natural choice for the mode function $u_k(\tau)$ is the particular solution (of the classical equation of motion) u\_k=e\^[-ik]{}(1-[ik]{}), \[u\_k\] which means that each Fourier mode is initially in the usual Minkowski vacuum, when $k|\tau|\gg 1$, i.e. when its wavelength is smaller than the Hubble radius. Later, its wavelength is stretched on super Hubble scales, i.e. $k|\tau|\ll 1$, and the mode undergoes an amplification (the last term in the parentheses blows up). The resulting power spectrum (i.e. the Fourier transform of the correlation function) is ¶\_Q([H2]{})\^2 , (kaH) which corresponds to a curvature fluctuation $\P_\R^{1/2}= H^2/(2\pi \dot\phi)$ (with $\hbar=1$).
It is easy to relate these fluctuations generated [*during*]{} inflation to the fluctuations of ordinary matter in the subsequent radiation and matter dominated eras, by invoking a conservation law. Indeed, the conservation of the energy-momentum tensor for any perfect fluid, characterized by the energy density $\rho$, the pressure $p$ and the four-velocity $u^a$, leads to the [*exact*]{} relation[@Langlois:2005ii; @Langlois:2005qp] \[dot\_zeta\] \_a\_u\_a= -( \_a p - \_a), where we have defined \_a \_a-\_a, =\_a u\^a, =d , and where a dot denotes a Lie derivative with respect to $u^a$ (which reduces to a derivative along $u^a$ for scalars, e.g. $\dot\rho\equiv u^a\nabla_a\rho$). The quantity $e^\alpha$ can be interpreted as an inhomogeneous generalization of the scale factor, as defined by an observer following the fluid. For linear perturbations, the identity (\[dot\_zeta\]) implies that the quantity --is conserved on super-Hubble scales ($k\ll aH$) for adiabatic perturbations, i.e. such that $\delta p- (\dot p/\dot\rho)\delta\rho=0$. Moreover, it can be shown that $-\zeta$ coincides with $\R$ on super-Hubble scales. For single field inflation, this conservation law holds and the curvature perturbation remains unchanged until the perturbation reenters the Hubble radius, much later during the radiation era.
Beyond the simplest models
==========================
So far, the simplest models of inflation are compatible with observational data (see [@WMAP]) but it is worth studying more refined models for at least two reasons. First, models inspired by high energy physics are usually more complicated than the simplest phenomenological inflationary models. Second, exploring larger classes of inflation models and identifying their specific observational features is a useful preparation for the interpretation of future data. At present, two types of extensions beyond the simplest scenarios have been mainly studied: models with non standard kinetic terms and/or with multiple scalar fields.
Scenarios involving several scalar fields include models with [*multiple inflatons*]{}, where several scalar fields affect directly the inflationary evolution, but also models where the extra scalar field(s) plays a rôle only later. In all cases, the crucial novelty is the generation during inflation of extra perturbations, usually called entropy modes, in addition to the adiabatic mode (corresponding to fluctuations along the inflation trajectory). The entropy fluctuations can be transferred into the final curvature perturbation, during or after inflation. This means that the quantities $\R$ or $\zeta$ are [*a priori*]{} no longer conserved in a multi-field set-up, as first pointed out in [@sy] (see also [@Lalak:2007vi]).
In some of these more sophisticated models, the primordial perturbations exhibit non-Gaussianities that could be detectable in future observations, whereas the simplest single field models predict an undetectable level of non-Gaussianities. In this context, an important observable is the three-point function or its Fourier transform, often written as \_[\_1]{} \_[\_2]{} \_[\_3]{} f\_[NL]{} (k\_1,k\_2,k\_3)(2 )\^3 \^[(3)]{}(\_i \_i) where $P_\zeta(k)$ is defined by $ \langle \zeta_{\bk_1} \zeta_{\bk_2}\rangle=P_\zeta(k)(2 \pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\bk_1+\bk_2)$. The three-point function can be computed for any model of inflation by using the (non-linear) relation between the curvature perturbation $\zeta$ and the various scalar field fluctuations generated during inflation. Intrinsic non-Gaussianities of the scalar fields, i.e. non-vanishing three-point functions for the scalar field perturbations, lead to non-Gaussianities of [*equilateral*]{} shape (where the signal peaks at $k_1\sim k_2\sim k_3$) whereas a non-linear (classical) relation between $\zeta$ and the scalar field fluctuations lead to non-Gaussianities of [*local*]{} shape (which peaks at $k_1\ll k_2, k_3$).
An analysis of general multi-field models with an action of the form \[P\] S = d\^4 x , X\^[IJ]{}=-12 \_\^I \^\^J , where $P$ is an arbitrary function, can be found in [@lrst08b] (see also [@lr08] for a more restricted class of models).
An illustrative example combining both non-Gaussianities and multi-field effects is Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) inflation [@st; @ast], which arises from the motion of a $D3$-brane in an internal six-dimensional compact space, as one can encounter in the context of string theory compactifications. In this case, the function $P$ is given by P=- -V(\^I), where the scalar fields $\phi^I$ are directly related to the compact coordinates of the brane, and where the functions $f$ and $G_{IJ}$, which depends on the $\phi^I$, are determined by the 10-dimensional geometry (bulk forms can also be included [@lrs09]).
During multi-field DBI inflation, both adiabatic and entropic modes can be generated, with power spectra $\P_{Q_\sigma}= (H/2\pi)^2$ and $\P_{Q_s}= (H/2\pi c_s)^2$ respectively [@lrst08a]. The entropy power spectrum is thus enhanced by its dependence on the sound speed $c_s=\sqrt{1-f\dot\sigma^2} \, <1$, and the final curvature is =(Q\_+T\_[ [R]{} [S]{} ]{} c\_sQ\_[s]{}), \^2G\_[IJ]{}\^I\^J, where $T_{ {\cal R} {\cal S} }$ parametrizes the transfer from entropy modes into the curvature perturbation.
By expanding the action beyond the second order, one can also determine the non-Gaussianities generated in this class of models [@lrst08a]. This leads to a bispectrum of equilateral shape with f\_[NL]{}\^[(3)]{}=-, which corresponds to the single-field result but with a suppression due to the entropy-curvature transfer. At the next order, in the trispectrum, multi-field effects induce a shape of non-Gaussianities that differs from the single-field case [@Mizuno:2009cv].
[99]{}
D. Langlois, “Inflation, quantum fluctuations and cosmological perturbations,” in [*Cargese 2003, Particle physics and cosmology*]{}, p. 235-278 \[arXiv:hep-th/0405053\].
D. Langlois and F. Vernizzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 091303 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0503416\].
D. Langlois and F. Vernizzi, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 103501 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0509078\]. E. Komatsu [*et al.*]{} \[WMAP Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**180**]{}, 330 (2009) \[arXiv:0803.0547 \[astro-ph\]\]. A. A. Starobinsky and J. Yokoyama, “Density fluctuations in Brans-Dicke inflation”, gr-qc/9502002
Z. Lalak, D. Langlois, S. Pokorski and K. Turzynski, JCAP [**0707**]{}, 014 (2007) \[arXiv:0704.0212 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Langlois, S. Renaux-Petel, D. A. Steer and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 063523 (2008) \[arXiv:0806.0336 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Langlois and S. Renaux-Petel, JCAP [**0804**]{}, 017 (2008) \[arXiv:0801.1085 \[hep-th\]\].
E. Silverstein and D. Tong, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 103505 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0310221\]; M. Alishahiha, E. Silverstein and D. Tong, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 123505 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0404084\]. D. Langlois, S. Renaux-Petel and D. A. Steer, JCAP [**0904**]{}, 021 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.2941 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Langlois, S. Renaux-Petel, D. A. Steer and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 061301 (2008) \[arXiv:0804.3139 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Mizuno, F. Arroja, K. Koyama and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 023530 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.4557 \[hep-th\]\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[It has recently been shown that nontrivial couplings between a scalar and the Gauss-Bonnet invariant can give rise to black hole spontaneous scalarization. Theories that exhibit this phenomenon are among the leading candidates for testing gravity with upcoming black hole observations.]{} All models considered so far have focused on specific forms for the coupling, neglecting scalar self-interactions. In this work, we take the first steps towards placing this phenomenon on a more robust theoretical footing by considering the leading-order scalar self-interactions as well as the scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling. [Our approach is consistent with the principles of effective field theory and yields the simplest and most natural model.]{} We find that a mass term for the scalar alters the threshold for the onset of scalarization, and we study the mass range over which scalarized black hole solutions exist. We also demonstrate that the quartic self-coupling is sufficient to produce scalarized solutions that are stable against radial perturbations, without the need to resort to higher-order terms in the Gauss-Bonnet coupling function. Our model therefore represents a canonical model that can be studied further, with the ultimate aim of developing falsifiable tests of black hole scalarization.'
author:
- 'Caio F. B. Macedo'
- Jeremy Sakstein
- Emanuele Berti
- Leonardo Gualtieri
- 'Hector O. Silva'
- 'Thomas P. Sotiriou'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Self-interactions and Spontaneous Black Hole Scalarization'
---
Introduction {#sec:int}
============
The era of gravitational-wave observations has arrived. For the first time we can see the universe in gravitational waves as well as optically, and this new window affords us the opportunity to test gravity in extreme spacetimes for the first time. The LIGO/Virgo collaboration has already detected ten black hole (BH) mergers [@Abbott:2016blz; @LIGOScientific:2018mvr] and one neutron star merger [@Abbott:2017oio]. The latter has proved incredibly powerful for testing and constraining infrared modifications of gravity [@Sakstein:2017xjx; @Ezquiaga:2017ekz; @Creminelli:2017sry; @Baker:2017hug; @Dima:2017pwp; @Crisostomi:2017lbg; @Langlois:2017dyl] (if the modifications are important for the late-time cosmology [@Franchini:2019npi]), but ultraviolet (UV) modifications are more difficult to test. This is partly due to the numerical and theoretical challenges that arise when extending computations of merger events to theories beyond general relativity (GR), but also due to a theoretical roadblock: the no-hair theorems [@Hawking:1972qk; @Sotiriou:2011dz; @Hui:2012qt] (see e.g. [@Berti:2015itd; @Sotiriou:2015lxa; @Herdeiro:2015waa; @Sotiriou:2015pka; @Cardoso:2016ryw] for reviews). These preclude the existence of nontrivial scalar hair (or scalar charges) for BHs, and so the dynamics of theories including new scalar degrees of freedom (i.e. scalar-tensor theories) is similar to GR. One possible way forward is to instead use neutron stars as probes of UV modifications of GR [@Yagi:2013awa; @Pappas:2014gca; @Berti:2015itd; @Pappas:2015npa; @Yagi:2016ejg; @Sakstein:2016oel; @Babichev:2016jom; @Doneva:2017jop; @Sakstein:2018fwz; @Pappas:2018csu]. These are far more complicated objects since the equation of state for nuclear matter is presently unknown, and, unlike BHs, neutron stars have higher-order multipole moments that give rise to strong tidal effects. On the observational side, LIGO/Virgo has observed more BH mergers than neutron star mergers [@LIGOScientific:2018mvr], and this may well remain the case, even as more gravitational-wave detectors come online and the existing ones are upgraded to improved sensitivities.
Black hole spontaneous scalarization and effective field theory
---------------------------------------------------------------
The considerations above have motivated a theoretical effort to find UV-modifications of GR that can circumvent the no-hair theorems by violating some of their assumptions. Some of these theories exhibit *spontaneous BH scalarization* [@Doneva:2017bvd; @Silva:2017uqg], a phenomenon where both the GR BH solution and novel BH solutions with scalar hair can exist. The phenomenon has been predicted for static [@Doneva:2017bvd; @Silva:2017uqg] and, more recently, charged [@Doneva:2018rou; @Brihaye:2019kvj] BHs. This allows for the possibility that, even if all LIGO/Virgo detections to date have been compatible with GR, future detections could be consistent with scalarized BH solutions.
The fundamental interaction responsible for scalarization is the coupling between a scalar field $\phi$ and the Gauss-Bonnet invariant ${\cal
G}=R^2-4R_{ab}R^{ab}+R_{abcd}R^{abcd}$, so that the action has the form $$S=\frac{1}{2}\int{{\rm d}}^4 x\sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{R}{8\pi G}-\frac{1}{2}\nabla_a\phi\nabla^a\phi+f(\phi)\mathcal{G}\right],
\label{eq:action0}$$ where we are using units where $\hbar=c=1$, so that the Planck mass ${M_{\rm Pl}}=(8\pi G)^{-1/2}$. In subsequent sections we will switch to units where $8\pi G=c=1$, which is more suited to (and more common in) the study of BH solutions. In Eq. we have chosen the same normalization and conventions as in Ref. [@Kanti:1995vq] (modulo an overall sign in the definition of the Riemann tensor) and in Refs. [@Maselli:2015tta; @Silva:2017uqg; @Minamitsuji:2018xde; @Silva:2018qhn], while the scalar field $\phi^{\rm DY}$ in Refs. [@Doneva:2017bvd; @Blazquez-Salcedo:2018jnn] has a different normalization: $\phi^{\rm DY}=\phi/2$. A canonically normalized scalar field $\phi^{\rm can}$ is such that $\phi^{\rm can}=\phi/\sqrt{2}$.
Reference [@Silva:2017uqg] proved a no-hair theorem for scalar-Gauss-Bonnet theories under certain conditions. Scalarization may occur when these conditions are violated. The essential requirement is that the coupling function $f(\phi)$ has at least one stationary point at some $\phi=\bar\phi$ such that $f(\bar\phi)=0$. GR BHs correspond to solutions with $\phi=\bar\phi$, but this configuration may be unstable for certain BH masses or model parameters. When this is the case, the field rolls away, and the BH acquires scalar hair. Apart from this requirement, there is no guiding principle for choosing $f(\phi)$. The patent choice $f(\phi)=\phi^2/2\mathcal{M}^2$ [@Silva:2017uqg] (where $\mathcal{M}$ is a new mass scale) produces scalarized BHs that are unstable to radial perturbations [@Blazquez-Salcedo:2018jnn]. This can be resolved by including higher-order terms, in particular $f(\phi)=\phi^2/2\mathcal{M}^2+c\phi^4/{\mathcal{M}}^4$ [@Minamitsuji:2018xde; @Silva:2018qhn], or by assuming a more complicated function: for example, exponential couplings $f(\phi)=\exp(\beta\phi^2/2\mathcal{M}^{2})$ with both positive and negative signs for $\beta$ have been considered in the literature [@Doneva:2017bvd; @Antoniou:2017acq].
These solutions are somewhat unsatisfactory from a theoretical perspective. Since we lack a UV-completion for these models, it would be more appropriate to construct the theory using the principles of effective field theory (EFT) [@Georgi:1994qn; @Donoghue:1994dn; @Burgess:2007pt]. From this perspective, relying on higher-order corrections to the coupling function in order to stabilize the BH solutions implies that higher-dimensional operators are competing with (supposedly leading) lower-dimensional operators. This suggests that operators that have been omitted can be just as important, and therefore these solutions are outside the range of validity of the EFT. Moreover, without any enhanced symmetry protecting the form of special choices of the coupling functions (and the action in general), it is likely that these theories are radiatively unstable. [We note that there is currently no known enhanced symmetry of the exponential or quartic couplings, though this is by no means a proof that there cannot be one. Similarly, it is possible that such couplings arise as a truncation of a UV-complete theory and just appear fine-tuned from an IR perspective [@Heckman:2019dsj]. ]{}
In the coming decade and beyond, LIGO/Virgo will be upgraded to higher sensitivities and additional detectors will come online. Hundreds or thousands of detections are anticipated, and it therefore behooves us to make theoretical predictions from robust models that are stable from a QFT point of view. The main purpose of this paper is to take a first step towards placing the phenomenon of BH spontaneous scalarization on a more robust theoretical foundation by constructing the theory using EFT principles.
When viewed as an EFT, spontaneous scalarization is a phenomenon occurring in theories where a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-symmetric scalar (i.e. the action is invariant under $\phi\rightarrow -\phi$) is coupled to a massless spin-2 particle. We should therefore build our action out of operators that are invariant under this symmetry. In particular, the leading-order (relevant and marginal) operators are not Gauss-Bonnet couplings, but rather a mass term and a quartic self-interaction[^1]. One should supplement these with irrelevant operators suppressed by some cut-off scale $\mathcal{M}$, which will include a quadratic scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling at lowest order. For this reason, we will mainly study the action $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:actionmin}
S=&\frac{1}{2}\int{{\rm d}}^4 x\sqrt{-g}\left[{M_{\rm Pl}}^2R-\frac{1}{2}\nabla_a\phi\nabla^a\phi\right.\\
&\left.-\frac{1}{2}\mu^2\phi^2-\frac{1}{2}\lambda\phi^4+\frac{\phi^2}{2\mathcal{M}^2}\mathcal{G}\right].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Later on, we will also include the quartic scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling in order to provide a different and well-studied stable model against which we can compare the effects of the self-interactions. This coupling is higher order and it will not give the leading order effect from an EFT perspective, but it is included for the purpose of comparison with previous studies [@Doneva:2017bvd; @Silva:2017uqg; @Blazquez-Salcedo:2018jnn; @Silva:2018qhn]. Boson star and BH solutions have recently been studied in a similar class of theories [@Baibhav:2016fot; @Brihaye:2018grv]. Scalar-tensor theories with a self-interacting potential, but without a Gauss-Bonnet term, were considered in [@Cheong:2018gzn; @Arapoglu:2019mun; @Staykov:2018hhc].
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
Of course, there are other operators that one could write down, such as a term $\propto \phi^6$ in the potential or scalar-curvature couplings such as $\phi^2R$, but in this work we will restrict our focus to understanding how scalarization works when only the leading-order operators (including the leading-order scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling) are included, since this is the minimal input required to produce the phenomenon. We postpone the more arduous task of determining the unique set of dimension-six operators that contribute to this theory, and a full explorative study of the resultant parameter space, for future work.
Executive summary
-----------------
In this article we study the existence, stability, and properties of scalarized BHs in the theory defined by the action , including the subtleties and conceptual issues that arise due to the inclusion of a mass for the scalar.
We find (as previously noted in [@Brihaye:2018grv]) that including a mass term for the scalar alters the threshold for the onset of scalarization. Most notably, we find that the quartic self-interaction is sufficient to stabilize some scalarized BHs, and higher-order scalar-Gauss-Bonnet couplings are not required. For this reason, and because the theory is a robust EFT, the action represents the leading canonical model with which to study spontaneous BH scalarization.
The action in Eq. uses units where $\hbar=c=1$, which are useful for understanding the theory from an EFT perspective. For the purposes of calculating, it is more convenient to use geometrized units where $8\pi
G=c=1$. Furthermore, we will rescale the field so that $\phi$ is dimensionless by defining (before the change of units) $\phi={M_{\rm Pl}}\varphi $. In the new units, the action reads $$S = \frac{1}{2}
\int {\rm d}^4x
\sqrt{-g}
\left[
R - \frac{1}{2}\nabla_a\varphi\nabla^a\varphi - V(\varphi) + f(\varphi){\cal G}
\right]\,,
\label{eq:action}$$ where the potential is $$V(\varphi)=\frac{1}{2}\mu^2\varphi^2+\frac{1}{2}\lambda\varphi^4\,,
\label{eq:potential}$$ the coupling function is $$f(\varphi)=\frac{1}{8} \eta \varphi^2\,,
\label{eq:coupling_fun}$$ and $\eta$ has units of $[\textrm{Length}]^2$. Note that the parameters $\mu$ and $\lambda$ appearing in the potential have units of $[\textrm{Length}]^{-1}$ and $[\textrm{Length}]^{-2}$, respectively. In order to compare our results with those of [@Silva:2018qhn], in part of our analysis we will also include a quartic term in the coupling function, i.e. $f(\varphi)=(\eta\varphi^2+\zeta\varphi^4)/8$, where $\zeta$ has units of $[\textrm{Length}]^{2}$ [(see Appendix \[app:quartic\])]{}. Finally, note that in this work we will only consider $\mu^2>0$. One could consider $\mu^2<0$, which would give a global minimum of the potential at some ${\varphi}\ne0$. This sign choice would require the addition of a cosmological constant to cancel the net vacuum energy at the new minimum in order for the theory to admit asymptotically-flat spacetimes. Since the aim of this work is to discern the effects of the scalar self-interactions on the canonical model of spontaneous scalarization, we prefer not to include this more technical, and quantitatively different possibility.
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
With these conventions in place, we now summarize the main results of this work. First, we introduce the dimensionless mass and scalar charge of the solutions $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{M}\equiv M/\eta^{1/2}, \quad
\hat{Q}\equiv Q/\eta^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ as well as the dimensionless coupling parameters $$\begin{aligned}
\hat\mu\equiv \mu\eta^{1/2}, \quad
\hat\lambda\equiv \lambda\eta, \quad
\hat\zeta\equiv \zeta/\eta.\end{aligned}$$ For the purpose of understanding the changes introduced by the scalar potential, it will be useful to introduce an effective potential, which is spacetime dependent: $$\label{eq:effpot}
V_{\rm eff}(\varphi)=\frac12\left(\mu^2-\frac\eta4\mathcal{G}\right)\varphi^2+\frac{1}{2}\lambda\varphi^4$$ The equation of motion for the scalar is $\Box\varphi=V_{\rm eff,\,\varphi}(\varphi)$. In particular, there is an effective mass for the scalar about the point $\varphi=0$ $$\label{eq:effmass}
m_{\rm eff}^2=\mu^2-\frac\eta4\mathcal{G};\quad \hat m_{\rm eff}=m_{\rm eff}/\eta^{1/2},$$ where we have defined a dimensionless effective mass for later convenience. Close to the BH, the contribution of the Gauss-Bonnet invariant dominates and the Schwarzschild solution is unstable due to a tachyonic instability (recall that $\mathcal{G}\sim M^2/r^6$ for the Schwarzschild metric). This gives rise to spontaneous scalarization. Further away, the Gauss-Bonnet contribution is negligible, and the effective mass is positive.
A summary of our results is as follows:\
**$\bullet$ Effects of the mass term (left panel of Fig. \[fig:scalarized\_sols\]):** The main effect of the mass term is to alter the threshold for the onset of scalarization, as already noted in [@Brihaye:2018grv]. The dimensionless mass threshold $\hat M$, below which scalarization is possible, is studied in Sec. \[sec:radschw\], and it is plotted as a function of $\hat{\mu}$ in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:scalarized\_sols\] for solutions where the radial profile of the scalar field has no nodes (black, solid line) and one node (red, dashed line). Only the nodeless solutions are radially stable. Note that $\hat M$ is a decreasing function of $\hat\mu$. This can be qualitatively understood from the effective potential : $\hat m_{\rm eff}$ grows with $\hat \mu$ (at fixed $\mathcal{G}$), so that the tachyonic instability responsible for scalarization is harder to realize.\
**$\bullet$ Effects of the quartic self-interaction (right panel of Fig. \[fig:scalarized\_sols\]):** The quartic self-interaction stabilizes scalarized BH solutions with respect to radial perturbations. At fixed $\hat\mu$, all scalarized solutions with $\hat\lambda<\hat\lambda_{\rm crit}$ are unstable, and we conjecture that gravitational collapse will generally lead to a Schwarzschild solution since these are always stable for $
\hat M>\hat M_t$. This corresponds to the region on the right of the dotted vertical lines in Fig. \[fig:scalarized\] below. When $\hat\lambda>\hat\lambda_{\rm crit}$, stable scalarized BH solutions are possible: these are the solid lines on the left of the dotted vertical lines in Fig. \[fig:scalarized\], and we conjecture that they are the end-state of gravitational collapse. The threshold value $\hat\lambda_{\rm crit}(\hat\mu)$ is shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:scalarized\_sols\]. Qualitatively, this can be understood as follows: For scalarized solutions, the effective mass for the scalar \[Eq. \] is tachyonic, at least in some region of spacetime, and therefore the scalar tends to grow from its scalarized value. Introducing a quartic term in the effective potential bounds the effective potential from below, so that there is a stable minimum about which the effective mass is positive and the solution is globally stable. This is also the reason why a quartic Gauss-Bonnet coupling can stabilize the scalarized solutions [@Minamitsuji:2018xde; @Silva:2018qhn], although in the Gauss-Bonnet case the coefficient of the $\varphi^4$ term is also spacetime-dependent.
[The existence of a global stable minimum should resolve the concerns raised in reference [@Anson:2019uto], where it was shown that quantum fluctuations could trigger the tachyonic instability during inflation. In our model, the field would begin, and remain, at the global minimum for the duration of inflation and play no role in its dynamics (the field’s mass would be much larger than the Hubble scale so that the field does not fluctuate). That being said, inflation occurs at energies far higher than the cut-off of the effective field theory for spontaneous scalarization ($10^{-20}$ GeV for scalarized solar mass BHs), and it is not clear that the range of validity of any current model exhibiting scalarization can be extended to the early Universe. ]{}\
**$\bullet$ Mass range for scalarization and maximum scalar charge (Fig. \[fig:MQ\]):** For any given choice of the theory parameters $(\hat\mu, \hat\lambda)$, marginally stable scalarized BH solutions correspond to a minimum in the BH mass $\hat M$ and a maximum in the scalar charge $\hat Q$: cf. again Fig. \[fig:scalarized\] below. (This maximum charge refers to [stable]{} BHs; unstable BHs can have larger charges, but they are unphysical.) In the left panel of Fig. \[fig:MQ\] we focus on nodeless solutions, and we plot: (i) the $\hat\lambda$–independent threshold mass $\hat M=\hat M_{\rm t}(\hat \mu)$ below which scalarization is possible (thick, gray line); (ii) the minimum dimensionless mass $\hat M_{\rm min}(\hat\mu)$, below which both Schwarzschild and scalarized BH solutions are unstable, for selected values of $\hat\lambda$. The mass range in which stable, scalarized BH solutions can exist becomes narrower as $\hat\mu$ increases.
Summarizing: for $\hat{M}>\hat{M}_{\rm t}$, the Schwarzschild solution is stable, while scalarized BH solutions are unstable to radial perturbations; for $\hat{M}_{\rm min}<\hat{M}<\hat{M}_{\rm t}$ [there is at least one stable $n=0$ scalarized BH,]{} while the Schwarzschild solution (and the $n>0$ scalarized BH solutions) are unstable; finally, for $\hat{M}<\hat{M}_{\rm min}$, all BH solutions are unstable. The existence of a minimum BH mass is a common feature in theories with scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling (see e.g. the cases of Einstein-dilaton Gauss-Bonnet gravity [@Kanti:1995vq; @Pani:2009wy] and of shift-symmetric Gauss-Bonnet gravity [@Sotiriou:2014pfa]), although in theories that do not exhibit scalarization (such as these) the minimum mass is due to the inability to satisfy a regularity condition at the horizon.
The right panel of Fig. \[fig:MQ\] shows the maximum dimensionless scalar charge $\hat Q_{\rm max}(\hat{\mu})$ for selected values of $\hat\lambda$. The most relevant feature here is that, for all values of $\hat\lambda$ that we investigated, $\hat Q_{\rm
max}(\hat \mu)$ has a local maximum $\sim 0.15$: this near-universal maximum value of the scalar charge is of phenomenological interest, because the dipolar radiation in BH binaries (which is potentially measurable by gravitational-wave interferometers) is proportional to the difference between the BH charges [@Yagi:2011xp; @Berti:2015itd; @Berti:2018cxi].
Plan of the paper
-----------------
The paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec:theory\] we present the equations of motion resulting from the action and analyze their properties. In section \[sec:radschw\] we investigate the effect of a nonzero scalar mass on the threshold for the onset of scalarization. We accomplish this by studying the limit in which the scalar is decoupled from the metric equations of motion, i.e. we consider the linearized field equations for a scalar field propagating on a Schwarzschild background. In section \[sec:bhs\_sol\] we move beyond this “decoupling limit” and solve the coupled metric-scalar equations numerically in order to confirm the results of our linear analysis. [We also calculate the properties of the scalarized solutions, including their stability to radial perturbations. The study of radial perturbations in scalar-Gauss-Bonnet theories is by now standard (cf. [@Blazquez-Salcedo:2018jnn; @Minamitsuji:2018xde; @Silva:2018qhn]), so we do not rederive the formalism in this work.]{}. In section \[sec:conclusion\] we summarize our results and discuss possible directions for future work.
Field Equations and Scalarized Solutions {#sec:theory}
========================================
The modified Einstein equations can be obtained by extremizing the action with respect to the metric and the scalar field, with the result $$\begin{aligned}
G_{ab}&=T_{ab}^{\varphi}-\frac{1}{2}{\cal K}_{ab},
\label{eq:einstein_eq}
\\
\Box\varphi&=V_{,\varphi} - f_{,\varphi}{\cal G},
\label{eq:scalar_eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
T_{ab}^\varphi&=\frac{1}{2}\partial_a\varphi\partial_b\varphi-\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}\left[\frac{1}{2}
(\partial_c\varphi)^2+V(\varphi)\right],\\
{\cal K}_{ab}&=2g_{c(a}g_{b)d}\epsilon^{edjg}\nabla_h\left[^*{R^{ch}}_{jg}f'\nabla_e\varphi\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $V(\varphi)$ is given in equation , $f(\varphi)=(\eta\varphi^2+\zeta\varphi^4)/8$, and $^*R^{ab}_{cd}=\epsilon^{abef}R_{efcd}$.
As discussed in [@Doneva:2017bvd; @Silva:2017uqg], Schwarzschild solutions exist in scalar Gauss-Bonnet theories provided that there is some $\bar\varphi$ such that $f'(\bar\varphi)=0$. In our model, $\bar\varphi=0$. Allowing for a nonzero value of the background scalar may have important phenomenological consequences for gravitational wave astronomy, as pointed out in the context of Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory [@Julie:2017rpw], and we plan to revisit this assumption in future work.
We focus on static, spherically symmetric BHs. In this case the line element and the scalar field read $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm d}}s^2&=-A (r) {{\rm d}}t^2+B(r)^{-1}{{\rm d}}r^2+r^2{{\rm d}}\Omega^2,\label{eq:metric}\\
\varphi&=\varphi_0(r),
\label{eq:scalar_f}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\rm d}}\Omega = {{\rm d}}\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta\, {{\rm d}}\phi^2$ is the line element on a 2-sphere. The field equations can be obtained by substituting Eqs. and into Eqs. and . We show the equations in Appendix \[app:equations\]. We also make them available online through a [Mathematica]{} notebook [@notebook].
The field equations must be supplemented by boundary conditions. Spherically symmetric BHs have an event horizon $r_h$ where the functions $A$ and $B$ vanish and the scalar field tends to a constant: $$\begin{aligned}
A(r\approx r_h) &\approx a_1(r-r_h)+{\cal O}[(r-r_h)^2],\label{eq:metric_cond}\\
B(r\approx r_h) &\approx b_1(r-r_h)+{\cal O}[(r-r_h)^2],\\
\varphi_0(r\approx r_h)&\approx \varphi_{0h}+{\cal O}[(r-r_h)].\end{aligned}$$ These conditions impose a restriction on the derivative of the scalar field at the horizon: $$\left.\frac{{{\rm d}}\varphi_{0}}{{{\rm d}}r}\right|_{r=r_{\rm h}}=a^{-1}\left(b+c\sqrt{\Delta}\right),
\label{eq:phi_der}$$ where $a,\,b,$ and $c$ are functions of $r_h$, $\varphi_{0h}$, and of the parameters of the theory. [The explicit expression of these functions is given in Appendix \[app:equations\]]{}. The important quantity is $\Delta$, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta&=1-6\frac{\varphi_{0h}}{r_h^4}\left(\eta+\zeta\varphi_{0h}^2\right)^2\Bigg\{1-\nonumber\\
&\quad-\frac{1}{2}\varphi_{0h}^2\left(\eta+\zeta\varphi_{0h}^2\right)\left(\mu^2+2\lambda\varphi_{0h}^2\right)\nonumber\\
&\quad-\frac{r_h^2}{6}\varphi_{0h}^2\left(\mu^2+\lambda\varphi_{0h}^2\right)\left[1
+\frac{1}{16r_h^2}\left(\eta\varphi_{0h}+\zeta\varphi_{0h}^3\right)^2\times\right.\nonumber\\
&\quad\left.\left.\times\left(-\frac{24}{r_h^2}+\mu^2\varphi_{0h}^2
+\lambda\varphi_{0h}^4\right)\right]\right\}\,.\label{eq:deltaexpr}\end{aligned}$$ When $\Delta<0$ it is not possible to enforce regularity at the horizon. Ref. [@Sotiriou:2014pfa] studied this regularity condition for shift-symmetric scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, showing that there is a naked singularity when the condition is violated. Thus, $\Delta>0$ is a necessary condition for the existence of BH solutions.
By expanding the field equations for large $r$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
A(r\gg r_{\rm h})&\simeq 1-{2M}/{r}\,,
\label{eq:metric_inf}\\
B(r\gg r_{\rm h})&\simeq 1-{2M}/{r}\,,
\\
\varphi_0(r\gg r_{\rm h})&\simeq {Q\,e^{-\mu r}}/{r}\label{eq:scalar_inf}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is the ADM mass, $Q$ is an integration constant, and we have set the cosmological value of the scalar field to zero. In the $\mu\to0$ limit, the scalar field decays like $\varphi\sim 1/r$, and the constant in front of $1/r$ is typically referred to as the “scalar charge.” Strictly speaking, $Q$ is not a conserved charge (even when $\mu=0$), but we will follow conventions and refer to it as such from here on.
Typically, in scalar-tensor theories one must set the scalar field’s mass such that the force range is sub-micron (for $\mathcal{O}(1)$ couplings), or else the theory will fail laboratory and solar system tests of GR [@Adelberger:2003zx; @Adelberger:2006dh; @Adelberger:2009zz; @Antoniadis:2011zza; @Sakstein:2015zoa; @Sakstein:2015aac; @Burrage:2016bwy; @Burrage:2017qrf; @Sakstein:2017pqi]. Therefore one would expect the spacetime outside the BH to rapidly approach the Schwarzchild metric, thereby suppressing any deviations from GR. This logic follows from scalar-gravity couplings of the form $\varphi R$, which, in the absence of any screening mechanisms, give rise to Yukawa forces. The coupling considered in our model $\eta\varphi^2\mathcal{G}$ is expected to appear at high post-Newtonian order in the weak-field limit (provided $\eta/M_\odot^2$ is not too large), and therefore the theory is compatible with Solar System tests of GR [@EspositoFarese:2004cc; @Sotiriou:2006pq]. Furthermore, since it is unlikely that weakly gravitating objects like the Sun and the Earth are scalarized, gravity in the Solar System should behave identically to GR. For these reasons, we will not place any restrictions on the mass of the field in this work. One could imagine completing the EFT by adding a term proportional to $\varphi^2R$ into the action, which is not forbidden by the symmetries, and which we have ignored in this work for the sake of simplicity. Such couplings could give rise to Yukawa-like forces, but (again) only if the Sun or the Earth is scalarized, which is unlikely to be the case, with the exception of extreme couplings [@Sakstein:2017lfm; @Sakstein:2017nns]. The situation would be different if the asymptotic field value were different from zero.
Schwarzschild radial stability and the scalarization threshold {#sec:radschw}
==============================================================
In Sec. \[sec:bhs\_sol\] we will explore the BH solutions of the theory. Before doing so, we first wish to understand whether such solutions can exist as a result of instabilities of the ordinary Schwarzschild solution to linear perturbations.
The Schwarzschild metric with a vanishing scalar field is a solution of Eqs. and . We can study the radial stability of the Schwarzschild spacetime by considering perturbations of the field equations of the form $\varphi=\varepsilon \varphi_1(r) e^{-i\omega t}/r$, where $\varepsilon$ is a small bookkeeping parameter. From the scalar field equation we find $$\frac{{{\rm d}}^2 \varphi_1}{{{\rm d}}r_\ast^2}+(\omega^2-V_{\rm eff})\varphi_1=0\,,
\label{eq:pert_sch}$$ where $$V_{\rm eff}=\left(1-\frac{r_h}{r}\right)\left(\frac{r_h}{r^3}+\mu^2-\frac{3\, \eta\, r_h^6}{r^6}\right)\,.
\label{eq:pot_sch}$$ This equation involves only the field’s mass $\mu$ and the strength of the Gauss-Bonnet coupling $\eta$. Therefore, higher-order terms in the scalar potential and in the coupling function do not have any influence on the stability of the Schwarzschild spacetime. In particular, the threshold for scalarization is independent of $\lambda$.
![Frequency of the unstable modes of Schwarzschild BHs in our theory. The frequency becomes zero at $\hat M=\hat M_t$.[]{data-label="fig:sch_ins"}](figs/fre_sch){width="\columnwidth"}
![Unstable modes of scalarized BHs, compared with the Schwarzschild case (gray solid line), for the representative case $\hat \mu=0.05$.[]{data-label="fig:radialstab"}](figs/mode_mu05){width="\columnwidth"}
To investigate the radial stability of the Schwarzschild spacetime, we solve Eq. by requiring that the field vanishes at the BH horizon and at infinity [@Silva:2018qhn]. Since the equation is real, the eigenvalue $\omega^2$ is also real, and $\omega^2<0$ corresponds to unstable modes [@Kanti:1997br; @Blazquez-Salcedo:2018jnn; @Silva:2018qhn]. The critical threshold value $\hat{M}=\hat{M}_{\rm t}$ for which scalarization can occur corresponds to solutions of Eq. with eigenvalue $\omega=0$, indicating a transition between stable and unstable states. The condition $\omega^2=0$ is satisfied by different values of $\hat{M}$, corresponding to scalarized solutions with $n=0,1,\dots$ nodes in the scalar field profile. We denote the threshold value for the $n=0$ solution by $\hat{M}_{\rm t}$.
In the left panel of Fig. \[fig:scalarized\_sols\] we show $\hat{M}_{\rm t}$ as a function of the mass $\hat\mu$ of the field (we also show the threshold values for the $n=1$ solution, which, as discussed in the introduction, is always smaller than the threshold mass $\hat{M}_{\rm t}$ for $n=0$). [One can see that the threshold for scalarization $\hat{M}_{\rm t}$ decreases with increasing $\hat\mu$. This can be understood by considering the effective mass for the scalar given in Eq. : larger values of $\mu$ require the product $\eta\mathcal{G}$ to be larger in order to induce the tachyonic instability. The instability is therefore harder to realize for larger scalar masses. ]{}
By solving Eq. we can also investigate the instability time scale as a function of $\hat{M}$. In Fig. \[fig:sch\_ins\] we show the normalized frequency for unstable modes, $2M\omega_I$, as a function of the parameter $\hat{M}$. The Schwarzschild solution is stable ($\omega_I<0$) in the region $\hat{M}>\hat{M}_{\rm t}$, where $\hat{M}_{\rm t}$ is the value corresponding to the intersection of $2M\omega_I$ with the x-axis of this plot. The three cases studied here correspond to the blue dots in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:scalarized\_sols\]. It is therefore plausible that hairy solutions should exist in the region $\hat{M}<\hat{M}_{\rm t}$, where the Schwarzschild BH is unstable. This expectation will be confirmed in Sec. \[sec:bhs\_sol\] below.
{width="0.7\columnwidth"}{width="0.7\columnwidth"}{width="0.7\columnwidth"}
Scalarized black hole solutions and radial stability {#sec:bhs_sol}
====================================================
In this section we solve the fully nonlinear equations to construct scalarized solutions, and check their stability under linear radial scalar and tensor perturbations. This is accomplished as follows. First, we integrate the field equations outwards starting from the horizon, where we impose the conditions –. By matching the numerical solutions with Eqs. – in the far region ($r\gg r_h$), we can extract the BH mass $\hat{M}$ and the scalar charge $\hat{Q}$. This procedure gives us the unperturbed solution. Next we check stability. The linearized field equations for radial perturbations follow from the ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi&=\varphi_0+\varepsilon\frac{\varphi_1}{r},\label{eq:field_pert}\\
{{\rm d}}s^2&=[A+\varepsilon F_t(t,r)]{{\rm d}}t^2+[B^{-1}+\varepsilon F_r(t,r)]+r^2{{\rm d}}\Omega^2,\label{eq:metric_pert}\end{aligned}$$ where $(A,\,B,\,\varphi_0)$ are functions of $r$ which satisfy the zeroth-order (background) field equations. By inserting Eqs. and into the field equations and and expanding up to first order, one can show that the equations for the perturbation functions reduce to a single second-order equation of the form $$h(r)\frac{\partial^2\varphi_1}{\partial t^2}-\frac{\partial^2\varphi_1}{\partial r^2}+k(r)
\frac{\partial\varphi_1}{\partial r}+p(r)\varphi_1=0,
\label{eq:per_scalar}$$ (see Appendix \[app:equations\] and the supplemental [ Mathematica]{} notebook [@notebook]) where the coefficients $(h,\,k,\,p)$ depend only on the background quantities and on $r$ (cf. [@Kanti:1995vq; @Blazquez-Salcedo:2018jnn; @Silva:2018qhn]). Eq. can be further manipulated to reduce it to a Schrödinger-like form, but since this step is not necessary to analyze the stability of the system, and generates more complicated coefficients, we prefer not to display it here (see [@Blazquez-Salcedo:2018jnn] for details). A mode analysis can be performed by looking for solutions of the form $\varphi_1(t,r)=\varphi_1(r)e^{-i\omega t}$, and by imposing the requirement that $\varphi_1(r)$ vanishes at the horizon and at infinity when searching for unstable modes. These requirements (as in Sec. \[sec:radschw\]) result in an eigenvalue problem for $\omega^2<0$.
Before applying this process in general, it is instructive to perform a preliminary comparative study in order to discern how self-interactions affect the stability of scalarized solutions. In Fig. \[fig:radialstab\] we fix $\hat\mu=0.05$ and we compare the normalized imaginary mode for the scalarized solutions with the corresponding calculation for the Schwarzschild case, as presented in Fig. \[fig:sch\_ins\]. When $\hat\lambda\leq 0.2$, both the modes of the scalarized solutions (dashed red) and the Schwarzschild modes (solid gray) converge to zero when $\hat M=\hat M_t$. However, for $\hat \lambda >0.2$ the modes tend to zero when $\hat M=\hat M_{\rm min}$ and $\hat Q=\hat Q_{\rm max}$, and we found no unstable modes for BHs with $\hat M>\hat M_{\min}$ and $\hat Q<\hat Q_{\rm max}$. We note also that the unstable mode frequencies typically decrease as $\hat\lambda$ increases, [implying stability on longer time-scales]{}. Qualitatively similar conclusions apply to other values of $\hat\mu$.
The main results of our integrations are presented in Fig. \[fig:scalarized\], where we show scalarized solutions in the $(\hat{M},\,\hat{Q})$ plane for representative values of $\hat\mu$ and $\hat\lambda$. The dotted vertical line represents the threshold for the stability of the Schwarzschild solution, $\hat{M}=\hat{M}_{\rm t}$. Solid lines correspond to radially stable solutions, while dashed lines correspond to radially unstable solutions. Note that we use different conventions for radial stability with respect to Refs. [@Blazquez-Salcedo:2018jnn; @Silva:2018qhn], where solid and dashed lines have the opposite meaning.
When $\hat{\lambda}=0$, all scalarized solutions are in the region $\hat{M}>\hat{M}_{\rm t}$, where the Schwarzschild solution is stable. These scalarized solutions are radially unstable, and it is plausible that Schwarzschild BHs will be the end-state of gravitational collapse. As $\hat{\lambda}$ increases, the solutions move into the region where $\hat{M}_{\rm min}<\hat{M}<\hat{M}_{\rm t}$; the minimum mass $\hat{M}_{\rm min}$ corresponds to the blue dots in Fig. \[fig:scalarized\]. Schwarzschild BHs are unstable in this region, so the BH can support a nontrivial scalar provided the scalarized solutions are stable. For ${\hat M}<\hat{M}_{\rm min}$, both Schwarzschild and scalarized BHs are unstable.
Our analysis reveals that the quartic self-interaction can stabilize scalarized solutions with a quadratic scalar-Gauss-Bonnet coupling up to some maximum scalar charge $\hat Q$, beyond which the solutions are unstable. Interestingly, it is possible to have two scalarized solutions (in addition to the unstable Schwarzschild solution) at fixed $\hat M$, provided that $\hat\lambda$ is large enough. In such cases, the solution with larger $\hat
Q$ is unstable, and is expected to decay to the solution with smaller $\hat Q$, which is stable.
The main result of this section is that we do not need more exotic scalar-Gauss-Bonnet couplings to stabilize the scalarized solutions: leading-order scalar self-interactions are sufficient. From an EFT perspective, these models are better-motivated.
Discussion and Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
==========================
Black hole spontaneous scalarization is so far the only known mechanism that allows BHs to possess scalar hair only if their mass is below a certain threshold. Theories that allow for this phenomenon are prime candidates for modelling deviations form GR that have so far avoided detection but can be tested using current and future gravitational wave observations. It therefore behooves the theoretical community to devise robust, stable theories that exhibit BH scalarization. To date, all studies in the literature are not consistent effective field theories since they ignored leading-order terms that are compatible with the underlying symmetries of the theory. The aim of the present work is to take the first steps towards realizing the phenomenon within robust and well-motivated theories.
In this paper, we have presented the simplest model that exhibits spontaneous scalarization by viewing the theory as one of a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-symmetric scalar and writing down all of the leading-order (relevant and marginal) operators, as well as the leading-order coupling of the scalar to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant required to produce scalarized BHs. In practice, this is tantamount to including a mass and quartic self-interaction for the scalar, so that the theory includes a massive scalar with a $\phi^4$-potential and a quadratic coupling of the scalar to the Gauss-Bonnet invariant.
Our analysis has revealed that spontaneous scalarization persists in this bottom-up construction. We have demonstrated that static scalarized solutions exist and, furthermore, that they are stable to radial perturbations. This model (possibly augmented by a $\varphi^2R$ coupling, and other dimension-six operators) therefore represents the leading candidate model with which to explore spontaneous scalarization. In future studies, we intend to take this program forward by studying rotating BHs and neutron stars, and by understanding the stability and dynamics of these compact objects in full generality. The ultimate aim of this program is to predict theoretically sound observational signatures that can be used to test GR in the strong-field regime with upcoming gravitational wave observations.\
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015 Grant No. StronGrHEP-690904 and by the COST action CA16104 “GWverse”. H.O.S was supported by NASA grants NNX16AB98G and 80NSSC17M0041. J.S. was supported by funds provided to the Center for Particle Cosmology by the University of Pennsylvania. E.B. is supported by NSF Grants No. PHY-1841464, AST-1841358, PHY-090003, and NASA ATP Grant No. 17-ATP17-0225. C.F.B.M. would like to thank Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for partial financial support, and the Johns Hopkins University for kind hospitality during the preparation of this work and the American Physical Society which funded the visit through the International Research Travel Award Program.\
Spherical black holes in scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity {#app:equations}
====================================================
From the nontrivial components of the zeroth-order Einstein equations, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
(t,t): \qquad &B \left\{ \left(\varphi_{0}''\right)^2 \left[16 (B-1) f_{,\varphi_{0}\varphi_{0}} -r^2\right]+16
(B-1) \varphi_{0}'' f_{,\varphi_{0}} -4\right\}
-4 B' \left[2 (1-3 B) \varphi_{0}' f_{,\varphi_{0}}+r\right]-r^2 V(\varphi_{0} )+4=0, \\
(r,r): \qquad &\frac{1}{4} A \left\{ B \left[4-r^2 \left(\varphi_{0}''\right)^2\right]+r^2 V(\varphi_{0}
)-4\right\}+B A' \left[2 (1-3 B) \varphi_{0}' f_{,\varphi_{0}} + r\right]=0, \\
(\theta,\theta): \qquad &-r B A'' \left(r-4 B \varphi_{0}' f_{,\varphi_{0}}\right)+4 r B^2
A' \varphi_{0}'' f_{,\varphi_{0}}
-\frac{1}{2} r^2 A \left[B
\varphi_{0}'^2+V(\varphi_{0} )\right] \nonumber\\
& + \frac{1}{2A}\left[r B A'^{2}
\left(r-4 B \varphi_{0}' f_{,\varphi_{0}} \right)\right] + A' \left\{r B
\left[4 B \varphi_{0}'^2 f_{,\varphi_{0}\varphi_{0}} - 1\right]-\frac{1}{2} r
B' \left(r-12 B \varphi_{0}' f_{,\varphi_{0}} \right)\right\}-r A B'=0 \,,\end{aligned}$$
where a prime indicates differentiation with respect to $r$. The equation for the background scalar field is $$\begin{aligned}
&A B \varphi_{0}'' +\frac{1}{2} \varphi_{0}'
\left[BA' +A \left(\frac{4 B}{r}+B'\right)\right]+\frac{4}{r^2}\left[(B-1)
B A'' f_{,\varphi_{0}} \right]\nonumber \\
& -\frac{1}{2 r^2 A} \left\{4 A' \left[(B-1)
B A' + A (1-3 B) B'\right] f_{,\varphi_{0}}+r^2 A^2 V_{,\varphi_{0}}\right\}=0.
\label{eq:scalar_back}\end{aligned}$$
The equations above can be recast as a system of three differential equations: two first-order equations for $A$ and $B$, and one second-order equation for $\varphi_0$. These are integrated as explained in Sec. \[sec:theory\], in units where $r_h=1$, changing the parameters $(\eta,\zeta,\lambda,\mu)$ in each integration. As noted in Ref. [@Silva:2017uqg], only some values of the parameters allow for scalarized solutions. With these we construct the background solutions shown in Fig. \[fig:scalarized\].
Specializing to the quartic coupling and the quartic potential, the coefficients appearing in the condition on the scalar field derivative at the horizon of Eq. are given by $$\begin{aligned}
a&=\frac{\varphi_{0h}}{r_h}{\left}(\eta+\zeta \varphi_{0h}^2{\right})\left\{-4
+2 \varphi_{0h}^2 \left(\zeta \varphi_{0h}^2+\eta \right) \left(2 \lambda \varphi_{0h}^2+\mu ^2\right) \right.
\nonumber \\
&\quad \left.+\frac{\varphi_{0h}^2}{r_h^2} \left(\lambda \varphi_{0h}^2+\mu ^2\right)
\left[r_h^4-\varphi_{0h}^2 \left(\zeta \varphi_{0h}^2+\eta \right)^2\right]\right\},\\
b&=\varphi_{0h}^2 r_h^2 \left(\lambda \varphi_{0h}^2+\mu ^2\right)-4,\\
c&=4-\varphi_{0h}^2 r_h^2 \left(\lambda \varphi_{0h}^2+\mu ^2\right)+\frac{3 \varphi_{0h}^4}{r_h^2}
\left(\zeta \varphi_{0h}^2+\eta \right)^2 \left(\lambda \varphi_{0h}^2+\mu ^2\right)
\nonumber \\
&\quad -\frac{1}{4} \varphi_{0h}^6 \left(\zeta \varphi_{0h}^2+\eta \right)^2 \left(\lambda \varphi_{0h}^2+\mu ^2\right)^2
\nonumber \\
&\quad -4 \varphi_{0h}^2 \left(\zeta \varphi_{0h}^2+\eta \right) \left(2 \lambda \varphi_{0h}^2+\mu ^2\right).\end{aligned}$$
The equations describing the perturbations can be obtained by expanding the Einstein-scalar system up to first order. The nonzero components of the perturbed Einstein equations are $(t,t)$, $(t,r)$, $(r,r)$, and $(\theta,\theta)$. Additionally, we have one more equation from the first-order expansion of the scalar field equation. These five equations can be manipulated to obtain with a procedure similar to the one presented in [@Kanti:1997br; @Blazquez-Salcedo:2018jnn]. Instead of showing the explicit form of the differential equations, which are rather lengthy, we provide a companion [Mathematica]{} notebook which shows the nontrivial components of the first-order Einstein equations and the procedure to obtain Eq. from these equations [@notebook].\
![Charge-mass diagram considering a quartic term in the coupling function and a quartic self-interacting potential.[]{data-label="fig:quartic"}](figs/scalbhs_eta_m01_quartic){width="\columnwidth"}
Self-interactions within quartic Gauss-Bonnet coupling {#app:quartic}
======================================================
Ref. [@Silva:2018qhn] showed that scalar-Gauss-Bonnet theories with $V=0$ and a quartic coupling term $$f(\varphi)=\frac{1}{8}\left(\eta\varphi^2+\zeta\varphi^4\right)$$ with $\zeta/\eta<0$ can also generate stable BH solutions. A natural question is whether the combined effects—the quartic potential and the quartic coupling—can work together to stabilize BHs. While this is out of the scope of the EFT picture, with the quartic coupling being a sub-leading operator compared with the quartic self-interaction, here we investigate this issue as a complement to our main results.
In Fig. \[fig:quartic\] we show the scalarized BH solutions considering $(\hat \mu,\hat\lambda)=(0.05,0.4)$ for different values of $\hat\zeta$. As expected, the quartic term in the coupling still helps to generate stable BH solutions, even when the self-interaction potential is present. We note that this case also exhibits a minimum mass $\hat M_{\rm min}$ and a maximum charge $\hat Q_{\rm max}$, unlike theories with $V=0$: cf. Fig. 2 of [@Silva:2018qhn].
[^1]: The leading-order scalar-graviton coupling is $\phi^2R$, but this does not lead to BH scalarization, so we will not include it in this work. This operator does not contribute to the scalar?s equation of motion on a Ricci-flat GR solution, which means it cannot alter the threshold for the onset of BH scalarization. Note however that it can contribute to the effective mass on a scalarized BH or a neutron star background.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Beamforming is an effective means to improve the quality of the received signals in multiuser multiple-input-single-output (MISO) systems. This paper studies fast optimal downlink beamforming strategies by leveraging the powerful deep learning techniques. Traditionally, finding the optimal beamforming solution relies on iterative algorithms which leads to high computational delay and is thus not suitable for real-time implementation. In this paper, we propose a deep learning framework for the optimization of downlink beamforming. In particular, the solution is obtained based on convolutional neural networks and exploitation of expert knowledge, such as the uplink-downlink duality and the structure of known optimal solutions. Using this framework, we construct three beamforming neural networks (BNNs) for three typical optimization problems, i.e., the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) balancing problem, the power minimization problem and the sum rate maximization problem. The BNNs for the former two problems adopt the supervised learning approach, while the BNN for the sum rate maximization problem employs a hybrid method of supervised and unsupervised learning to improve the performance beyond the state of the art. Simulation results show that with much reduced computational complexity, the BNNs can achieve near-optimal solutions to the SINR balancing and power minimization problems, and outperform the existing algorithms that maximize the sum rate. In summary, this work paves the way for fast realization of the optimal beamforming in multiuser MISO systems.'
author:
- 'Wenchao Xia, [^1] Gan Zheng, [^2], Yongxu Zhu, Jun Zhang, Jiangzhou Wang, [^3], and Athina P. Petropulu, [^4]'
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: A Deep Learning Framework for Optimization of MISO Downlink Beamforming
---
Deep learning, beamforming, MISO, beamforming neural network.
Introduction
============
The beamforming technique has attracted much attention in the past decades for its ability to realize the performance gain of the multiple antennas in the downlink. Beamforming has been formulated in various ways, i.e., as a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) balancing problem (also known as interference balancing problem) under a total power constraint [@Zander1992performance; @Montalbano1998matched; @bjornson2014optimal; @boche2002general; @gerlach1996base], as a power minimization problem under quality of service (QoS) constraints [@shi2016sinr; @rashid1998transmit; @gershman2010convex; @palomar2004optimum; @wiesel2006linear], or as a sum rate maximization problem under a total power constraint [@bjornson2014optimal; @shi2011an; @christensen2008weighted; @Yoo2006on]. The existing approaches to finding the optimal beamforming solutions heavily rely on tailor-made iterative algorithms and convex optimization, which is in turn solved by general iterative algorithms such as the interior point method. For instance, the SINR balancing problem can be solved by the iterative algorithm of [@schubert2004solution]. The power minimization problem can be reformulated as a second-order cone programming (SOCP) [@wiesel2006linear; @gershman2010convex] or semidefinite programming (SDP) problem [@luo2010semidefinite], which can be solved directly by an optimization software package such as CVX [@cvx]. Its optimal solution can also be obtained using iterative algorithms such as Algorithm A of [@rashid1998joint] and the dual algorithm of [@shi2016sinr]. However, the optimal solution to the sum rate maximization problem is usually hard to obtain because the problem is nonconvex. Instead, locally optimal solutions are obtained via iterative algorithms, such as the weighted minimum mean square error (WMMSE) algorithm [@shi2011an; @christensen2008weighted], and the water filling algorithm combined with zero-forcing (ZF) beamforming [@Yoo2006on].
The main drawbacks of existing iterative algorithms are the high computational complexity and delay. As a result, the beamforming technique is unable to meet the demands of real-time applications in the fifth-generation (5G) system and beyond, such as autonomous vehicles and mission critical communications. Even in non-real-time applications, where the small-scale fading varies in the order of milliseconds, the latency introduced by the iterative process renders the beamforming solution outdated. To address this challenge, researchers have proposed some simple heuristic beamforming solutions which admit closed-form solutions, such as the maximum-ratio transmission beamforming, the ZF beamforming, and the regularized ZF (RZF) beamforming. These heuristic beamforming solutions are directly computed based on the channel state information (CSI) without iteration, and thus involve low computational delay. However, the reduction of delay is achieved at the cost of performance loss. The tradeoff between delay and performance seems to restrict the potential of the beamforming techniques and its applications in practice.
Thanks to the recent advances in deep learning (DL) techniques, it becomes possible to learn the optimal beamforming in real time by taking into account both the performance and the computational delay simultaneously. This is because the DL technique trains neural networks offline and then deploys the trained neural networks for online optimization. The computational complexity is transferred from the online optimization to the offline training, and only simple linear and nonlinear operations are needed when the trained neural network is used to find the optimal beamforming solution, thus greatly reducing the computational complexity and delay.
Benefiting from the development of specialized hardware, such as graphic processing units and field programmable gate arrays, DL can be implemented using these hardware resources conveniently. Accordingly, DL techniques have been widely used in many applications including wireless communications. Many researches have attempted to use DL to deal with some issues in the physical layer, including channel decoding [@nachmani2016learning; @liang2018an; @kim2018communication], detection [@farsad2017detection; @he2018model; @fan2018cnn; @tan2018improving; @samuel2018learning], channel estimation [@he2018deep; @wen2018deep; @wang2018deep], and resource management [@eisen2018learning; @ahmed2018deep; @sun2017learning; @liang2018towards; @lee2018deep; @li2018intellignet]. More specifically, based on the iterative belief propagation, [@nachmani2016learning] and [@liang2018an] proposed a deep neural network (DNN) architecture and a convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture for channel decoding, respectively. The work in [@farsad2017detection] demonstrated that by using tools from DL, the trained detectors performed well without any prior knowledge of the underlying channel models. Authors in [@wen2018deep] developed a CNN called CsiNet to learn a transformation from CSI to a near-optimal number of representations and an inverse transformation from codewords to CSI. Furthermore, [@wang2018deep] proposed a real-time CSI feedback architecture called CsiNet-long short-term memory for time-varying massive multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) channels. The approach to channel estimation and signal detection based on DL in [@ye2018power] achieved the performance comparable to the MMSE estimator. Among these efforts, the autoencoder based on unsupervised DL, investigated in [@Dorner2018deep; @oshea2016learning; @oshea2017deep], is an ambitious attempt [@zhao2018deep] to learn an end-to-end communications system. Besides, DL can also facilitate resource management [@eisen2018learning; @ahmed2018deep], e.g. power allocation [@sun2017learning; @liang2018towards; @lee2018deep; @li2018intellignet]. Finally, [@qin2018deep; @zhang2018deep] provided an overview on the recent advances in DL-based physical layer communications and [@wang2017deep] suggested the potential applications of DL to the physical layer.
However, with the exception of [@shi2018learning; @Kerret2018robust; @alkhateeb2018deep; @huang2018unsupervised], there are no works focusing on the beamforming design in multi-antenna communications based on DL. [@shi2018learning] considered an outage-based approach to transmit beamforming in order to deal with the channel uncertainty at base stations (BSs). However, only a single user was considered in [@shi2018learning]. [@Kerret2018robust] designed a decentralized robust precoding scheme based on DNN in a network MIMO configuration. [[The projection over a finite dimensional subspace in [@Kerret2018robust] reduced the difficulty, but also limited the performance. [@alkhateeb2018deep] used a DL model to predict the beamforming matrix directly from the signals received at the distributed BSs based on omni or quasi-omni beam patterns in millimeter wave systems, whose sum rate performance was restricted by the quantized codebook constraint. We notice that none of them addressed the SINR balancing problem under power constraint and power minimization problem under SINR constraints. The sum rate maximization problem was investigated in [@alkhateeb2018deep] but without considering the total power constraint. [@Kerret2018robust; @alkhateeb2018deep] predicted the beamforming matrix in the finite solution space at the cost of performance loss.]{}]{} Furthermore, [@shi2018learning; @huang2018unsupervised] directly estimated the beamforming matrix without exploiting the problem structure in which the number of variables to predict increases significantly as the numbers of transmit antennas and users increase. This will lead to high training complexity of the neural networks when the numbers of transmit antennas and users are large.
Motivated by the aforementioned facts and the universal approximation theorem [@sun2017learning], we propose a general DL framework to achieve not only near-optimal beamforming matrix, but also reduce complexity as compared to the iterative methods. Based on the proposed framework, we develop beamforming neural networks (BNNs) to solve three aforementioned optimization problems. Learning the optimal beamforming solution is highly nontrivial, and there are still challenges that need to be addressed in designing the BNNs. Firstly, the popular neural network software packages such as Keras and Tensorflow currently (December 2018) do not support complex numbers as input or output [@zhao2018deep]. Both channel and beamforming matrices are inherently complex. Naive transformation of complex vectors to real vectors by concatenating the real and imaginary parts not only leads to high complexity of prediction, but also may lose the specific structures of the problems of interest. Secondly, the power minimization problem has strict QoS constraints and guaranteeing a feasible solution using neural networks is a challenge. In addition, different from the SINR balancing problem and power minimization problem whose optimal solutions exist and supervised learning can be used, there is no known algorithm that can achieve the optimal solution to the sum rate maximization problem (and other nonconvex beamforming problems), and thus the supervised learning method based on locally optimal solution cannot achieve good performance. In this paper, we will tackle these challenges, and our main contributions are summarized as follows:
- We provide a DL-based framework for the beamforming optimization in the multiple-input-single-output (MISO) downlink, where the BS has multiple antennas while each user terminal has a single antenna. The proposed framework is designed based on the CNN structure and the exploitation of expert knowledge such as the uplink-downlink duality and the structure of the optimal solution. The real and imaginary parts of complex channel coefficients are fed into the BNNs as two vectors. Due to the parameter sharing scheme used in the CNN structure, less parameters are required. Furthermore, the expert knowledge exploits the model/structure of the specific problem to improve learning efficiency by specifying the best parameters to be learned; those parameters are typically not the direct beamforming matrix. Under this framework, we propose three BNNs for solving three typical optimization problems in MISO systems, i.e., the SINR balancing problem under a total power constraint, the power minimization problem under QoS constraints, and the sum rate maximization problem under a total power constraint.
- In the proposed supervised BNNs for the SINR balancing problem and the power minimization problem, instead of estimating the beamforming matrix with $NK$ elements, where $N$ is the number of the transmit antennas at the BS and $K$ is the number of users, we exploit the uplink-downlink duality of the solutions [@schubert2004solution; @shi2016sinr] and predict the virtual uplink power allocation vector with only $K$ elements. Thus, the demand on the prediction capability of the BNNs in terms of network neurons and layers is significantly reduced. Also, the training and prediction complexity and cost are reduced. In the proposed BNN for the sum rate maximization problem, we exploit the structure of the optimal solutions and predict two power allocation vectors with totally $2K$ elements. This approach still has advantages compared to predicting the beamforming matrix directly.
- We propose a hybrid two-stage BNN with both supervised and unsupervised learning to find the beamforming solution to the sum rate maximization problem [@lee2018deep], since its optimal solution is still unknown. In the first stage, we use the supervised learning method with the mean squared error (MSE)-based loss function to make the predictions as close as possible to the WMMSE algorithm, which is known to achieve the best known locally optimal solution. In the second stage, we modify the metric in the loss function to be the sum rate, and update the network parameters according to the unsupervised learning method, which achieves an improved performance over the WMMSE algorithm.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[section system model\] introduces the system model and formulates three beamforming optimization problems in the MISO downlink. Section \[section bnn framework\] provides the framework for the beamforming optimization and then Sections \[section bnn for sinr balancing problem\], \[section bnn for power minimization problem\] and \[section bnn for sr maximization problem\] propose the BNNs under the framework for the SINR balancing problem, the power minimization problem, and the sum rate maximization problem, respectively. Numerical results are presented in Section \[section simulation results\]. Finally, conclusion is drawn in Section \[section conclusion\].
**Notations:** The notations are given as follows. Matrices and vectors are denoted by bold capital and lowercase symbols, respectively. $(\mathbf{A})^T$ and $(\mathbf{A})^H$ stand for transpose and conjugate transpose of $\mathbf{A}$, respectively. The notations $||\bullet||_1$ and $||\bullet||_2$ are $l_1$ and $l_2$ norm operators, respectively. The operator $\text{diag}(\mathbf{a})$ denotes the operation to diagonalize the vector $\mathbf{a}$ into a matrix whose main diagonal elements are from $\mathbf{a}$. Finally, $\mathbf{a}\sim\mathcal{CN}(\mathbf{0},\bm{\Sigma})$ represents a complex Gaussian vector with zero-mean and covariance matrix $\bm{\Sigma}$.
System Model {#section system model}
============
We consider a downlink transmission scenario where a BS equipped with $N$ antennas serves $K$ single-antenna users. The channel between user $k$ and the BS is denoted as ${{\bf h}}_k=\sqrt{d_k}\tilde{{{\bf h}}}_k\in\mathbb{C}^{N\times 1}$ where $\tilde{{{\bf h}}}_k\sim\mathcal{CN}(\bm{0},\mathbf{I}_N)$ and $d_k$ are the small-scale fading and the large-scale fading, respectively. The received signal at user $k$ is given by $$y_k=\mathbf{h}^H_k \sum_{k^{\prime}=1}^K \mathbf{w}_{k^{\prime}}x_{k^{\prime}}+n_k,$$ where $\mathbf{w}_k$ represents the beamforming vector for user $k$, $x_k\sim\mathcal{CN}(0,1)$ is the transmitted symbol from the BS to user $k$, and $n_k\sim\mathcal{CN}(0,\sigma^2)$ denotes the additive Gaussian white noise (AWGN) with zero mean and variance $\sigma^2$. The received SINR of user $k$ equals
$$\gamma^{dl}_k=\frac{|\mathbf{h}^H_k\mathbf{w}_k|^2}{\sum^K_{k^{\prime}=1,k^{\prime}\neq k}|\mathbf{h}^H_k\mathbf{w}_{k^{\prime}}|^2+\sigma^2}.$$
One conventional optimization problem seeks to maximize $\text{min}_k \gamma^{dl}_k/\rho_k$ subject to a transmit power constraint, where $\rho_k$’s are constant weights denoting the importance of the sub-streams. Such an optimization problem is referred to as interference or SINR balancing, and has been investigated in many works [@Zander1992performance; @Montalbano1998matched; @bjornson2014optimal; @boche2002general; @gerlach1996base]. The SINR balancing problem is formulated as:
$$\label{p0}
\begin{split}
\textbf{P1:}\ \max_{{{\bf W}}}\min_{1\leq k\leq K}\ \ &\frac{\gamma^{dl}_k}{\rho_k}, \\
\text{s.t.}\ &\sum^K_{k=1}||\mathbf{w}_k||^2\leq P_{max}, \\
\end{split}$$
where $\mathbf{W}=[\mathbf{w}_1,\mathbf{w}_2,\ldots,\mathbf{w}_K]$ is a set of beamforming vectors and $P_{max}$ is the power budget.
Another important problem is the power minimization problem under a set of SINR constraints [@rashid1998transmit; @gershman2010convex]. A network operator may be more interested in how to minimize the transmit power while fulfilling the demands for QoS, i.e., $$\label{p1}
\begin{split}
\textbf{P2:}\ \min_{\mathbf{W}}\ \ & \sum^K_{k=1}||\mathbf{w}_k||^2 \\
\text{s.t.}\ &\gamma^{dl}_k\geq\Gamma_k,\forall k,\\
\end{split}$$ where $\Gamma_k$ is the SINR constraint of user $k$. For ease of composition, we define $\bm{\Gamma}=[\Gamma_1,\cdots,\Gamma_K ]^T$ as the SINR constraint vector.
Finally, the weighted sum-rate maximization problem under power constraint is also an important issue that has attracted lots of attention [@bjornson2014optimal; @christensen2008weighted; @shi2011an], which can be formulated as:
$$\label{p2}
\begin{split}
\textbf{P3:}\ \max_{\mathbf{W}}\ \ & \sum^K_{k=1}\alpha_k\log_2(1+\gamma^{dl}_k) \\
\text{s.t.}\ &\sum^K_{k=1}||\mathbf{w}_k||^2\leq P_{max}, \\
\end{split}$$
where $\alpha_k$ is a constant weight of user $k$.
We choose the above problems as representative examples to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed DL beamforming framework. The optimal solutions are available for **P1** [@schubert2004solution; @yu2007transmitter; @wiesel2006linear] and **P2** [@shi2016sinr; @wiesel2006linear; @gershman2010convex; @luo2010semidefinite], so supervised learning can be adopted. **P2** has the additional challenge of satisfying the strict QoS constraints. **P3** is a difficult nonconvex problem and is usually solved using the iterative WMMSE approach [@christensen2008weighted; @shi2011an], therefore supervised learning is not adequate. In the rest of the paper, we will show how the solutions to these three types of problems can be efficiently learned by the proposed DL-based beamforming framework.
A DL-based Framework for Beamforming Optimization {#section bnn framework}
=================================================
![A DL-based framework for the beamforming optimization in MISO downlink, which includes two main modules: the neural network module and the beamforming recovery module. The neural network module is composed of an input layer, convolutional (CL) layers, batch normalization (BN) layers, activation (AC) layers, a flatten layer, a fully-connected (FC) layer, and an output layer, whereas the key features and the functional layers in the beamforming recovery module are specified by the expert knowledge.[]{data-label="BNN framework"}](BNN_framework.eps){width="49.00000%"}
DL-based neural networks were initially designed for solving classification problems, but they can also achieve satisfactory performance in regression problems. For example, the DNN was used to predict transmit power [@liang2018towards; @sun2017learning]. Existing works mainly take real data, such as channel gains and transmit power, as input and output, but channel and beamforming matrices are both complex. In addition, predicting the beamforming matrix with $NK$ elements directly may lead to inaccurate and even under-fitting results. Obviously we can use wider or deeper neural networks with more neurons to improve the learning ability, but such a huge network will lead to high training and implementation complexities and cannot guarantee the learning performance. For example, too deep or wide neural networks can cause over-fitting.
The proposed DL-based framework for the beamforming optimization in MISO downlink is shown in Fig. \[BNN framework\]. To deal with complex data, [[we choose the CNN architecture that naturally accepts the complex channel input. The reason for choosing the CNN, instead of other neural networks, is that the CNN can share parameters among the real and imaginary parts of the complex channel coefficients, thus reducing the number of parameters.]{}]{} To overcome the challenge of predicting the beamforming matrix directly, we take the expert knowledge (e.g., the structure of the optimal solution) of the beamforming matrix into account. The proposed framework, instead of estimating the beamforming matrix directly, only predicts the key features extracted from the beamforming matrix according to the expert knowledge specific to the problem of interest. Therefore the demand for the prediction capability of the BNNs in terms of network neurons and layers, as well as the complexity, is significantly reduced.
The proposed framework includes two main modules: the neural network module and beamforming recovery module. The neural network module is composed of an input layer, convolutional (CL) layers, batch normalization (BN) layers, activation (AC) layers, a flatten layer, a fully-connected (FC) layer, and an output layer, whereas key features and the functional layers in the beamforming recovery module are specified by the expert knowledge. Below we give a brief introduction to these layers.
### Input layer and CL layer
The complex channel coefficients are fed into the neural network module to predict the key features, which are not supported by the current neural network software. To deal with this issue, two data transformations are available. One is to separate the complex channel vector, for example ${{\bf h}}=[{{\bf h}}_1^T,\cdots,{{\bf h}}_K^T]^T\in\mathbb{C}^{NK\times 1}$, into the in-phase component $\mathfrak{R}({{\bf h}})$ and quadrature component $\mathfrak{I}({{\bf h}})$, where $\mathfrak{R}({{\bf h}})$ and $\mathfrak{I}({{\bf h}})$ contain the real and imaginary parts of each element in ${{\bf h}}$, respectively. We call this transformation **I/Q transformation**. Another transformation, suggested by [@kulin2018end], is to map the complex channel vector ${{\bf h}}$ into two real vectors $\mathfrak{P}({{\bf h}}_k)$ and $\mathfrak{M}({{\bf h}}_k)$, where the former contains the phase information and the latter includes the magnitude information of ${{\bf h}}$. This transformation is referred to as **P/M transformation**. [[ Without loss of generality, we adopt **I/Q transformation** of complex channels as the input of the first CL layer. Each CL layer creates one or more convolution kernels that are convolved with the layer input and the parameters of convolution kernels are shared among different channel coefficients.]{}]{} Note that the samples are fed into the neural network module in batches.
### BN Layer
The BN layers are introduced in the neural network module, which can be put before or after the AC layers [@ioffe2015batch] according to practical experience. In the proposed framework, we adopt the former where the BN layers normalize the output of the CL layers through subtracting the batch mean and dividing by the batch standard deviation. Consequently, the BN operation introduces two trainable parameters, i.e., a “mean” parameter and a “standard deviation” parameter, in each BN layer. The denormalization is allowed by changing only the two parameters, instead of changing all parameters which may lead to the instability of the neural network module. Besides, the BN layer has the following advantages:
- The probability of over-fitting is reduced since the BN layer presents some regularization effects similar to dropout, by adding some noise to each AC layer.
- The BN layer enables a higher learning rate which can accelerate convergence because the BN operation can avoid the AC function going into the gradient-insensitive region.
- In addition, with the BN layer, the neural network is less sensitive to the initialization of weights.
### Activation Layer
Since the predicted variables are continuous and positive real numbers, it is suggested that the AC functions that can generate negative values, such as tanh and linear functions should not be used in the last AC layer. The rectified linear unit (ReLU) and sigmoid functions are good choices for the last AC layer. For the intermediate AC layers, the ReLU function generally shows better performance than other AC functions. However, if the BN layer is adopted before each AC layer, the sigmoid function can also work well because of the normalization operation introduced by the BN layer.
### Flatten Layer and Output Layer
The flatten layer is only used to change the shape of its input into the correct format, i.e., a vector, for the FC layer to interpret. The main function of the output layer is to generate the predicted results after the neural network finishes training.
Note that apart from these functional layers, the loss function also plays an important role in the proposed framework, which is marked on the output layer in Fig. \[BNN framework\]. The loss function together with the learning rate guides the learning process of the neural network. In other words, the loss function “tells" the neural network how to update its parameters. Since the output values are continuous, it is suggested to utilize the mean absolute error (MAE) or the MSE as a metric. Given the predicted results of the $l$-th sample in the neural network module is $\hat{{{\bf q}}}^{(l)}$ and the target result is ${{\bf q}}^{(l)}$, the MAE and MSE are defined as $$\text{MAE}=\frac{1}{LK}\sum_{l=1}^L{||{{\bf q}}^{(l)}-\hat{{{\bf q}}}^{(l)}||_1},$$ and $$\text{MSE}=\frac{1}{LK}\sum_{l=1}^L{||{{\bf q}}^{(l)}-\hat{{{\bf q}}}^{(l)}||^2_2},$$ respectively, where $L$ is the size of a batch, i.e., the number of samples fed into the neural network module for each training.
The beamforming recovery module is an important component whose aim is to recover the beamforming matrix from the predicted key features at the output layer. The functional layers in the beamforming recovery module are designed according to the expert knowledge of the beamforming optimization which maps/converts the key features to the beamforming matrix. The expert knowledge is problem-dependent and has no unified form, but what is in common is that the expert knowledge can significantly reduce the number of variables to be predicted compared to the beamforming matrix. For example, the uplink-downlink duality and specific solution structures [@bjornson2014optimal] are the typical expert knowledge for beamforming optimization.
In what follows we propose three BNNs under the proposed framework for problems **P1**, **P2**, and **P3**, respectively, and provide implementation details to show how to make use of the expert knowledge.
BNN for SINR Balancing Problem {#section bnn for sinr balancing problem}
==============================
As mentioned above, estimating the beamforming matrix directly leads to the higher complexity of prediction due to the large amount of variables. In order to reduce the prediction complexity, we introduce a scheme which first predicts the power allocation vector as the key feature and then achieves the corresponding beamforming matrix based on the predicted results. Such a scheme is based on the expert knowledge named the uplink-downlink duality.
Uplink-Downlink Duality
-----------------------
Before we present the BNN for the SINR balancing problem **P1**, we first introduce the following lemma to describe the uplink-downlink duality of problem **P1** [@schubert2004solution].
Given $\tilde{{{\bf W}}}=[\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_1,\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_2,\ldots,\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_K]$ and $P_{max}$, we have $$C^{dl}(\tilde{\mathbf{W}},P_{max})= C^{ul}(\tilde{\mathbf{W}},P_{max}),$$ where $C^{dl}(\tilde{{{\bf W}}},P_{max})$ and $C^{ul}(\tilde{{{\bf W}}},P_{max})$ are given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equivalent problem of p1}
C^{dl}(\tilde{{{\bf W}}},P_{max})=&\max_{{{\bf p}}}\min_{1\leq k\leq K}\frac{\gamma^{dl}_k(\tilde{{{\bf W}}},{{\bf p}})}{\rho_k}\\
\text{s.t.}\ &||{{\bf p}}||_1\leq P_{max},\nonumber\\
&||\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_k||_2=1, \forall k,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ul_sinr_pro}
C^{ul}(\tilde{{{\bf W}}},P_{max})=&\max_{{{\bf q}}}\min_{1\leq k\leq K}\frac{\gamma^{ul}_k(\tilde{{{\bf W}}},{{\bf q}})}{\rho_k}\\
\text{s.t.}\ &||\mathbf{q}||_1\leq P_{max},\nonumber\\
& ||\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_k||_2=1, \forall k,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ respectively, with $$\gamma^{dl}_k(\tilde{{{\bf W}}},{{\bf p}})=\frac{p_k|{{\bf h}}^H_k\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_k|^2}{\sum^K_{k^{\prime}=1,k^{\prime}\neq k}p_{k^{\prime}}|{{\bf h}}^H_k\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_{k^{\prime}}|^2+\sigma^2},$$ and $$\label{uplink_sinr}
\gamma^{ul}_k(\tilde{{{\bf W}}},{{\bf q}})=\frac{q_k|{{\bf h}}^H_k\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_k|^2}{\sum^K_{k^{\prime}=1,k^{\prime}\neq k}q_{k^{\prime}}|{{\bf h}}^H_{k{\prime}}\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_{k}|^2+\sigma^2}.$$ Note that ${{\bf p}}=[p_1,\ldots,p_K]^T$ and $\mathbf{q}=[q_1,\ldots,q_K]^T$ are downlink and uplink power vectors, respectively.
Note that problem is an equivalent virtual problem of problem **P1** whose optimal solutions are connected by ${{\bf W}}^{\ast}=\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}{{\bf P}}^{\ast}$ where ${{\bf P}}^{\ast}={\text {diag}}({{\bf p}}^{\ast})$, [[${{\bf W}}^{\ast}$ is the optimal solution to problem **P1**, and $\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}$ and ${{\bf p}}^{\ast}$ are the optimal solutions to problem ]{}]{}. Based on **Lemma 1**, we find that the uplink and downlink scenarios have the same achievable SINR region and the normalized beamforming designed for the uplink reception immediately carries over to the downlink transmission [@schubert2004solution]. Thus we first obtain the optimal power allocation $\mathbf{q}^{\ast}$ and beamforming matrix $\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}$ for the easy-to-solve uplink problem . Then given the optimal beamforming $\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}$, the optimal $\mathbf{p}^{\ast}$ is obtained as the first $K$ components of the dominant eigenvector of the following matrix [@yang1998optimal] $$\label{transform matrix}
\bm{\Upsilon}(\tilde{{{\bf W}}},P_{max})=
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{D}\mathbf{U} & \mathbf{D}\bm{\sigma} \\
\frac{1}{P_{max}}\mathbf{1}^T\mathbf{D}\mathbf{U} & \frac{1}{P_{max}}\mathbf{1}^T\mathbf{D}\bm{\sigma} \\
\end{array}
\right],$$ where $\bm{\sigma}=\sigma^2\mathbf{1}$, $\mathbf{1}=[1,1,\ldots,1]^T\in\mathbb{R}^{K\times 1}$, $\mathbf{D}={\text {diag}}\{\rho_1/|\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_1^H{{\bf h}}_1|^2,\ldots,\rho_K/|\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_K^H{{\bf h}}_K|^2\}$, and $$[\mathbf{U}]_{kk^{\prime}}=
\begin{cases}
|\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^H_{k^{\prime}}{{\bf h}}_k|^2,& \text{if}\ k^{\prime}\neq k,\\
0,&\text{else}.
\end{cases}$$ Finally, the downlink beamforming matrix is derived as ${{\bf W}}^{\ast}=\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}{{\bf P}}^{\ast}$. Thus, instead of predicting ${{\bf W}}$ directly, we can predict the uplink power allocation vector $\mathbf{q}$.
In the supervised learning method, the prediction performance of the BNN depends on the quality of training samples. To generate the training samples, the optimal ${{\bf q}}^{\ast}$ and $\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}$ can be found by an iterative optimization algorithm in [@schubert2004solution Table 1].
BNN Structure {#subsection£ºbnn structure of sinr}
-------------
![BNN for the SINR balancing problem.[]{data-label="BNN structure for sinr"}](BNN_sinr.eps){width="49.00000%"}
The proposed BNN for the SINR balancing problem **P1**, shown in Fig. \[BNN structure for sinr\], is based on the proposed BNN framework in Fig. \[BNN framework\]. The functions and operations of the basic layers such as the input, CL, BN, and output layers, are the same as those in the proposed framework. Therefore, we do not explain these layers here and readers can refer to Section \[section bnn framework\] for detail. Note that in the proposed BNN for problem **P1**, the intermediate AC layers are fulfilled with the ReLU function whereas the last AC layer is implemented using the sigmoid function. Besides the existing layers in the framework, a scaling layer and a conversion layer are also introduced in the BNN for problem **P1**, which belong to the beamforming recovery module. In the following, we give the details of the scaling layer and the conversion layer.
### Scaling Layer
Due to the limitation of the BNN, it is almost impossible to guarantee that the output of the output layer always meets the power constraint in the SINR balancing problem **P1**. As we know, the optimal solution is achieved when the equality of the constraint in problem **P1** holds. Therefore, we scale the results of the output layer $\hat{\mathbf{q}}$ to meet the power constraint by the following transformation, $$\hat{\mathbf{q}}^{\ast}=\frac{P_{max}}{||\hat{\mathbf{q}}||_1}\hat{\mathbf{q}}.$$
### Conversion Layer
After receiving the scaled power allocation vector $\hat{\mathbf{q}}^{\ast}$, we can achieve the downlink beamforming matrix $\hat{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}$ as the final output of the BNN based on $\hat{{{\bf q}}}^{\ast}$ by the conversion layer. The beamforming recovery implemented by the conversion layer includes the following process:
1. Calculate $\mathbf{T}^{\ast}=\sigma^2{{\bf I}}_N+\sum^K_{k=1}\hat{q}^{\ast}_k{{\bf h}}_k{{\bf h}}^H_k$.
2. Calculate $\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k=\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k/||\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k||_2, \forall k,$ where $\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k=(\mathbf{T}^{\ast})^{-1}{{\bf h}}_k$.
3. Find the maximal eigenvalue $\psi_{max}^{\ast}$ of $\bm{\Upsilon}(\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast},P_{max})$ and the associated eigenvector with respect to $\psi_{max}^{\ast}$, i.e., $\bm{\Upsilon}(\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast},P_{max})\bigl[\begin{smallmatrix}\hat{{{\bf p}}}^{\ast}\\ 1\end{smallmatrix}\bigr]=\psi_{max}^{(i)}\bigl[\begin{smallmatrix}\hat{{{\bf p}}}^{\ast}\\1\end{smallmatrix}\bigr]$.
4. Output $\hat{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}=\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}\hat{{{\bf P}}}^{\ast}$ as the final result where $\hat{{{\bf P}}}^{\ast}=\text{diag}(\hat{{{\bf p}}}^{\ast})$.
In the proposed BNN for the SINR balancing problem **P1**, the supervised learning with the loss function based on the MSE metric is adopted.
BNN for Power Minimization Problem {#section bnn for power minimization problem}
==================================
Similar to the BNN for the SINR balancing problem **P1**, the BNN for the power minimization problem **P2** obtains the downlink beamforming matrix according to the uplink-downlink duality, i.e., the expert knowledge. Specifically, we first predict the uplink power allocation vector as the key feature using the trained neural network, then obtain the normalized beamforming matrix based on the predicted results. Finally, the downlink beamforming matrix is recovered from the normalized beamforming matrix by the uplink-downlink conversion method.
Uplink-Downlink Duality
-----------------------
Note that the conversion method adopted in the BNN for the SINR balancing problem **P1** can not be used again, because the power budget $P_{max}$ is unknown in the power minimization problem **P2**. Instead, we employ the conversion method in the following lemma [@yu2007transmitter].
Given the optimal beamforming matrix $\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}=[\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_1,\ldots,\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_K]$ for the uplink problem, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
&\min_{\mathbf{q},\tilde{{{\bf W}}}}\sum_{k=1}^K q_k\\
\text{s.t.}\ &\gamma^{ul}_k(\tilde{{{\bf W}}},\mathbf{q})\geq \Gamma_k,\nonumber\\
& ||\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_k||_2=1, \forall k,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $ \gamma^{ul}_k(\tilde{{{\bf W}}},\mathbf{q})$ is given as in .
The optimal beamforming vectors ${{\bf w}}^{\ast}_k, \forall k,$ for the downlink problem **P2**, can be obtained by multiplying the optimal normalized beamforming vector $\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k$ by a scaling factor, i.e., ${{\bf w}}^{\ast}_k=p^{\ast}_k\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_k^{\ast},\forall k$, where $p^{\ast}_k$ is the $k$-th element of vector ${{\bf p}}^{\ast}=[p^{\ast}_1,\ldots,p^{\ast}_K]^T\in\mathbb{R}^{K\times 1}$ and $$\label{optimal downlink power}
{{\bf p}}^{\ast}=\sigma^2\bm{\Psi}^{-1}\mathbf{1},$$ where $$[\bm{\Psi}]_{kk^{\prime}}=
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{\Gamma_k}|{{\bf h}}^H_k\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k|^2,\ \text{if} \ k=k^{\prime}, \\
-|{{\bf h}}^H_k\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_{k^{\prime}}|^2, \ \text{else}.
\end{cases}$$
The vector of the scaling factors ${{\bf p}}^{\ast}$ is the optimal downlink power allocation vector. Given the optimal normalized beamforming matrix $\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}$, **Lemma 2** allows us to achieve the optimal downlink power vector ${{\bf p}}^{\ast}$ by , then ${{\bf W}}^{\ast}=\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}{{\bf P}}^{\ast}$. Actually, if we know the uplink power allocation vector ${{\bf q}}$, the normalized beamforming matrix $\tilde{{{\bf W}}}$ can be inferred as $$\tilde{{{\bf w}}}_k=\frac{\mathbf{T}^{-1}{{\bf h}}_k}{||\mathbf{T}^{-1}{{\bf h}}_k||_2},\forall k,$$ where $\mathbf{T}=\sigma^2{{\bf I}}_N+\sum^K_{k=1}q_k{{\bf h}}_k{{\bf h}}^H_k$. Therefore, the only results that need to be predicted by the BNN is the uplink power allocation vector ${{\bf q}}$, which reduces significantly the computational complexity compared to the strategy that attempts to predict the beamforming matrix directly. The iterative algorithm in [@shi2016sinr] provides a way to achieve the optimal uplink power allocation vector as the training samples in the supervised learning method.
BNN Structure {#bnn-structure}
-------------
![BNN for the power minimization problem.[]{data-label="BNN structure for power"}](BNN_power.eps){width="47.00000%"}
The BNN for the power minimization problem **P2** in Fig. \[BNN structure for power\] is also based on the proposed BNN framework. However, the operations of the conversion layer in Fig. \[BNN structure for power\] are different from those in the BNN for problem **P1**. After receiving the uplink power allocation vector $\hat{{{\bf q}}}^{\ast}$ from the output layer, the beamforming recovery in the conversion layer performs the following operations:
1. Calculate $\mathbf{T}^{\ast}=\sigma^2{{\bf I}}_N+\sum^K_{k=1}\hat{q}^{\ast}_{k}{{\bf h}}_{k}{{\bf h}}^H_{k}$.
2. Calculate $\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k=\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k/||\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k||_2, \forall k,$ where $\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k=(\mathbf{T}^{\ast})^{-1}{{\bf h}}_k$.
3. Calculate the downlink power allocation vector $\hat{{{\bf p}}}^{\ast}=\sigma^2(\bm{\Psi}^{\ast}(\tilde{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast},\bm{\Gamma}))^{-1}\mathbf{1}$.
4. Output the downlink beamforming vectors $\hat{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k=\hat{p}^{\ast}_k\tilde{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k, \forall k,$ as the final results.
Note that the predicted power vector $\hat{{{\bf q}}}^{\ast}$ by the BNN is, in general, not exact. The prediction error will lead to the inaccuracy of power allocation vector $\hat{{{\bf p}}}^{\ast}$ as well as the downlink beamforming $\hat{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}$. More specifically, if the predicted power vector $\hat{{{\bf q}}}^{\ast}$ has an acceptable accuracy with respect to the target power vector ${{\bf q}}^{\ast}$, i.e., $||{{\bf q}}^{\ast}-\hat{{{\bf q}}}^{\ast}||^2_2<\varepsilon$ where $\varepsilon$ is a small constant, then we can obtain a suboptimal solution whose objective value is larger than that of the optimal solution, i.e., $\sum^K_{k=1}||\hat{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k||^2_2>\sum^K_{k=1}||{{\bf w}}^{\ast}_k||^2_2$. Intuitively, The extra power consumption $q_{extra}=\sum^K_{k=1}||\hat{{{\bf w}}}^{\ast}_k||^2_2-\sum^K_{k=1}||{{\bf w}}^{\ast}_k||^2_2$ can be regarded as the cost of the prediction error. However, if the predicted vector $\hat{{{\bf q}}}^{\ast}$ has a significant error, i.e., $||{{\bf q}}^{\ast}-\hat{{{\bf q}}}^{\ast}||^2_2\gg\varepsilon$, the downlink beamforming $\hat{{{\bf W}}}^{\ast}$ inferred from the prediction $\hat{{{\bf q}}}^{\ast}$ may become infeasible since some elements of the vector $\hat{{{\bf p}}}^{\ast}$ have negative values. This suggests that different from problem **P1**, there is a certain probability of infeasibility of the BNN prediction for problem **P2**. However, our experiments show that the failure probability of the proposed BNN for problem **P2** is lower than $1\%$ in most settings. More details will be given in Section \[section simulation results\]. Moreover, the supervised learning with the loss function based on the MSE metric is adopted in the proposed BNN for problem **P2**.
BNN for Sum Rate Maximization Problem {#section bnn for sr maximization problem}
=====================================
Different from the SINR balancing problem **P1** and the power minimization problem **P2**, whose optimal solutions are available for the supervised learning, the optimal solution to the sum rate maximization problem **P3** is still unknown and thus can not make use of uplink-downlink duality directly. However, we will exploit a connection between problems **P2** and **P3** to find some key features of the optimal solution to problem **P3**.
Solution Structure
------------------
It was suggested in [@bjornson2013optimal] that the optimal solution to problem **P2**, using the minimal amount of power to achieve the given SINR targets, must meet the power constraint in problem **P3**. In this case the beamforming matrix resulting from problem **P2** is feasible for problem **P3** and also achieves the maximal sum rate. According to the connection between problems **P2** and **P3**, it has been pointed out in [@bjornson2014optimal] that the optimal downlink beamforming vectors for problem **P3** follows the structure as $$\label{solution struc of sumrate}
{{\bf w}}_k^{\ast}=\sqrt{p_k}\frac{({{\bf I}}_N+\sum^K_{k=1}{\frac{\lambda_k}{\sigma^2}{{\bf h}}_k{{\bf h}}_k^H})^{-1}{{\bf h}}_k}{||({{\bf I}}_N+\sum^K_{k=1}{\frac{\lambda_k}{\sigma^2}{{\bf h}}_k{{\bf h}}_k^H})^{-1}{{\bf h}}_k||_2}, \forall k,$$ where $\lambda_k$ is a positive parameter and $\sum_{k=1}^K\lambda_k=\sum_{k=1}^Kp_k=P_{max}$ according to the strong duality of problem **P2**. This is because $P_{max}$ is the optimal cost function in problem **P2** and $\sum_{k=1}^K\lambda_k$ is the dual function. Note that the parameter vector $\bm{\lambda}=[\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_K]^T$ can be considered as a virtual power allocation vector. The solution structure in provides the required expert knowledge for the beamforming design in problem **P3** and $\bm{\lambda}$ and ${{\bf p}}$ are the key features. But to our best knowledge, there is no low-complexity algorithm in the literature that can find the optimal $p^{\ast}_k$ and $\lambda^{\ast}_k$ in . The WMMSE algorithm is a good choice to find the suboptimal solutions [@shi2011an; @christensen2008weighted]. Therefore, we can obtain the power allocation vectors ${{\bf p}}$ and $\bm{\lambda}$ according to the WMMSE algorithm. The supervised learning with the loss function based on the MSE metric will be first used to achieve as close to the results of the WMMSE algorithm as possible, i.e., $$\label{loss1}
\text{Loss}=\frac{1}{2LK}\sum_{l=1}^L{\left(||\underline{{{\bf p}}}^{(l)}-\hat{{{\bf p}}}^{(l)}||^2_2+||\underline{\bm{\lambda}}^{(l)}-\hat{\bm{\lambda}}^{(l)}||^2_2\right)},$$ where $\underline{{{\bf p}}}^{(l)}$ and $\underline{\bm{\lambda}}^{(l)}$ are the power vectors obtained from the WMMSE algorithm, and $\hat{{{\bf p}}}^{(l)}$ and $\hat{\bm{\lambda}}^{(l)}$ are the predicted results of the BNN. It is worth pointing out that the results in the training samples of problems **P1** and **P2** are optimal, thus the MSE-based loss function is equivalent to the objective function and the supervised learning method updates network parameters towards the direction of the optimal solution. However, the WMMSE algorithm for problem **P3** is suboptimal and thus is not equivalent to the real objective of problem **P3** which aims to maximize the weighted sum rate. To further improve the sum rate performance, we continue to train the BNN in an unsupervised learning way, whose loss function takes the objective function directly as a metric, i.e., $$\label{loss2}
\text{Loss}=-\frac{1}{2KL}\sum^L_{l=1}\sum^K_{k=1}\alpha^{(l)}_k\log_2\left(1+\gamma^{ul,(l)}_k\right).$$
Hybrid BNN Structure
--------------------
![BNN for the sum rate maximization problem.[]{data-label="BNN structure for sumrate"}](BNN_sumrate.eps){width="49.00000%"}
The BNN for the sum rate maximization problem **P3** is presented in Fig. \[BNN structure for sumrate\]. The major difference from the BNNs in Figs. \[BNN structure for sinr\] and \[BNN structure for power\] is that the BNN in Fig. \[BNN structure for sumrate\] has two stages of training. The first stage is responsible for pre-training using the supervised learning method with the loss function based on the MSE metric , while the second stage is responsible for enhanced training using the unsupervised learning method with the loss function whose metric is the objective function . Such a hybrid learning method of the supervised and unsupervised learning can significantly improve the learning performance and also accelerate convergence [@lee2018deep]. More specifically, the pre-training, as the approximation of WMMSE algorithm, starts with the random initialization of neural network parameters and the loss function . After the pre-training is finished, the neural network parameters are reserved and the loss function is replaced by , such that the second-stage training can achieve at least the same performance as the WMMSE algorithm.
Different from the BNNs in Figs. \[BNN structure for sinr\] and \[BNN structure for power\], the output layer in Fig. \[BNN structure for sumrate\] generates $2K$ values including the power allocation vectors $\hat{{{\bf p}}}$ and $\hat{\bm{\lambda}}$. Then the scaling layer scales the results of the output layer $\hat{{{\bf q}}}$ and $\hat{\bm{\lambda}}$ to meet the power constraint by the following method: $$\hat{{{\bf p}}}^{\ast}=\frac{P_{max}}{||\hat{{{\bf p}}}||_1}\hat{{{\bf p}}} \ \text{and} \ \hat{\bm{\lambda}}^{\ast}=\frac{P_{max}}{||\hat{\bm{\lambda}}||_1}\hat{\bm{\lambda}}.$$ Finally, the construction layer constructs the downlink beamforming vectors according to : $$\hat{{{\bf w}}}_k^{\ast}=\sqrt{\hat{p}^{\ast}_k}\frac{({{\bf I}}_N+\sum^K_{k=1}{\frac{\hat{\lambda}^{\ast}_k}{\sigma^2}{{\bf h}}_k{{\bf h}}_k^H})^{-1}{{\bf h}}_k}{||({{\bf I}}_N+\sum^K_{k=1}{\frac{\hat{\lambda}^{\ast}_k}{\sigma^2}{{\bf h}}_k{{\bf h}}_k^H})^{-1}{{\bf h}}_k||_2}, \forall k.$$
Simulation Results {#section simulation results}
==================
To evaluate the performances of the proposed BNNs, we carry out numerical simulations to compare the BNNs with several benchmark solutions (when available), including the optimal beamforming, the ZF beamforming, the RZF beamforming, and the WMMSE algorithm. We consider a downlink transmission scenario where the BS is equipped with $N=6$ antennas and its coverage is a disc with a radius of 500 m. There are $K=4$ single-antenna users and these users are distributed uniformly within the coverage of the BS. Note that none of these users is closer to the BS than 100 m. The pathloss between the user and the BS is set as $128.1 + 37.6\log_{10}(\omega)$\[dB\] [@dahrouj2010coordinated] where $\omega$ is the distance in km. The noise power spectral density is $\sigma^2=-174$ dBm/Hz and the total system bandwidth is 20 MHz. Without loss of generality, we assume all the sub-streams have the same importance and all the users have the same priority, i.e., $\rho_k=1, \forall k,$ and $\alpha_k=1, \forall k$. Besides, perfect CSI is assumed to be available at the BS.
In our simulation, we prepare 20000 training samples and 5000 testing samples, respectively. All the BNNs have one input layer, two BN layers, two CL layers, three AC layers, one flatten layer, one FC layer, and one output layer. The FC layer in the BNNs for problems **P1** and **P2** has $K$ neurons but that in the BNN for problem **P3** has $2K$ neurons. Besides, each CL layer has 8 kernels of size $3\times3$ and the first two AC layers adopt the ReLU function. Adam optimizer is used with the MSE metric-based loss function. However, in the second stage of the BNN for problem **P3**, the metric of the loss function becomes the sum rate. Note that the last AC layer can be the ReLU or sigmoid function. Here, we adopt the sigmoid function so that the target output in the training and testing samples should be normalized.
BNN for SINR Balancing Problem {#bnn-for-sinr-balancing-problem}
------------------------------
We first consider the BNN for the SINR balancing problem **P1**, which updates network parameters in a supervised learning way. The iterative algorithm in [@schubert2004solution Table 1] is used to generate the training and testing samples. Fig. \[sinr\_over\_power\] shows the SINR performance averaged over 5000 samples in two cases: one only considering the small-scale fading but the other considering both the small-scale fading and large-scale fading. In both cases, the SINR performance of the proposed BNN solution is very close to that of the optimal solution [@schubert2004solution]. It is observed that there is an obvious gap between the optimal solution and the ZF beamforming in the low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) regime of Fig. \[sinr\_verus\_snr\] as well as the low transmit-power regime of Fig. \[sinr\_versus\_power\]. However, the gap decreases as the SNR or transmit power increases.
![Comparison of four different beamforming solutions, i.e., the optimal solution, the ZF beamforming, the RZF beamforming, and the BNN solution under {$K=N$, $P_{max}=20$ dBm}.[]{data-label="sinr_versus_antennaNum"}](sinr_versus_antennaNum.eps){width="47.00000%"}
To further compare the SINR performances of the optimal solution, the ZF beamforming, the RZF beamforming, and the BNN solution, we evaluate the output SINR in Fig. \[sinr\_versus\_antennaNum\] assuming that the number of users is the same as the number of BS antennas, i.e., $K=N$, and they increase together. It is shown that the BNN solution has some performance loss compared to the optimal solution due to the estimation error, but the BNN solution always achieves a better performance than the ZF beamforming and RZF beamforming. This fact indicates the application prospect of the BNN: the computational complexity and time of the BNN solution is similar to those of the ZF beamforming and RZF beamforming, but is much lower than that of the optimal solution because the optimal solution relies on an iterative process. Besides, we also find that the SINR performances of the four solutions decrease as the transmit antenna number (user number) increases and among the four solutions the ZF beamforming suffers most from the performance loss.
![The SINR performance versus different transmit antenna numbers using the same trained BNN under {$K=4$, $P_{max}=20$ dBm}.[]{data-label="sinr_generality"}](sinr_generality.eps){width="47.00000%"}
In Fig. \[sinr\_generality\], we demonstrate the generality of the proposed BNN by fixing the user number as $K=4$ and the transmit power as $P_{max}=20$ dBm and show the SINR performance versus different transmit antenna settings. We train only a single BNN with {$K=4$, $N=10$}, but allow the number of transmit antennas to vary from 4 to 10 when using the trained BNN. It can be seen that these predicted results are very close to that of the optimal solution. This fact suggests the generality of the BNN, i.e., we can train a large BNN with more antennas which will also work for the cases with less antennas without re-training. This will be useful when some transmit antennas of the BS are malfunctioning or turned off.
BNN for Power Minimization Problem {#bnn-for-power-minimization-problem}
----------------------------------
In this subsection, we consider the BNN for the power minimization problem **P2**, which also updates network parameters in a supervised learning way. The iterative algorithm in [@schubert2004solution Table 1] is used to generate the training and testing samples. We first investigate the effect of the SINR constraints of users on the power consumption. For convenience of comparison, we assume the SINR constraints of all users are the same, i.e. $\Gamma_k=\Gamma, \forall k$. In Fig. \[power\_versus\_sinr\], we compare the power performances of the optimal beamforming, the ZF beamforming, and the beamforming obtained by the BNN. Note that both Figs. \[snr\_feasibility\_versus\_sinr\] and \[power\_feasibility\_versus\_sinr\] have two Y-axes where the left Y-axis is used to measure the transmit power (or SNR) and the right Y-axis is used to show the feasibility of the BNN. As mentioned in Section \[section bnn for power minimization problem\], the BNN may fail to find a feasible solution to problem **P2** if the prediction error is unacceptable. Figs. \[snr\_feasibility\_versus\_sinr\] and \[power\_feasibility\_versus\_sinr\] present the power/SNR performance in the cases without and with consideration of the large-scale fading, respectively. In both cases, the power/SNR performance of the BNN solution is close to that of the optimal solution, and significantly outperforms the ZF beamforming in the low SINR-constraint regime which is higher than that of the optimal solution. Besides, we find that the feasibility of the BNN solution in both cases is more than 99.4%.
To further compare the BNN solution with the optimal solution and the ZF beamforming, we plot their power performance and execution time per sample in Figs. \[power\_versus\_userNum\] and \[runningtime\_versus\_userNum\], respectively. In Fig. \[power\_time\_over\_userNum\], the BS antenna number and SINR target of users are fixed as $N=8$ and $\Gamma=5$ dB. It is observed from Fig. \[power\_versus\_userNum\] that as the user number $K$ increases, the performance gap between the ZF beamforming and the optimal beamforming becomes large because more users share the array gain. The BNN solution shows a better performance than ZF beamforming and has the feasibility of up to 99%. Fig. \[runningtime\_versus\_userNum\] demonstrates that compared to the optimal solution, [[the BNN solution can reduce the execution time per sample by two orders of magnitude, which is slightly longer than that of the ZF beamforming. This is because the BNN solution and the ZF beamforming are obtained without an iterative process, but the BNN needs to execute the neural network operations as well as the conversion process.]{}]{} According to the results in Figs. \[power\_versus\_userNum\] and \[runningtime\_versus\_userNum\], we can conclude that the BNN solution provides a good balance between the performance and computational complexity.
BNN for Sum Rate Maximization Problem {#bnn-for-sum-rate-maximization-problem}
-------------------------------------
In this subsection, we evaluate the performance of the BNN for the sum rate maximization problem **P3** based on the proposed hybrid learning under the assumption that $K=4$ and $N=4$. The ZF and RZF beamforming with the equal power allocation are introduced as two baseline solutions. The WMMSE algorithm with random initialization [@shi2011an; @christensen2008weighted] is used to generate samples for the supervised learning in the first stage. First, Fig. \[sumrate\_over\_power\] shows the sum rate performance averaged over 5000 samples in two different cases: the former case in Fig. \[sumrate\_verus\_snr\] only considers small-scale fading and and the latter case in Fig. \[sumarate\_versus\_power\] considers both small-scale fading and large-scale fading. It is shown that the sum rate performance of all solutions increases as the transmit power/SNR increases. We observe that in both cases the proposed BN solution based on the hybrid learning always achieves the best solutions, but the performance of the supervised learning-based BNN solution is barely satisfactory. This is because the second stage of the hybrid learning method aims to maximize the sum rate and its performance is bounded by the global optimal solution to problem **P3**. But the aim of the BNN solution based on the supervised learning is to achieve as close to the WMMSE solution as possible and its performance is restricted by the WMMSE solution, which is verified in Figs. \[sumrate\_verus\_snr\] and \[sumarate\_versus\_power\].
We further compare the sum rate performance and the computational complexity, in terms of the execution time per sample, of five beamforming solutions in Figs. \[sumrate\_versus\_antennaNum\] and \[runningtime\_versus\_antennaNum\], respectively. We fix the transmit power budget as $P_{max}=30$ dBm and assume the transmit antenna number is the same as the user number, i.e., $N=K$. As the number of transmit antennas increases, the sum rate performance of all five solutions increases simultaneously. However, the performance of the proposed BNN solution based on the hybrid learning method is always superior to those of the other solutions, and the performance gap becomes larger when the number of the transmit antenna increases. According to Fig. \[runningtime\_versus\_antennaNum\], the execution time per sample of the BNN solutions based on the supervised learning and hybrid learning methods is at the same level, which is slightly longer than that of the ZF beamforming and the RZF beamforming, for the same reason of Fig. \[power\_time\_over\_userNum\](b). As expected, the WMMSE algorithm consumes the most time because of its iterative process. Similar to the other proposed BNNs, it proves that the proposed BNN solution to the sum rate problem **P3** provides a good balance between the performance and computational complexity.
Conclusions {#section conclusion}
===========
In this paper, we proposed a DL-based framework for fast optimization of the beamforming vectors in the MISO downlink and then devised three BNNs under this framework for the SINR balancing problem under the total power constraint, the power minimization problem under individual QoS constraints, and the sum rate maximization problem under the total power constraint, respectively. The proposed BNNs are based on the CNN structure and expert knowledge. The supervised learning method was adopted for the SINR balancing problem and the power minimization problem because their optimal solutions exist for generating training samples. However, there is no known optimal solution to the nonconvex sum rate maximization problem, therefore the corresponding BNN adopts a hybrid learning method which first pre-trains the neural network based on the supervised learning method, and then updates the network parameters with the unsupervised learning method to further improve learning performance. Furthermore, in order to reduce the complexity of prediction, the proposed BNNs take advantage of expert knowledge to extract the key features instead of predicting the beamforming matrix directly. Simulation results demonstrated that the proposed BNN solutions provided a good balance between the performance and computational complexity.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We gratefully acknowledge the support of NVIDIA Corporation with the donation of the Titan Xp GPU used for this research.
[^1]: W. Xia and J. Zhang are with the Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Wireless Communications, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing 210003, China (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]).
[^2]: G. Zheng and Y. Zhu are with the Wolfson School of Mechanical, Electrical and Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]).
[^3]: J. Wang is with the School of Engineering and Digital Arts at the University of Kent, Kent, CT2 7NT, UK (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^4]: A. P. Petropulu is with the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854 (e-mail: [email protected]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Unusual features in the bias dependence of spin transport are observed in a Co/Au/NiFe spin valve fabricated on a highly textured Cu(100)/Si(100) Schottky interface, exploiting the local probing capabilities of a Ballistic electron magnetic microscope (BEMM). This arises due to local differences in the strain and the presence of misfit dislocations at the Schottky interface that enhances spin flip scattering and broadens the energy and angular distribution of the transmitted electrons. Cumulatively, these enable the transmitted hot electrons to probe the different conduction band minima in Si, giving rise to such bias dependent features in the magnetocurrent. This study reveals new insights into the spin dependence of transmission in an indirect band gap semiconductor as Si and highlights the unique capabilities of BEMM in probing local differences in spin transport across such textured interfaces.
PACS numbers: [72.25.Ba, 75.47.-m, 85.75.-d]{}
author:
- 'S. Parui, K. G. Rana and T. Banerjee'
title: |
Bias dependent features in spin transport as a\
probe of the conduction band minima in Si
---
Metallic spin valves on Schottky interfaces are ideal for investigating spin transport in ferromagnetic (FM) layers, studying spin asymmetry of relaxation times for electrons and holes in FMs, probing spin-sensitivity of transmission at the electronically dissimilar FM-Semiconductor (SC) heterointerface, etc. This is exemplified by numerous studies involving hot electron transport in metallic spin valves on different semiconductors as Si [@Monsma; @Ian; @Rippard; @Tamalika1; @Tamalika2], GaAs [@Parkin], GaP [@Reddy], GaAsP [@Heindl] etc. Probing a different regime of the electronic band structure, such studies involving hot electrons and holes have yielded quantitative estimates of different transport parameters as the scattering time and attenuation length at energies a few eV above and below E$_F$, [@TamalikaPRL] and have been utilized for designing new schemes and devices in spintronics. Studies on spin transport reported so far have been performed using spin valves with different FMs as NiFe, Co, Fe, Ni, etc. on polycrystalline Schottky interfaces with Si. In GaAs, a direct band gap semiconductor, epitaxial Schottky interfaces are formed with Fe or its alloys and spin dependent transmission has revealed nonmonotonic bias dependence of the magnetocurrent arising from the different conduction band structures in GaAs [@Parkin].\
Here, we demonstrate an unique approach of exploiting hot electron spin transport in a Co/Au/NiFe spin valve grown on an epitaxial oriented Schottky interface of Cu(100)/Si(100), that reveal signatures of the electronic structure of an indirect band gap semiconductor of Si (100). This is demonstrated by analyzing the collected current, on the nanoscale, at different regions of the textured Schottky interface using the local probing capabilities of the Ballistic electron magnetic microscope (BEMM). Although it is known that ultrathin Cu grows epitaxially on Si(100), [@Cugrowth; @Parui] such interfaces have not been exploited earlier to study spin dependence of transmission in metallic spin valves. Interestingly, for different locations in the same spin valve device on Si(100) (denoted as Regions 1 and 2), we find that the collected current for both parallel (I$_P$) and antiparallel (I$_{AP}$) alignments of the magnetic layers exhibit significant differences in their bias dependence. The overall transmission for I$_P$, in Region 2 (R2) is generally found to be lower than in Region 1 (R1) upto a bias $\sim$ -1.4 V and thereafter increases gradually. For the antiparallel case, the increase is more abrupt at a similar bias. Further, the collected current in R2 exhibits unusual features in its bias dependence beyond $\sim$ -1.4 V. A large magnetocurrent (MC) of $\sim$600$\%$ (at -0.9 V) \[MC = (I$^P$ - I$^{AP}$)/I$^{AP}$\] is predominantly observed (in R1) which decreases to $\sim$200$\%$ (at -2 V) with a monotonic bias dependence. The extracted magnetocurrent in R2 also decreases and reaches $\sim$100$\%$ at -2 V.\
To study the bias dependence of spin transport, we have used Ballistic electron magnetic microscopy (BEMM). BEMM is a three electrode extension (Fig. 1) of the Scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) that is used to investigate perpendicular spin transport through buried layers and interfaces in a spin valve grown on a semiconducting substrate [@Rippard; @Tamalika1]. A PtIr STM tip is used to locally inject electrons onto the top Au layer and an additional contact at the semiconductor rear serves as the collector [@Bell]. In BEMM, the energy of the injected electrons can be varied by changing the applied bias V$_T$ for a fixed tunnel current I$_t$, thus yielding fundamental insights into the energy dependence of the scattering processes in the ferromagnetic layers. The spin dependence of the collected current, I$_B$, is obtained by applying a magnetic field that changes the relative magnetization alignment of the FM layers in the spin valve. After transmission through the spin valve, the electrons are collected in the conduction band of the Si semiconductor, provided they satisfy the necessary energy and momentum criteria at the M/S Schottky interface. The spin dependent collector current, I$_B$, for the parallel and antiparallel configuration, can be written as,
$$I^P_B\propto(T^M_{FM1}T_{S}T^M_{FM2}+T^m_{FM1}T_{S}T^m_{FM2})\Upsilon^P_{Cu/Si}$$
$$I^{AP}_B\propto(T^M_{FM1}T_{S}T^m_{FM2}+T^m_{FM1}T_{S}T^M_{FM2})\Upsilon^{AP}_{Cu/Si}$$
where T$^M$ and T$^m$ refer to the transmission of the majority (M) and minority (m) hot electrons in the ferromagnetic layers, and T$_S$ is the transmission in the spacer (non-magnetic; NM) layer. The bulk transmission depends exponentially on the NM and FM layer thickness as, $T\propto e^{-d/\lambda}$, where $d$ is the thickness and $\lambda$ the hot electron attenuation length for the NM and FM layers \[see inset of Fig. 1\]. $\Upsilon$$_{Cu/Si}$ denotes the scattering sensitive transmission probability at the highly textured M/S interface.\
For the BEMM experiments, we use n-type Si(100) substrate with a 300 nm thick SiO$_2$ which is removed by buffered hydrofluoric acid (HF). The pre-defined circular devices, 150 $\mu$m in diameter, are hydrogen terminated using 1$\%$ hydrofluoric acid, onto which metal layers were deposited by e-beam evaporation. First, a 10 nm Cu layer was evaporated to form a highly textured Cu/Si Schottky barrier [@Cugrowth], followed by the deposition of 4 nm Co, 10 nm of Au and 4 nm of NiFe films. A final 5 nm of Au film serves as a capping layer, for *ex situ* sample transfer to the BEMM set up.\
For an unambiguous demonstration of spin transport in such spin valves, nanoscale magnetic hysteresis loops were recorded using BEMM as shown in Fig. 2. The magnetic field dependence of the transmission, measured at -2 V and 4 nA tunnel injection shows clear switching, characteristic of the relative parallel and antiparallel alignment of the NiFe and Co layers. A typical measurement starts by fully saturating and aligning the magnetization of both the FMs by ramping the magnetic field to a maximum. When the magnetic field is swept through zero and changes sign, the softer FM viz. NiFe switches leading to an anti-parallel (AP) alignment and reduction in BEMM current. A further increase in the magnetic field switches the Co layer with the magnetizations aligned parallel (P) resulting in a higher BEMM current. The inset confirms independent switchings of the NiFe and Co layers in the spin valve, using SQUID (Superconducting Quantum Interference Device) and characterized by a stepped hysteresis loop with two distinct coercive fields, [@Lucinski] matching well with that of the magnetic hysteresis loop obtained using BEMM.\
Spin-dependent transmission as measured in BEMM, for both parallel and anti-parallel magnetization orientations of the Co(4)/Au(10)/NiFe(4)/Au(5) spin valve are shown in Figs. 3 a. and b. Figure 3 a. represents the transmission as obtained in approximately 80 $\%$ of the device area in Si/Cu(10)/Co(4)/Au(10)/NiFe(4)/Au(5) and designated as R1. However, by moving the STM tip across the device, the BEMM transmission as well as the spectral shape is found to differ (as shown in Fig. 3 b.), at few other locations (approximately 20 $\%$ of the device area), from that in R1, and denoted here as R2. At such locations, we also observe unusual features in the bias dependence for both the I$_P$ and I$_{AP}$ transmissions. The overall transmission for I$_P$ is lower than that in R1 upto a bias $\sim$ -1.4 V and thereafter increases gradually. For the antiparallel case, the increase is more abrupt at a similar bias. The spectral shape of the collected current for the parallel and antiparallel transmission reflects the narrow energy distribution of the transmitted majority electrons and a relatively broad one for the minority electrons. The extracted magnetocurrent for the two regions is shown in Fig. 3 c. The MC decreases with bias for both the regions but is more abrupt for R2 and reaches $\sim$100$\%$ at -2 V. To rule out possible artifacts in the BEMM transmission related to the growth of Co on Cu, we have also fabricated and measured spin dependent tranport in a Si/Cu(10)/NiFe(4)/Au(10)/Co(4)/Au(5) device (i.e the bottom FM is now NiFe). Here too (Supplementary Figure S1), we find the occurrence of two regions with a similar transmission characteristics and bias dependence of MC (Fig. S1).\
The non trivial bias dependence of the BEMM transmission is further analysed in Fig. 4. It shows the data of the BEMM transmission for P and AP configuration, in Regions 1 and 2, normalized to its value at -2 V (left) and -1.2 V (right). We find that the spectral shape and the energy dependence of the BEMM transmission in R2 is different than in R1, for both the P and AP alignments, when normalized at -2 V. Normalizing the transmissions at a lower energy allows us to identify the onset in the bias beyond which features in the P and AP spectra sets in. This has been done at several lower biases and is shown for a bias of -1.2 V (Fig. 4 right). We see that beyond $\sim$ -1.4 V, the energy dependence of both the P and AP transmission becomes more pronounced and correspond to the energy beyond which the unusual features in the BEMM transmission sets in.\
The spin dependence of transmission of the injected electrons propagating through the spin valve stack (T$^{M,m}$$_{FM1,2}$) and their interfaces are expected to be similar in both Regions 1 and 2 of the device. However, inhomogeneity at the M/S interface in the device, due to differences in the strained epitaxial lattice and/or the presence of misfit dislocations acts as effective elastic scattering centres, as in R2, and increases the transmission probability ($\Upsilon$$_{Cu/Si}$) of the transmitted electrons, above $\sim$ -1.4 V, at such M/S interfaces. These scattering events also broaden the energy and angular dependence of the transmitted electrons and increases the relative fraction of minority electrons by spin flip processes at the interface (increase in I$_{AP}$). This is accompanied by a concomitant reduction in the spin asymmetry (I$_P$/I$_{AP}$) at higher energies (above $\sim$ -1.4 V) and is manifested as an abrupt decrease in the MC with bias in R2. Subsequently, this energy and momentum broadening of the transmitted electrons enables the electrons with larger parallel wave vectors to access the almost degenerate minima of the second conduction band in addition to the first conduction band at the X point (85$\%$ from the $\Gamma$ point) in Si, besides probing the second minimum in the first conduction band at the L point as shown in Fig. 5. The unusual features observed in the bias dependence of spin transport in R2 corresponds well to these additional thresholds in the conduction band minima in Si at both the X (corresponds to collection from and above the Schottky barrier height of 0.62 V at the Cu/Si interface) and L point (corresponds to $\sim$ 0.8 V above the Schottky barrier height) [@Cohen; @Klein]. Thus, the observed effect at $\sim$ -1.4 V is 0.8 V above the Schottky barrier height at the M/S interface and matches with the energy separation between the first conduction band minimum at X and the second conduction band minimum at L in Si.\
This possibility to probe the additional conduction band minima in an indirect band gap semiconductor as Si was not demonstrated in earlier studies involving polycrystalline M/S interfaces. It is enabled by the unique choice of an epitaxial M/S interface and the capabilities of the BEMM in resolving local differences in spin transport, in the same device, that arises due to differences in the local strain at the underlying epitaxial oriented Cu/Si interface. The local differences in the epitaxial oriented Cu/Si interface due to misfit dislocations in R2, enhances momentum scattering and broadens the energy and angular distribution of the transmitted electrons. This in turn increases the minority electrons due to spin flip processes, decreases the transmission asymmetry at higher energies and reduces the MC. All these cumulatively enables the hot electrons with larger parallel wave vectors to access the X and L bands in an indirect band gap material as Si giving rise to such features in their spin transport, hitherto not reported, and is a new approach to probe the electronic band structure in semiconductors.\
We thank A. M. Kamerbeek for scientific discussions, T. T. M. Palstra and B. Noheda for use of the XRD and MPMS. Technical support from J. Holstein, J. Baas, B. Wolfs and M. de Roosz is thankfully acknowledged. This work was financially supported by the NWO-VIDI program, the Zernike Institute for Advanced Materials and NanoNed program coordinated by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.
: D. J. Monsma, R. Vlutters, and J. C. Lodder, Science [**281**]{}, 407 (1998); D. J. Monsma, J. C. Lodder, Th. J. A. Popma, and B. Dieny Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 5260 (1995). I. Appelbaum, B. Huang, and D. J. Monsma, Nature (London) [**447**]{}, 295 (2007); B. Huang, D. J. Monsma and I. Appelbaum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 177209 (2007). W. H. Rippard and R. A. Buhrman, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1001 (1999); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 971 (2000). T. Banerjee, J. C. Lodder, and R. Jansen, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 140407(R) (2007). T. Banerjee, W. G. van der Wiel, and R. Jansen, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 214409 (2010). S. van Dijken, X. Jiang, and S. S. P. Parkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 197203 (2003); X. Jiang, S. van Dijken, R. Wang and S. S. P. Parkin, Phys. Rev. B. [**69**]{}, 014413 (2004). C. V. Reddy, R. E. Martinez II, V. Narayanamurti, H. P. Xin, and C. W. Tu, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 235313 (2002). E. Heindel, J. Vancea, and C. H. Back, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 073307 (2007). T. Banerjee, E. Haq, M. H. Siekman, J. C. Lodder and R. Jansen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 027204 (2005). H. Jiang, T. J. Klemmer, J. A. Barnard, and E. A. Payzant, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A [**16**]{}, 3376 (1998); B. G. Demczyk, R. Naik, G. Auner, C. Kota, and U. Rao, J. Appl. Phys. [**75**]{}, 1956 (1994). S. Parui, J. R. R. van der Ploeg, K. G. Rana and T. Banerjee, Phys. Status Solidi RRL [**5**]{}, 388 (2011). W. J. Kaiser and L. D. Bell, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 1406 (1988); L. D. Bell and W. J. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2368 (1988). T. Luciński, S. Czerkas, H. Brückl, and G. Reiss, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**222**]{}, 327 (2000). M. L. Cohen and T. K. Bergstresser, Phys. Rev. [**141**]{}, 789 (1966). C. S. Wang and B. M. Klein, Phys. Rev. B [**24**]{}, 3393 (1981).
![\[fig:BEMM schematic\] Schematic energy diagram of the BEMM experiment. The sample consists of a n-Si(100) substrate coated with Cu(10)/Co(4)/Au(10)/NiFe(4)/Au(5) (nm). The STM tip is used to locally inject hot electrons into the multilayer base by tunneling at a bias voltage V$_T$ between tip and Au surface. The current I$_B$ flows perpendicular through the stack and is collected at the conduction band of the Si substrate. (Top right) shows spin-dependent transmission of the majority and minority electrons at the normal metal/ferromagnetic metal interface and their exponential decay in the bulk of the metal films. The P and AP transmission are described in Equation 1 and 2.](Figure1.pdf)
![\[fig:SQUID\] a and b: Local hysteresis loop obtained by BEMM at tunneling voltage of -2 V and at tunneling current of 4 nA, showing clear P and AP transmissions. NiFe switches at $\sim$16 Oe and the switching field of Co on Cu is $\sim$50 Oe. These values are consistent with that obtained from SQUID measurement. (Inset) SQUID magnetometer measurement, showing switching fields of NiFe and Co. Arrows indicate magnetic field sweep direction. Measurements exhibit hysteresis loops with well-defined plateaus representing anti-parallel configuration of Co and NiFe magnetic moments.](Figure2.pdf)
![\[fig:SQUID\] a, b: The variation of the BEMM transmissions for parallel (P) and anti-parallel (AP) magnetization configuration of the Si/Cu(10)/Co(4)/Au(10)/NiFe(4)/Au(5) device corresponding to two different regions in the same device. For both regions the transmission in the P region is larger than that at AP. In region 2, a second onset is found at $\sim$ -1.2 V for both P and AP transmission unlike that in Region 1. c: From the parallel and antiparallel BEMM transmission, magnetocurrent is extracted for both Regions 1 and 2 and plotted with respect to the bias.](Figure3.pdf)
![\[fig:SQUID\] Normalized transmissions for the Si/Cu(10)/NiFe(4)/Au(10)/Co(4)/Au(5) device from Fig. 3. Both the P and AP transmissions are normalized at tip biases of -2 V (left) and -1.2 V (right) respectively. Normalized plots at -2 V show a distinct change in the direction of curvatures indicating different energy dependence for Region 2. When the BEMM transmissions are normalized at -1.2 V, the onset of the energy dependence of the transmissions becomes more pronounced, as shown.](Figure4.pdf)
![\[fig:SQUID\] Electronic structure of Si. There are six equivalent ellipsoidal conduction band minima at a distance about 85$\%$ from the $\Gamma$ point to the X points. The second conduction band minima is only 0.1 eV above the minima of the first conduction band at the X-points. The second minima of the first conduction band is at the L point which is about 0.8 eV above the first minima.](Figure5.pdf)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The interaction of water with oxide surfaces is of great interest for both fundamental science and applications. We present a combined theoretical \[density functional theory (DFT)\] and experimental \[Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM), photoemission spectroscopy (PES)\] study of water interaction with the two-dimensional titania overlayer that terminates the SrTiO$_3$ (110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface and consists of TiO$_4$ tetrahedra. STM, core-level and valence band PES show that H$_2$O neither adsorbs nor dissociates on the stoichiometric surface at room temperature, while it dissociates at oxygen vacancies. This is in agreement with DFT calculations, which show that the energy barriers for water dissociation on the stoichiometric and reduced surfaces are 1.7 and 0.9 eV, respectively. We propose that water weakly adsorbs on two-dimensional, tetrahedrally coordinated overlayers.'
author:
- Zhiming Wang
- Xianfeng Hao
- Stefan Gerhold
- Zbynek Novotny
- Cesare Franchini
- McDermott Eamon John Gordon
- Karina Schulte
- Michael Schmid
- Ulrike Diebold
title: 'Water Adsorption at the Tetrahedral Titania Surface Layer of SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) '
---
=1
1. Introduction
===============
The discovery of photochemical water splitting on SrTiO$_3$ with no external bias under UV irradiation has motivated much research into the interaction of water with this material.[@Mavroides:apl76; @Wrighton:jacs76] More recent reports of overall water splitting on SrTiO$_3$ with a NiO co-catalyst has renewed this interest.[@Townsend:12acsnano; @Townsend:12ees] A fundamental question is simply whether water adsorption is molecular or dissociative.[@Henrich:77ssc; @Ferrer:1980ss; @Webb:1981ss; @Egdell:1982cpl; @Cox1983247; @Eriksen:1987sap; @Brookes:1987ssc; @Brookes:1987ps; @Wang:2002jvsta] For SrTiO$_3$(001), photoemission spectroscopy (PES), high-resolution electron energy loss spectroscopy (HREELS) and temperature programmed desorption (TPD) studies show that water does not adsorb on the stoichiometric surface at room temperature (RT) although molecular water adsorption has been observed below 150 K. However, dissociative adsorption was observed for water on both, Ar$^+$ bombarded and vacuum-fractured SrTiO$_3$(100) surfaces.[@Eriksen:1987sap; @Brookes:1987ssc; @Brookes:1987ps] Theoretical calculations are in agreement with experimental results, predicting molecular water adsorption on the stoichiometric SrTiO$_3$(100) surface.[@Azad:2005jpcb; @Baniecki:2009jap; @Guhl:prb10]
In this context it is important to note that SrTiO$_3$(100) forms a wide variety of reconstructions, which depend strongly on the preparation conditions and sample history. Various groups report different results,[@Bonnell:2008rpp] thus it is not always straightforward to connect water adsorption experiments to the actual surface structure. Recently the SrTiO$_3$(110) surface has received significant attention.[@Russell:2008prb; @Enterkin:natm10; @Wang:prb11; @Li:prl11; @Biswas:apl11] It was found that SrTiO$_3$(110) surface can be prepared reproducibly and reversibly with a variety of surface structures.[@Russell:2008prb; @Wang:prb11] The ($n$ $\times$ 1) ($n$ = 3 - 6) series of reconstructions was solved by transmission electron diffraction and direct methods, and confirmed and refined by density functional theory (DFT) calculations and scanning tunneling microscopy (STM).[@Enterkin:natm10; @Li:prl11] Thus a reliable structural model is available for this surface.
The SrTiO$_3$(110) surface is polar, as an SrTiO$_3$ crystal can be considered as a stack of equidistant (SrTiO)$^{4+}$ and (O$_2$)$^{4-}$ planes along the \[110\] direction.[@Bottin:ss05] Generally, polar surfaces are considered more reactive than non-polar ones.[@Noguera:jpcm08; @Shin:nl09] In this case, however, the polarity is compensated via the formation of a (4 $\times$ 1) reconstruction with a nominal stoichiometry of (Ti$_{1.5}$O$_4$)$^{2-}$. The reconstruction consists of six- and ten-membered rings of corner-shared TiO$_4$ tetrahedra residing directly on the bulk-like SrTiO$_3$, which consists of octahedrally-coordinated Ti (see Fig. 1a). The surface reconstruction can be tuned by varying the surface stoichiometry,[@Wang:prb11; @Wang:apl13] forming a homologous series of ($n$ $\times$ 1) ($n$ = 3 - 6) with a variable number of tetrahedra per ring.[@Enterkin:natm10; @Li:prl11] Recently, we reported that quasi-long-range ordered antiphase domains are formed on the (4 $\times$ 1) surface.[@Wang:prl13] The domain boundaries are decorated by defect pairs consisting of a Ti$_2$O$_3$ vacancy cluster and a Sr adatom; the presence of these pairs preserves the polarity compensation.
In recent reports, periodically-arranged, tetrahedrally coordinated MeO$_4$ (Me = Ti, Si) units have emerged as a common feature on several oxide surfaces.[@Enterkin:natm10; @Li:prl11; @Lazzeri:prl01; @Blanco-Rey:prl06; @Marks:ss09; @Warschkow:prl08] For example, such units form one-dimensional rows at the anatase TiO$_2$(001)-(1 $\times$ 4) and rutile TiO$_2$(110)-(1 $\times$ 2)-Ti$_2$O$_3$ surfaces.[@Lazzeri:prl01; @Blanco-Rey:prl06] For anatase (001) a high reactivity towards water adsorption was reported;[@Gong:jpcb06; @Blomquist:jpcc08] this surface was also identified as the most active one in photocatalytic reactions,[@Yang:nat08] although it remains controversial whether the reconstructed or the unreconstructed anatase (001) surface is the most active phase.[@Sencer:jpcc13] Well-ordered, ultrathin silica structures consisting of SiO$_4$ units have also been reported [@Shaikhutdinov:am13] these bear resemblance to the two-dimensional network on the SrTiO$_3$(110)-($n$ $\times$ 1)($n$ = 3 - 6) and rutile TiO$_2$(100)-$c$(2 $\times$ 2) surfaces.[@Enterkin:natm10; @Li:prl11; @Warschkow:prl08] It should be noted, however, that Ti in bulk TiO$_2$ and SrTiO$_3$ is octrahedrally coordinated, in contrast to SiO$_2$, which forms tetrahedra also in the bulk.
In this article we present a combined experimental \[Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM), photoemission spectroscopy (PES)\] and theoretical \[density functional theory (DFT)\] investigation of water adsorption on stoichiometric and reduced SrTiO$_3$(110) surfaces with a two-dimensional tetrahedrally-coordinated (4 $\times$ 1) reconstructed layer. Both experimental and theoretical results clearly show that water dissociates on the surface with oxygen vacancies (V$_{\textrm O}$’s), while water neither adsorbs nor dissociates on the stoichiometric surface at room temperature (RT). Generalizing our result we propose that two-dimensional, tetrahedrally coordinated overlayers on oxide materials interact only weakly with water.
2. Materials and Methods
========================
2.1 Experimental Details
------------------------
STM measurements were performed in two ultra-high vacuum (UHV) chambers equipped with a SPECS Aarhus STM at RT and an Omicron low temperature (LT) STM at 78 K, respectively (see Refs [ -‘ [@Parkinson:jacs11] ]{} and [ -‘ [@Scheiber:prl10] ]{} for more details). Synchrotron radiation photoemission spectroscopy experiments were performed at beamline I311 at the MAX IV Laboratory.[@Nyholm:nucl01] The pressure in all UHV systems was better than 1 $\times$ 10$^{-10}$ mbar. Nb-doped (0.5 wt%) SrTiO$_3$(110) single crystals were purchased from MaTeck, Germany. The clean surface was prepared by cycles of Ar$^+$ sputtering (1 keV, 5 $\mu$A, 10 minutes) and followed by annealing in 2 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$ mbar oxygen at 900 $^\circ$C for 1 h.[@Wang:apl09] The samples were heated by electron bombardment (13 mA, 900 V) or by passing alternating current through the crystal, and the temperature was monitored with an infrared pyrometer. The surface reconstruction was checked by low energy electron diffraction (LEED) and was adjusted by depositing Sr or Ti on the surface at RT followed by annealing until a sharp (4 $\times$ 1) LEED pattern was observed.[@Wang:prb11] The surface was exposed to atomic H by backfilling the chamber with H$_2$ while keeping a hot tungsten filament in line of sight with the sample. The hydrogen cracking efficiency in our setup is estimated 5% with the W filament temperature about 2000 $^{\circ}$C.[@Atsushi:jjap95] The density of H atoms is around 0.1 per nm$^2$ after dosing at a H$_2$ partial pressure of 1$\times$10$^{-6}$ mbar for 5 min with the sample at room temperature. Deionized H$_2$O was cleaned by repeated freeze-pump-thaw cycles and dosed by backfilling the UHV chamber through a leak valve. The purity of the water vapor was checked by mass spectrometry. All photoemission spectra in this paper were collected with the emission normal to the sample plane; the angle between the sample normal and the incoming x-rays was 54.7$^\circ$. Photon energies were 605 eV and 45 eV for core-level and valence band photoemission spectroscopy, respectively. The binding energies were calibrated with respect to the Fermi level of a clean Mo sample plate, on which our sample was mounted.
2.2 Computational Details
-------------------------
The first-principles calculations were performed using the projector augmented-wave method as implemented in the Vienna *ab initio* simulation package (VASP) code,[@vasp1; @vasp2] using the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE)[@pbe] approximation to treat the exchange-correlation functional within the DFT. The kinetic energy cutoff for the plane waves expansion was set to 600 eV, and reduced to 400 eV for the nudged elastic band (NEB) calculations as detailed below. In order to improve the description of dispersion forces, which are expected to play an important role in H$_2$O physisorption phenomena and are not correctly accounted for in standard DFT, we have employed two alternative corrections: (i) the DFT-D2 method of Grimme[@Grimme:jcc04; @Grimme:jcc06; @Grimme:obc07] and (ii) the modified version of van der Waals DFT (vdW-DFT), adopting the recently introduced functional optB86b-vdW.[@Klimes:prb11]
Our surface calculations are based on the SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) structural model proposed by Enterkin *et al.*.[@Enterkin:natm10] To weaken the interaction between the water and its periodic image we have adopted a large (4 $\times$ 2) supercell (Fig. 1), which is constructed by doubling the (4 $\times$ 1) model along the \[1$\overline{1}$0\] direction. We have used a symmetric slab consisting of 13 layers separated by a vacuum layer of 12 Å (total thickness 32 Å). A pair of H$_2$O molecules was symmetrically adsorbed on both sides of the slab. During structural optimization all atoms were allowed to relax until all components of their residual forces were less than 0.02 eV/ Å, except for the atoms in the central three layers, which were kept fixed in their bulk positions. We have used the fully optimized PBE lattice constant, 3.945 Å (very close to the corresponding experimental one, 3.905 Å), and a (2 $\times$ 3 $\times$ 1) Monkhorst-Pack k-point mesh (reduced to 1 $\times$ 1 $\times$ 1 for the NEB runs) for the Brillouin-zone integrations.
The oxygen vacancy formation energy E$_{\textrm f}$(V$_{\textrm O}$) is computed as E$_{\textrm f}$(V$_{\textrm O}$)=1/2\[E$_{\textrm {TOT}}$(2V$_{\textrm O}$)-E$_{\textrm {TOT}}$+E(O$_2$)\] where E$_{\textrm {TOT}}$ refers to the DFT total energy of the clean symmetric slab, E$_{\textrm {TOT}}$(2V$_{\textrm O}$) denotes the DFT total energy of the symmetric slab containing two V$_{\textrm O}$’s, and E(O$_2$) indicates the DFT energy of the oxygen molecule. Similarly, the H and H$_2$O adsorption energies are evaluated using the formula E$_{\textrm {ads}}$(X)=1/2\[E$_{\textrm {TOT}}$(2X)-E$_{\textrm {TOT}}$-2E(X)\] (with X=H and H$_2$O), where EE$_{\textrm {TOT}}$(X) refers to the DFT total energies of the symmetric slab containing two H adatoms or two water molecules, whereas E(X) represents the DFT energies of the isolated H atom or H$_2$O molecule.
The energy barriers for the water dissociation processes were determined via the climbing image NEB (CI-NEB) method,[@Henkelman:jcp00] which is designed to compel one of the intermediate states near the transition point to climb up along the reaction coordinate to reach the highest saddle point, thus leading to a more accurate evaluation of the energy barrier than the regular NEB does. Due to the computational load, we adopted 4-8 images connecting two subsequent minima of the potential energy surface for determining the minimum energy path. The whole path was considered to be converged when the residual forces acting on the individual images dropped below the threshold of 0.05 eV/ Å. For the NEB calculations we did not include dispersion corrections on top of DFT, as it has been demonstrated that these have little impact on the activation energy.[@Sorescu:jcp11]
3. Results
==========
3.1 Scanning Tunneling Microscopy Studies
-----------------------------------------
Figure 2a shows an empty-states STM image of the SrTiO$_3$(110) surface after exposure to atomic hydrogen at an H$_2$ pressure of 1$\times$10$^{-6}$ mbar for 5 min. The bright stripes along the \[1$\overline{1}$0\] direction correspond to the Ti(III) and Ti(II) atoms in the six-membered rings, located in tetrahedral units that connect to the SrTiO$_3$ substrate below by sharing corners. The ridges are separated by a dark trench originating from the tetrahedra in the ten-membered rings, which share edges with the SrTiO$_3$ underneath (see Fig. 1). Each stripe contains two or three bright rows of periodic dots for the (4 $\times$ 1) or (5 $\times$ 1) reconstruction, respectively.[@Li:prl11] On top of the stripes, two types of bright protrusions are observed. Sr adatoms, which are part of the (4 $\times$ 1) antiphase domain structure[@Wang:prl13] are labeled with red arrows. In agreement with the DFT calculations[@Wang:prl13] they are adsorbed in the middle of the six-membered rings, *i.e.*, centered on the bright (4 $\times$ 1) stripes. The Sr adatoms have an apparent height of $\sim$240 pm. \[Quoted here and in the following are typical values for the apparent heights observed for an STM sample bias of +2.3 V and a tunneling current of 0.1 nA. Note however, the apparent height also dependents on the tip state.\]
It is well accepted that atomic hydrogen preferentially adsorbs on the surface oxygen atoms, forming hydroxyl groups.[@Thiel:ssr87; @Henderson:ssr02; @Weiss:pss02; @Diebold:ssr03] In our case, the hydroxyl groups (labeled with white arrows in Fig. 2a) have an apparent height of $\sim$130 pm, less than the Sr adatoms. The OH groups appear preferentially at the sides of both, the (4 $\times$ 1) and (5 $\times$ 1) stripes. DFT calculations (below) show that atomic hydrogen prefers to adsorb at the O3 site (Fig. 1), and the resulting simulated STM image is consistent with experimental results.[@Li:prl11] It should be noted that we also observed indications of H interaction with Sr adatoms; note, *e.g.*, the streaky appearance of the extra-bright Sr atom in Fig. 2a that indicates the presence of an adsorbate.
After flashing the hydroxylated surface to about 300 $^\circ$C, less bright protrusions with an apparent height of $\sim$70 pm appear (blue arrows in Fig. 2b). From TPD and STM experiments it is often observed that molecular water desorbs from hydroxylated oxide surfaces upon flash-annealing.[@Parkinson:jacs11; @Thiel:ssr87; @Henderson:ssr02] Indeed, from a prior TPD study a similar conclusion was drawn for the SrTiO$_3$(001) surface.[@Wang:2002jvsta] It was observed that molecular water desorbs above 100 $^\circ$C on the hydroxylated SrTiO$_3$(001) surface.[@Wang:2002jvsta] Therefore, it is reasonable to attribute the less bright protrusions to V$_{\textrm O}$’s. The V$_{\textrm O}$’s sit also at the side of the (4 $\times$ 1) stripes, similar to the hydroxyls. These results agree very well with the preference for a V$_{\textrm O}$ at the O3 site in DFT calculations as shown in the following and in Ref. [ -‘ [@Li:prl11] ]{}.
Figure 3a shows an LT-STM image of the SrTiO$_3$(110) surface after exposure to 0.3 Langmuir (L) water at 110 K. Bright features with an apparent height of $\sim$80 pm, labeled with green arrows, appear in the trenches between stripes. These features are different from the V$_{\textrm O}$’s and hydroxyls in Fig. 2. From TPD measurements on the SrTiO$_3$(001) surface, molecular water starts to desorb around 200 - 260 K at low exposure (< 1 L), while weakly bound and multilayer water desorbs below 200 K upon further exposure.[@Wang:2002jvsta] We attribute the features in Fig. 3a to molecular water that is located at the cation sites at low exposure. From the DFT calculations shown below, molecular water preferentially adsorbs at the TiI site in the ten-membered rings on the SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface (Fig. 1b), consistent with the experimental observations.(5 $\times$ 1) stripes (Fig. 3b), indicating hydroxyl formation after dosing water at RT. In addition to single hydroxyls, hydroxyl pairs are also observed on the surface, again labeled by white arrows in Fig. 3b. These pairs are likely due to the dissociation of water at the V$_{\textrm O}$’s. Note that the distance between these hydroxyl pairs is two unit cells along direction, indicating a repulsive interaction between them. Here the saturation coverage of hydroxyls is approximately 0.01 ML (1 ML = 4.64 $\times$ 10$^{14}$ atoms/cm$^2$ relative to the SrTiO$_3$(110)-(1 $\times$ 1) unit cell), suggesting a surface V$_{\textrm O}$ density of half that value. Further increasing the water dosage up to 50 L does not introduce more hydroxyls on the surface, and no indication of molecular water is observed. We conclude that water dissociates only on the V$_{\textrm O}$’s while it neither adsorbs nor dissociates on the stoichiometric surface at RT.
3.2 Photoemission Spectroscopy Studies
--------------------------------------
Figure 4 shows photoemission spectra of the valence band region of differently treated SrTiO$_3$(110) surfaces. The valence band of the clean surface shows mainly O 2$p$-derived features. By linearly extrapolating the onset of the spectra, the valence band maximum (VBM) is determined to be located at 3.2 eV below the Fermi level (E$_{\textrm F}$), in agreement with the Nb-doped $n$-type sample and a reported band gap of 3.2 eV for SrTiO$_3$.[@Cardona:pr65] For the clean surface no states are observed in the band gap region,[@Cao:jcp12] indicating that Nb dopants do not induce in-gap states. This is consistent with the picture that the band structure of lightly $n$-type doped samples can be well described by a simple rigid band shift.[@Aiura:ss02]
After dosing up to 240 L water on the clean surface at RT, the valence band spectrum does not change compared to that of the clean surface. For molecularly adsorbed water one would expect features related to its 1b$_2$, 3a$_1$ and 1b$_1$ orbitals.[@Valentin:jacs05] On the other hand, an OH 3$\sigma$ state as well as in-gap states can be observed when dissociative adsorption occurs.[@Ferrer:1980ss; @Webb:1981ss; @Egdell:1982cpl; @Cox1983247; @Eriksen:1987sap; @Henrich:prb78] In experiments on as-dosed samples, we did not observe any features related to molecular and dissociative water, in agreement with the conclusion of a rather unreactive surface drawn on the basis of our STM results.
After dosing atomic hydrogen, an in-gap state with a binding energy of 1.3 eV is observed, as well as a feature state below the O 2$p$ valence band. Partially this feature can be assigned to the OH 3$\sigma$ state, which is located at 10.8 eV.[@D'Angelo:prl12] At first sight, the higher binding energy features could be associated with water 1b$_2$ and 3a$_1$ states. However, water does not adsorb on the clean surface at RT, as shown in our STM measurements. Furthermore, no features were observed related to molecular water from the O 1$s$ core-level spectrum for the H-exposed surface (Fig. 5). Instead, STM indicates that H interacts with the Sr adatoms. We tentatively attribute the higher binding energy features to states related to Sr-OH species.[@Brookes:1987ssc; @Brookes:1987ps] An in-gap state appears after creating V$_{\textrm O}$’s on the clean surface by exposing the surface to intense synchrotron radiation. After exposure to synchrotron light a similar in-gap state and related two-dimensional electron gas were observed on SrTiO$_3$(001) and other perovskite surfaces,[@Aiura:ss02; @Meevasana:natm11; @King:prl12] as well as TiO$_2$ surfaces.50 We find that the in-gap state can be quenched after exposure to O$_2$ at RT, supporting that it arises from V$_{\textrm O}$’s.[@Aiura:ss02]
When exposing the surface with V$_{\textrm O}$’s to 1.2 L water at RT, the in-gap state hardly changes. However, a well-defined OH 3$\sigma$ state with a binding energy of 10.8 eV is observed, which indicates water dissociation and formation of hydroxyls. It is well-known that the presence of hydroxyls results in a similar in-gap state as O vacancies.[@Valentin:jacs05] This supports the conclusion that water dissociates on the reduced surface.
Similar conclusions are drawn from the corresponding O 1$s$ core-level photoemission spectra (Fig. 5). The O 1$s$ spectrum obtained on the clean surface shows a slightly asymmetric peak shape with the main peak located at 530.2 eV and a small shoulder at a higher binding energy of 531.7 eV. The spectrum does not change after dosing water on the clean surface at RT. After dosing atomic hydrogen and water on the reduced surface, the ratio increases slightly. This result is consistent with observations on titania surface.[@Wang:ss95; @Ketteler:jpcc07; @Walle:prb09]
3.3 Electronic Structure Calculations
-------------------------------------
To complement the photoemission spectra and achieve an understanding of the electronic properties of the defective and hydroxylated surface as compared to the clean (4 $\times$ 1) one, we have determined the most stable configurations and computed their density of states (DOS). By comparing the energies of all possible inequivalent configurations, we determined the most favorable site for the formation of a V$_{\textrm O}$ and for hydrogen adsorption.
The results, collected in Table 1, show that O3 has the lowest V$_{\textrm O}$ formation energy, in agreement with a recent first-principles study[@Li:prl11] and consistent with our STM measurements (Fig. 2b). It also represents the most favorable hydrogen adsorption site, with an adsorption energy of 2.19 eV. The most stable hydroxyl is characterized by an O-H bond length of 0.983 Å, slightly larger than that of a free OH group (0.97 Å), and a 45.1$^{\circ}$ angle with respect to the surface normal.
We have calculated the DOS of the most favorable oxygen-defective and hydroxylated surfaces. The results are compared to the clean (4 $\times$ 1) surface in Fig. 6. Given the well-known drawbacks of standard (local and semilocal) DFT functionals in predicting the correct electronic ground state of strongly correlated electron systems and in describing electron localization effects, we have computed the DOS by means of the PBE+U method,[@Anisimov:prb91] using an effective on-site Coulomb repulsion U$_{\textrm {eff}}$ = 4.6 eV for the Ti $d$ states, a choice in line with previous studies.[@Cuong:prl07] The most relevant feature of the V$_{\textrm O}$ case is the appearance of a midgap state right above the valence band maximum, in agreement with the photoemission data. This state originates from the Ti$^{3+}$ atoms adjacent to the V$_{\textrm O}$, which locally trap the extra electrons created by the V$_{\textrm O}$. The adsorption of one OH group leads to the formation of only one Ti$^{3+}$, and to the emergence of a feature at about -7 eV below the VBM. This feature is attributed to the OH-3$\sigma$ bonding state, as shown in the inset of Fig. 6. This picture is reminiscent of the one found for the rutile TiO$_2$(110) surface.[@Kurtz:ss89; @DiValentin:prl06; @Kowalski:prl10]
3.4 DFT Calculations: Interaction with H$_2$O
---------------------------------------------
To elucidate the adsorption of water on the SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface and to examine the role of V$_{\textrm O}$’s we have performed NEB calculations. One important question is whether the water is predicted to adsorb molecularly or dissociatively on the SrTiO$_3$(110) surface. To answer this question we have investigated the energetics of different adsorption configurations at low coverage, both in molecular and dissociated form, as well as the dissociation energy barriers/pathways among the different configurations. We first focus on the interaction between water and the clean (4 $\times$ 1) surface and then we discuss the results obtained for the reduced surface.
### 3.4.1 Ideal Surface + H$_2$O
***Molecular adsorption.*** Our first concern is to identify locally stable molecular H$_2$O configurations. We have scrutinized several possible adsorption sites at a coverage of 1/8 ML \[one H$_2$O molecule per (4 $\times$ 2) unit cell\].
The most favorable adsorption site is located in the ten-membered rings near TiI, as shown in the insets of Fig. 7. The distance between TiI and the water oxygen atom (O$_{\textrm W}$) is found to be 2.341, 2.325 and 2.311 Å with the PBE, DFT-D2 and vdW-DFT functional, respectively. The corresponding water adsorption energies E$_{\textrm {ads}}$(H$_2$O) are -0.716, -1.014 and -1.073 eV, respectively. As expected, the van der Waals correction substantially increases the magnitude of the adsorption energy, although the geometries are similar to the standard PBE case. Moreover, the other configurations considered are less stable by 0.15 - 0.5 eV. Both the H-O$_{\textrm W}$ bond length (1.00 Å) and the H-O$_{\textrm W}$-H bond angle (106$^{\circ}$) are almost identical to the corresponding values in the free water molecule, 0.985 Å and 104.96$^{\circ}$, respectively. We also evaluated adsorption energies at the experimental condition (300K and 10$^{-9}$ atm) within the framework of *ab initio* thermodynamics.[@Reuter:2001prb; @Stull:71] The corresponding values are +0.482, 0.184 and 0.125 eV with the PBE, DFT-D2 and vdW-DFT, respectively. The positive value indicates that water does not adsorb on the ideal surface, in agreement with experiment.
***Dissociative adsorption.*** To explore the dissociative configuration (coadsorption of H and OH species), which serves as a basis for studying the water dissociation process, we assumed that the OH species preferentially adsorbs on the Ti atom, and the H atom on the neighboring/next-neighboring surface O atoms. This assumption is reasonable, as no local minimum corresponding to an adsorption at the surface Ti site was found for the H atom.
Most of the dissociative adsorption configurations we explored are unstable (*i.e.* with positive adsorption energy), or relax to the molecular pattern. We established only five stable/metastable dissociative patterns with negative/zero adsorption energy. As mentioned before, here we performed the calculations with the PBE functional, since application of DFT-D2 and vdW-DFT does not alter the adsorption sequence and the geometries. The computed adsorption energy for the most stable pattern is -0.779 eV, about 60 meV more stable then the molecular adsorption case. In the latter configuration (not shown), the OH species anchors on the bridge site between the two Ti surface atoms (TiII and TiIII), while the atom O3, bonded to another H atom, shifts downward due to the electrostatic potential repulsion; this results in two five-fold coordinated Ti atoms.
On the basis of the computed adsorption energies alone we cannot unambiguously determine whether water molecules are predicted to adsorb molecularly or dissociatively on the SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface. We have conducted a series of CI-NEB calculations in order to model the dynamics.
***Dissociative reaction.*** We have determined the energy barrier for the water dissociation processes from the most stable molecular adsorption state (initial state) to the geminate dissociative state (final state) by using the CI-NEB method. This procedure allows us to find the minimum energy reaction paths. This pathway choice is appropriate when the strongest molecular adsorption is considered, as in the present case. The resulting energy profile together with the representative structural models is shown in Fig. 7. The transition barrier for the H$_2$O to dissociate on the SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface is rather large (> 1.6 eV), much higher than the adsorption energies of both the molecularly or dissociated state. This clearly shows that the H$_2$O molecule is not predicted to dissociate on the defect-free surface, in agreement with the experimental observations.
### 3.4.2 Reduced Surface + H$_2$O
As mentioned in the experimental section, significant amounts of hydroxyls are found on the SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface with V$_{\textrm O}$’s after dosing water. This suggests that the oxygen deficient surface is active with respect to water dissociation.
The water adsorption energies computed within PBE, DFT-D2 and vdW-DFT are listed in Table 2. All three methods yield very similar values of 1.7 eV, substantially larger (by about 1 eV) than those on the stoichiometric, non-defective surface. The adsorption of water on the defective surface is clearly favorable. Van der Waals interactions do not play a significant role, which is suggestive of a primarily chemisorption process.
Considering that the three different methods also deliver a quantitatively similar description of the structural characteristics (see Table 2), we will focus on the PBE results only in the following. The structural model of the optimized initial configuration is provided in Fig. 8. In the optimized structure, the H$_2$O molecule is slightly tilted towards one of the threefold-coordinated Ti atoms near the V$_{\textrm O}$, forming two asymmetric Ti-O$_{\textrm W}$ bonds of 2.107 and 3.090 Å. One of the H-O$_{\textrm W}$ bonds in the adsorbed water molecule points towards the O4 atom forming an H-bond with a bond length of 1.571 Å, in turn slightly enlarging the molecular H-O$_{\textrm W}$ bond length to 1.055 Å. The second H remains free, connected to the O$_{\textrm W}$ with the corresponding H-O$_{\textrm W}$ bond length (0.985 Å).
As aforementioned, we primarily focus on the original geminate dissociative states. The OH species occupies the O3 vacancy site, with the remaining H atom anchored to the neighboring O4 atom (see inset in Fig. 8). The resulting O4-H is nearly flat-lying and is H-bonded with the adjacent O4’ surface oxygen atom. This structural and chemical environment results in a large adsorption energy of 2.28 eV. This is already a strong indication that the water molecule is preferentially adsorbed dissociatively rather than molecularly. However, exothermicity is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for dissociation. In order to gain more insights into the dissociative adsorption process we have conducted NEB calculations for the energy barrier. The resulting energy profile for the dissociation pathway in Fig. 8 shows an energy barrier at the transition state of 0.9 eV. This barrier is significantly lower than the corresponding values (1.7 eV) obtained on the ideal surface, clearly indicating that V$_{\textrm O}$’s strongly facilitate water dissociation. This is again in excellent agreement with the experimental observations, which reveal that water interacts with V$_{\textrm O}$’s, forming two hydroxyl groups on the surface. Similar energy pathways for the dissociative process were also found for the defective surface with an O4 vacancy, which is characterized by an exothermic energy of 1.4 eV and a slightly larger barrier of 1.1 eV. Given the theoretical and experimental results above, it is clear that V$_{\textrm O}$’s facilitate water dissociation on the SrTiO$_3$(110) surface and the barriers are low enough for this process to happen at room temperature or slightly above RT.
4. Discussion
=============
Our DFT calculations show that the V$_{\textrm O}$’s are preferentially created at the O3 site in the six-membered ring of the (4 $\times$ 1) reconstruction, which is also the most faV$_{\textrm O}$rable site to form OH. This is in excellent agreement with the experimental STM images (Fig. 2). Moreover, the water tends to adsorb molecularly at the TiI site in the ten-membered ring, where it appears as bright protrusions between the stripes in the STM images at low temperature (Fig. 3a).
The situation is different when water is dosed in the presence of V$_{\textrm O}$’s. Both the experimental and theoretical results unequivocally show that water dissociates spontaneously at the V$_{\textrm O}$’s at finite temperatures. In STM the two OH groups resulting from a dissociated water molecule were observed far away from each other. The DFT calculated energy barrier for the direct H diffusion is $\sim$1.35 eV, indicating that the direct hopping is not possible at RT. Possibly these OH groups are driven apart via the water-assisted mechanism reported in Refs \[[ -‘ [@Merte:sc12; @Wendt:prl06] ]{}\].
Overall, the ideal, non-defective SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface is remarkably inert towards water adsorption, while the V$_{\textrm O}$’s facilitate bonding and dissociation of water. Moreover, V$_{\textrm O}$’s created on the SrTiO$_3$(110) surface are metastable, inclined to diffuse to subsurface sites as suggested in previous studies.[@Li:prl11] Therefore, under real-world conditions we expect vacancy-mediated adsorption and dissociation to be rare on this surface.
As stated in the introduction section, SrTiO$_3$(110) is a polar surface, consisting of alternating (SrTiO)$^{4+}$ and (O$_2$)$^{4-}$ planes in the bulk. While an uncompensated polar surface is unstable and chemically active, our results indicate that, in this case, compensating polarity with the reconstruction network is very efficient in creating an inert surface. The most peculiar structural feature of the reconstruction is the presence of the TiO$_4$ tetrahedra on the top layer. Interestingly, the TiI-tetrahedra (edge-sharing with the substrate) in the ten-membered rings are reminiscent of a similar configuration at the reconstructed anatase TiO$_2$(001)-(1 $\times$ 4) surface,[@Lazzeri:prl01] which contains a distorted TiO$_4$ tetrahedron. It was demonstrated that water dissociates spontaneously on the ridge of this reconstructed surface in theoretical and experimental studies.[@Gong:jpcb06; @Blomquist:jpcc08] In fact, the anatase TiO$_2$(001) surface is considered the most active facet in photocatalytic reactions.[@Yang:nat08] An analysis of our results gives insights as to why the TiO$_4$ tetrahedra are so inert in the case of SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1).
***Electronic Aspects.*** While excess electrons located at the energies near the band gap of reducible oxide surfaces are generally connected with a high reactivity,[@Lu:jpc94] the clean SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1 ) surface has no in-gap states in both, experiment and theory. In fact, an analysis of the layer-resolved DOS (not shown) indicates that the top layer has a slightly larger band gap, compared to the SrTiO$_3$ layers underneath. In spite of the 4-fold coordination in this tetrahedral configuration, the Ti atom should not be considered undersaturated. The Ti atom hybridizes with the four surrounding oxygen atoms, forming strong covalent bonds with a short bond length, which lead to the relatively large band gap. Experimental and theoretical results also show that the Ti valence is 4+ and no in-gap state is present on the anatase TiO$_2$(001)-(1 $\times$ 4) surface.[@Lazzeri:prl01; @Chambers:ss09] Thus, while explaining our inert SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface, the electronic structure provides no argument for the supposedly reactive TiO$_4$ tetrahedra on anatase.
Interestingly, similar tetrahedrally coordinated TiO$_4$ units are present on the TiO$_2$(110)-(1 $\times$ 2) surface, forming one-dimensional Ti$_2$O$_3$ rows.[@Blanco-Rey:prl06] Due to the presence of Ti$^{3+}$ species the TiO$_2$(110)-(1 $\times$ 2) surface is proposed to be chemically active, as demonstrated by reacting with NO.[@Abad:langmuir07] It would be interesting to test whether this surface is also reactive for water dissociation.
***Structural Aspects.*** What is needed for strong water interaction are freely accessible acidic sites, and a neighboring O atom that can act as Brønsted base (proton acceptor). In our case, the TiO$_4$ tetrahedron is quite regular: the bond length ranges from 1.826 to 1.896 Å, with a O-Ti-O bond angle range of 92.82 -123.08$^{\circ}$. The acidic Ti sites are significantly recessed into the surface compared to the surrounding oxygen atoms, making them inaccessible and non-reactive. In contrast, on the anatase TiO$_2$(001)(1 $\times$ 4) reconstructed surface, the TiO$_4$ tetrahedron is very distorted; the bond length along the \[100\] direction consists of alternating long (2.134 Å) and short (1.831 Å) Ti-O bonds, while the bonds along the \[010\] directions are identical (1.805 Å). The O-Ti-O bond angle along the \[100\] and the \[010\] direction is 145.15$^{\circ}$ and 104.76$^{\circ}$, respectively,[@Gong:jpcb06] leading to the exposure of the Ti atom as an active acidic site. Furthermore, and at variance with what was found for SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1), the distorted TiO$_4$ tetrahedron on the anatase TiO$_2$(001)(1 $\times$ 4) surface forms a quasi-one dimensional row along the \[100\] direction. This flexible framework provides the freedom of relaxation, and facilitates the water dissociation. At the SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface, the two-dimensional nesting of the six- and ten-membered rings is more rigid, which contributes to its inertness.
A similar two-dimensional reconstructed overlayer consisting of corner-sharing TiO$_4$ regular tetrahedra has been established on the rutile TiO$_2$(100)-$c$(2 $\times$ 2) surface.[@Warschkow:prl08] From the present results, we would expect this reconstructed surface also to be relatively inert; it would be interesting to test this prediction.
5. Summary and Conclusion
=========================
We have performed a systematic study of water interaction with the two-dimensional titania overlayer consisting of TiO$_4$ tetrahedra, on the SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface with and without oxygen vacancies. We found that water dissociates on the oxygen vacancies, in line with many other oxide surfaces. We also found the two-dimensional, tetrahedrally coordinated TiO$_4$ overlayer to be remarkably inert, in contrast to the one-dimensional, tetrahedrally coordinated TiO$_4$ units at the anatase TiO$_2$(001)-(1 $\times$4) surface. The weak water adsorption on this surface stems from the regular tetrahedra and the two-dimensional rigid network, as well as its insulating electronic structure. Recently, TiO$_4$ tetrahedra have emerged as a common building block on many Ti-containing oxides surfaces. We expect that our conclusions of a inert two-dimensional top layer should also apply to these newly-discovered surfaces.
This work has been supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under Project No. F45 and the ERC Advanced Research Grant ‘OxideSurfaces’. E.M. acknowledges support from the FWF under Project No. W1243 (Solids4Fun). All DFT calculations were performed at the Vienna Scientific Cluster (VSC-2). Valuable discussions with Annabella Selloni and Laurence Marks are gratefully acknowledged.
@ifundefined
[78]{}
Mavroides, J. G.; Kafalas, J. A.; Kolesar, D. F. Photoelectrolysis of Water in Cells with SrTiO$_3$ Anodes. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **1976**, *28*, 241–243 Wrighton, M. S.; Ellis, A. B.; Wolczanski, P. T.; Morse, D. L.; Abrahamson, H. B.; Ginley, D. S. Strontium Titanate Photoelectrodes. Efficient Photoassisted Electrolysis of Water at Zero Applied Potential. *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **1976**, *98*, 2774–2779 Townsend, T. K.; Browning, N. D.; Osterloh, F. E. Nanoscale Strontium Titanate Photocatalysts for Overall Water Splitting. *ACS Nano* **2012**, *6*, 7420–7426 Townsend, T. K.; Browning, N. D.; Osterloh, F. E. Overall Photocatalytic Water Splitting with NiO$_x$-SrTiO$_3$ - A Revised Mechanism. *Energy Environ. Sci.* **2012**, *5*, 9543–9550 Henrich, V. E.; Dresselhaus, G.; Zeiger, H. Chemisorbed Phases of H$_2$O on TiO$_2$ and SrTiO$_3$. *Solid State Comm.* **1977**, *24*, 623 – 626 Ferrer, S.; Somorjai, G. UPS and XPS Studies of the Chemisorption of O$_2$, H$_2$ AND H$_2$O on Reduced and Stoichiometric SrTiO$_3$(111) surfaces; The Effects of Illumination. *Surf. Sci.* **1980**, *94*, 41 – 56 Webb, C.; Lichtensteiger, M. UPS/XPS Study of Reactive and Non-Reactive SrTiO$_3$(100) Surfaces: Adsorption of H$_2$O. *Surf. Sci.* **1981**, *107*, L345 – L349 Egdell, R.; Naylor, P. The Adsorption of Water on SrTiO$_3$(100): A Study of Electron Energy Loss and Photoelectron Spectroscopies. *Chem. Phys. Lett.* **1982**, *91*, 200 – 205 Cox, P.; Egdell, R.; Naylor, P. HREELS Studies of Adsorbates on Polar Solids : Water on SrTiO$_3$(100). *J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom.* **1983**, *29*, 247 – 252 Eriksen, S.; Naylor, P.; Egdell, R. The Adsorption of Water on SrTiO$_3$ and TiO$_2$: A Reappraisal. *Spectrochim. Acta Mol. Spectrosc.* **1987**, *43*, 1535 – 1538 Brookes, N.; Thornton, G.; Quinn, F. SrTiO$_3$(100) Step Sites as Catalytic Centers for H$_2$O Dissociation. *Solid State Comm.* **1987**, *64*, 383 – 386 Brookes, N. B.; Quinn, F. M.; Thornton, G. The Involvement of Step and Terrace Sites in H$_2$O Adsorption on SrTiO$_3$(100). *Phys. Scr.* **1987**, *36*, 711 – 714 Wang, L.-Q.; Ferris, K.; Herman, G. Interactions of H$_2$O with SrTiO$_3$(100) Surfaces. *J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A* **2002**, *20*, 239–244 Azad, S.; Engelhard, M. H.; Wang, L.-Q. Adsorption and Reaction of CO and CO$_2$ on Oxidized and Reduced SrTiO$_3$(100) Surfaces. *J. Phys. Chem. B* **2005**, *109*, 10327–10331 Baniecki, J. D.; Ishii, M.; Kurihara, K.; Yamanaka, K.; Yano, T.; Shinozaki, K.; Imada, T.; Kobayashi, Y. Chemisorption of Water and Carbon Dioxide on Nanostructured BaTiO$_3$-SrTiO$_3$(001) Surfaces. *J. Appl. Phys.* **2009**, *106*, 054109 Guhl, H.; Miller, W.; Reuter, K. Water Adsorption and Dissociation on SrTiO$_3$(001) Revisited: A Density Functional Theory Study. *Phys. Rev. B* **2010**, *81*, 155455 Bonnell, D. A.; Garra, J. Scanning Probe Microscopy of Oxide Surfaces: Atomic Structure and Properties. *Rep. Prog. Phys.* **2008**, *71*, 044501 Russell, B. C.; Castell, M. R. Reconstructions on the Polar SrTiO$_3$(110) Surface: Analysis Using STM, LEED, and AES. *Phys. Rev. B* **2008**, *77*, 245414 Enterkin, J. A.; Subramanian, A. K.; Russell, B. C.; Castell, M. R.; Poeppelmeier, K. R.; Marks, L. D. A Homologous Series of Structures on the Surface of SrTiO$_3$(110). *Nat. Mater.* **2010**, *9*, 245–248 Wang, Z.; Yang, F.; Zhang, Z.; Tang, Y.; Feng, J.; Wu, K.; Guo, Q.; Guo, J. Evolution of the Surface Structures on SrTiO$_3$(110) Tuned by Ti or Sr Concentration. *Phys. Rev. B* **2011**, *83*, 155453 Li, F.; Wang, Z.; Meng, S.; Sun, Y.; Yang, J.; Guo, Q.; Guo, J. Reversible Transition Between Thermodynamically Stable Phases with Low Density of Oxygen Vacancies on the SrTiO$_3$(110) Surface. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2011**, *107*, 036103 Biswas, A.; Rossen, P. B.; Yang, C.-H.; Siemons, W.; Jung, M.-H.; Yang, I. K.; Ramesh, R.; Jeong, Y. H. Universal Ti-rich Termination of Stomically Flat SrTiO$_3$(001), (110), and (111) Surfaces. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **2011**, *98*, 051904 Bottin, F.; Finocchi, F.; Noguera, C. Facetting and ($n$$\times$1) Reconstructions of SrTiO$_3$(110) Surfaces. *Surf. Sci.* **2005**, *574*, 65 – 76 Noguera, C.; Goniakowski, J. Polarity in Oxide Ultrathin Films. *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter.* **2008**, *20*, 264003 Shin, J.; Nascimento, V. B.; Geneste, G.; Rundgren, J.; Plummer, E. W.; Dkhil, B.; Kalinin, S. V.; Baddorf, A. P. Atomistic Screening Mechanism of Ferroelectric Surfaces: An In Situ Study of the Polar Phase in Ultrathin BaTiO$_3$ Films Exposed to H$_2$O. *Nano Lett.* **2009**, *9*, 3720–3725 Wang, Z.; Feng, J.; Yang, Y.; Yao, Y.; Gu, L.; Yang, F.; Guo, Q.; Guo, J. Cation Stoichiometry Optimization of SrTiO$_3$(110) Thin Films with Atomic Precision in Homogeneous Molecular Beam Epitaxy. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **2012**, *100*, 051602 Wang, Z.; Li, F.; Meng, S.; Zhang, J.; Plummer, E. W.; Diebold, U.; Guo, J. Strain-Induced Defect Superstructure on the SrTiO$_3$(110) Surface. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2013**, *111*, 056101 Lazzeri, M.; Selloni, A. Stress-Driven Reconstruction of an Oxide Surface: The Anatase TiO$_2$(001)-(1$\times$4) Surface. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2001**, *87*, 266105 Blanco-Rey, M.; Abad, J.; Rogero, C.; Mendez, J.; Lopez, M. F.; Martin-Gago, J. A.; de Andres, P. L. Structure of Rutile TiO$_2$(110)-(1$\times$2): Formation of Ti$_2$O$_3$ Quasi-1D Metallic Chains. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2006**, *96*, 055502 Marks, L. D.; Chiaramonti, A. N.; Tran, F.; Blaha, P. The Small Unit Cell Reconstructions of SrTiO$_3$(111). *Surf. Sci.* **2009**, *603*, 2179 – 2187 Warschkow, O.; Wang, Y.; Subramanian, A.; Asta, M.; Marks, L. D. Structure and Local-Equilibrium Thermodynamics of the $c$(2$\times$2) Reconstruction of Rutile TiO$_2$(100). *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2008**, *100*, 086102 Gong, X.-Q.; Selloni, A.; Vittadini, A. Density Functional Theory Study of Formic Acid Adsorption on Anatase TiO$_2$(001): Geometries, Energetics, and Effects of Coverage, Hydration, and Reconstruction. *J. Phys. Chem. B* **2006**, *110*, 2804–2811 Blomquist, J.; Walle, L. E.; Uvdal, P.; Borg, A.; Sandell, A. Water Dissociation on Single Crystalline Anatase TiO$_2$(001) Studied by Photoelectron Spectroscopy. *J. Phys. Chem. C* **2008**, *112*, 16616–16621 Yang, H. G.; Sun, C. H.; Qiao, S. Z.; Zou, J.; Liu, G.; Smith, S. C.; Cheng, H. M.; Lu, G. Q. Anatase TiO$_2$ Single Crystals with a Large Percentage of Reactive Facets. *Nature* **2008**, *453*, 638–641 Selçuk, S.; Selloni, A. Surface Structure and Reactivity of Anatase TiO$_2$ Crystals with Dominant {001} Facets. *J. Phys. Chem. C* **2013**, *117*, 6358–6362 Shaikhutdinov, S.; Freund, H.-J. Ultrathin Silica Films on Metals: The Long and Winding Road to Understanding the Atomic Structure. *Adv. Mater.* **2013**, *25*, 49–67 Parkinson, G. S.; Novotný, Z.; Jacobson, P.; Schmid, M.; Diebold, U. Room Temperature Water Splitting at the Surface of Magnetite. *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **2011**, *133*, 12650–12655 Scheiber, P.; Riss, A.; Schmid, M.; Varga, P.; Diebold, U. Observation and Destruction of an Elusive Adsorbate with STM: O$_2$/TiO$_2$(110). *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2010**, *105*, 216101 Nyholm, R.; Andersen, J.; Johansson, U.; Jensen, B.; Lindau, I. Beamline I311 at MAX-LAB: a VUV/Soft X-ray Undulator Beamline for High Resolution Electron Spectroscopy. *Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A* **2001**, *467*, 520 – 524 Wang, Z.; Wu, K.; Guo, Q.; Guo, J. Tuning the Termination of the SrTiO$_3$(110) Surface by Ar$^+$ Sputtering. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **2009**, *95*, 021912 Sutoh, A.; Okada, Y.; Ohta, S.; Kawabe, M. Cracking Efficiency of Hydrogen with Tungsten Filament in Molecular Beam Epitaxy. *Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.* **1995**, *34*, L1379–L1382 Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. *Ab initio* Molecular Dynamics for Open-Shell Transition Metals. *Phys. Rev. B* **1993**, *48*, 13115–13118 Kresse, G.; Furthmüller, J. Efficiency of *ab-initio* Total Energy Calculations for Metals and Semiconductors Using a Plane-Wave Basis Set. *Comput. Mater. Sci.* **1996**, *6*, 15 – 50 Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **1996**, *77*, 3865–3868 Grimme, S. Accurate Description of van der Waals Complexes by Density Functional Theory Including Empirical Corrections. *J. Comput. Chem.* **2004**, *25*, 1463–1473 Grimme, S. Semiempirical GGA-type Density Functional Constructed with a Long-Range Dispersion Correction. *J. Comput. Chem.* **2006**, *27*, 1787–1799 Grimme, S.; Antony, J.; Schwabe, T.; Muck-Lichtenfeld, C. Density Functional Theory with Dispersion Corrections for Supramolecular Structures, Aggregates, and Complexes of (Bio)Organic Molecules. *Org. Biomol. Chem.* **2007**, *5*, 741–758 Klimeš, J.; Bowler, D. R.; Michaelides, A. Van der Waals Density Functionals Spplied to Solids. *Phys. Rev. B* **2011**, *83*, 195131 Henkelman, G.; Uberuaga, B. P.; Jónsson, H. A Climbing Image Nudged Elastic Band Method for Finding Saddle Points and Minimum Energy Paths. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2000**, *113*, 9901–9904 Sorescu, D. C.; Lee, J.; Al-Saidi, W. A.; Jordan, K. D. CO$_2$ Adsorption on TiO$_2$(110) Rutile: Insight From Dispersion-Corrected Density Functional Theory Calculations and Scanning Tunneling Microscopy Experiments. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2011**, *134*, 104707 Thiel, P. A.; Madey, T. E. The Interaction of Water with Solid Surfaces: Fundamental Aspects. *Surf. Sci. Rep.* **1987**, *7*, 211 – 385 Henderson, M. A. The Interaction of Water with Solid Surfaces: Fundamental Aspects Revisited. *Surf. Sci. Rep.* **2002**, *46*, 1 – 308 Weiss, W.; Ranke, W. Surface Chemistry and Catalysis on Well-Defined Epitaxial Iron-Oxide Layers. *Prog. Surf. Sci.* **2002**, *70*, 1 – 151 Diebold, U. The Surface Science of Titanium Dioxide. *Surf. Sci. Rep.* **2003**, *48*, 53 – 229 Cardona, M. Optical Properties and Band Structure of SrTiO$_3$ and BaTiO$_3$. *Phys. Rev.* **1965**, *140*, A651–A655 Cao, Y.; Wang, S.; Liu, S.; Guo, Q.; Guo, J. Electronic Structures of the SrTiO$_3$(110) Surface in Different Reconstructions. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2012**, *137*, 044701 Aiura, Y.; Hase, I.; Bando, H.; Yasue, T.; Saitoh, T.; Dessau, D. Photoemission Study of the Metallic State of Lightly Electron-Doped SrTiO$_3$. *Surf. Sci.* **2002**, *515*, 61 – 74 Di Valentin, C.; Tilocca, A.; Selloni, A.; Beck, T. J.; Klust, A.; Batzill, M.; Losovyj, Y.; Diebold, U. Adsorption of Water on Reconstructed Rutile TiO$_2$(011)-(2$\times$1): Ti=O Double Bonds and Surface Reactivity. *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **2005**, *127*, 9895–9903 Henrich, V. E.; Dresselhaus, G.; Zeiger, H. J. Surface defects and the electronic structure of SrTiO$_3$ surfaces. *Phys. Rev. B* **1978**, *17*, 4908–4921 D’Angelo, M.; Yukawa, R.; Ozawa, K.; Yamamoto, S.; Hirahara, T.; Hasegawa, S.; Silly, M. G.; Sirotti, F.; Matsuda, I. Hydrogen-Induced Surface Metallization of SrTiO$_3$(001). *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2012**, *108*, 116802 Meevasana, W.; King, P. D. C.; He, R. H.; Mo, S.-K.; Hashimoto, M.; Tamai, A.; Songsiriritthigul, P.; Baumberger, F.; Shen, Z.-X. Creation and Control of a Two-Dimensional Electron Liquid at the Bare SrTiO$_3$ surface. *Nat. Mater.* **2011**, *10*, 114–118 King, P. D. C. et al. Subband Structure of a Two-Dimensional Electron Gas Formed at the Polar Surface of the Strong Spin-Orbit Perovskite KTaO$_3$. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2012**, *108*, 117602 Wang, L.-Q.; Baer, D.; Engelhard, M.; Shultz, A. The Adsorption of Liquid and Vapor Water on TiO$_2$(110) Surfaces: the Role of Defects. *Surf. Sci.* **1995**, *344*, 237 – 250 Ketteler, G.; Yamamoto, S.; Bluhm, H.; Andersson, K.; Starr, D. E.; Ogletree, D. F.; Ogasawara, H.; Nilsson, A.; Salmeron, M. The Nature of Water Nucleation Sites on TiO$_2$(110) Surfaces Revealed by Ambient Pressure X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy. *J. Phys. Chem. C* **2007**, *111*, 8278–8282 Walle, L. E.; Borg, A.; Uvdal, P.; Sandell, A. Experimental Evidence for Mixed Dissociative and Molecular Adsorption of Water on a Rutile TiO$_2$(110) Surface Without Oxygen Vacancies. *Phys. Rev. B* **2009**, *80*, 235436 Anisimov, V. I.; Zaanen, J.; Andersen, O. K. Band Theory and Mott Insulators: Hubbard *U* Instead of Stoner *I*. *Phys. Rev. B* **1991**, *44*, 943–954 Cuong, D. D.; Lee, B.; Choi, K. M.; Ahn, H.-S.; Han, S.; Lee, J. Oxygen Vacancy Clustering and Electron Localization in Oxygen-Deficient SrTiO$_3$: $\mathrm{LDA}+U$ Study. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2007**, *98*, 115503 Kurtz, R. L.; Stock-Bauer, R.; Msdey, T. E.; Román, E.; Segovia, J. D. Synchrotron Radiation Studies of H$_2$O Adsorption on TiO$_2$(110). *Surf. Sci.* **1989**, *218*, 178 – 200 Di Valentin, C.; Pacchioni, G.; Selloni, A. Electronic Structure of Defect States in Hydroxylated and Reduced Rutile TiO$_2$(110) Surfaces. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2006**, *97*, 166803 Kowalski, P. M.; Camellone, M. F.; Nair, N. N.; Meyer, B.; Marx, D. Charge Localization Dynamics Induced by Oxygen Vacancies on the TiO$_2$(110) Surface. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2010**, *105*, 146405 Reuter, K.; Scheffler, M. Composition, Structure, and Stability of RuO$_2$(110) as a Function of Oxygen Pressure. *Phys. Rev. B* **2001**, *65*, 035406 Stull, D. R.; Prophet, H. *JANAF Thermochemical Tables*, 2nd ed.; U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C, 1971 Merte, L. R.; Peng, G.; Bechstein, R.; Rieboldt, F.; Farberow, C. A.; Grabow, L. C.; Kudernatsch, W.; Wendt, S.; L�gsgaard, E.; Mavrikakis, M.; Besenbacher, F. Water-Mediated Proton Hopping on an Iron Oxide Surface. *Science* **2012**, *336*, 889–893 Wendt, S.; Matthiesen, J.; Schaub, R.; Vestergaard, E. K.; Lægsgaard, E.; Besenbacher, F.; Hammer, B. Formation and Splitting of Paired Hydroxyl Groups on Reduced TiO$_{2}$(110). *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **2006**, *96*, 066107 Lu, G.; Linsebigler, A.; Yates, J. T. Ti$^{3+}$ Defect Sites on TiO$_2$(110): Production and Chemical Detection of Active Sites. *J. Phys. Chem.* **1994**, *98*, 11733–11738 Chambers, S.; Ohsawa, T.; Wang, C.; Lyubinetsky, I.; Jaffe, J. Band Offsets at the Epitaxial Anatase TiO$_2$/$n$-SrTiO$_3$(001) Interface. *Surf. Sci.* **2009**, *603*, 771 – 780 Abad, J.; Böhme, O.; Román, E. Dissociative Adsorption of NO on TiO$_2$(110)-(1$\times$2) Surface: Ti$_2$O$_3$ Rows as Actives Sites for the Adsorption. *Langmuir* **2007**, *23*, 7583–7586
![ Model of the SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface. (a) Top and side views. The reconstructed layer consists of a network of darker TiO$_4$ tetrahedra (blue) forming six- and ten-membered rings, on top of the SrTiO$_3$(110) substrate, which contains TiO$_6$ octahedra (lighter, gray). Large, medium and small spheres denote Sr, Ti and O atoms, respectively. (b) Top view of the topmost reconstructed layer with the surface Ti and O atoms labels used in the present study. []{data-label="Fig1"}](Fig1.eps){width="3.2"}
![ STM images (image size 9 $\times$ 9 nm$^2$, sample bias +2.3 V, tunneling current 0.1 nA) of the SrTiO$_3$(110) surface. The surface exhibits an overall (4 $\times$ 1) reconstruction; locally a few (5 $\times$ 1) rows are apparent. (a) After exposure to atomic hydrogen and (b) after flashing the surface in (a) to $\sim$300 $^{\circ}$C. Sr adatoms, hydroxyls and oxygen vacancies appear in various levels of brightness and are labeled by red, white and blue arrows, respectively. The line profiles in the lower panels were taken at the lines shown in the STM images. []{data-label="Fig2"}](Fig2.eps){width="3.2"}
![ STM images (18 $\times$ 18 nm$^2$, 2.1 V, 0.1 nA) of the SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface after exposure to (a) 0.3 L water at 110 K, imaged at 78 K; (b) 3L at RT, imaged at RT. Green and white arrows point to molecular water and hydroxyl pairs, respectively. As in Fig. 2 the red arrows point out single Sr adatoms. The line profiles in the lower panels were taken at the lines shown in the STM images. []{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig3.eps){width="3.2"}
![ Comparison of valence band photoemission spectra of the clean surface (black), after exposure to water (blue), atomic hydrogen (red), of a surface with oxygen vacancies (green), and after exposure to water (cyan). All spectra were taken at RT. []{data-label="Fig4"}](Fig4.eps){width="3.2"}
![ Comparison of O 1$s$ core-level XPS spectra of the clean surface (black), after exposure to water (blue) and atomic hydrogen (red), and surface with oxygen vacancies exposed to water (cyan). All spectra were taken at RT. []{data-label="Fig5"}](Fig5.eps){width="3.2"}
![ PBE+$U$ valence and conduction band density of states of the clean SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface (thin black line) and the reduced surface with an oxygen vacancy (red full line) and hydroxyl species (dashed blue line). All spectra are aligned with respect to their valence-band maxima. The Ti$^{3+}$ midgap states \[both singly, Ti$^{3+}$ (1), and doubly, Ti$^{3+}$ (2) occupied\] as well as the OH-3$\sigma$ states are highlighted with a colored background. []{data-label="Fig6"}](Fig6.eps){width="3.0"}
![ Potential-energy profile for the reaction of an adsorbed H$_2$O molecule on the ideal, non-defective SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface. The energy zero corresponds to the H$_2$O in the gas phase far away from the surface. For each state considered the corresponding optimized structures are shown as insets in wide and zoomed view. []{data-label="Fig7"}](Fig7.eps){width="3.2"}
![ Potential-energy profile for the reaction of an adsorbed H$_2$O molecule at the defective SrTiO$_3$(110)-(4 $\times$ 1) surface. The energy zero corresponds to the H$_2$O in the gas phase, far away from the surface. []{data-label="Fig8"}](Fig8.eps){width="3.2"}
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5
--------------------------------------- --------- --------- ------- --------- ---------
V$_{\textrm O}$ formation energy (eV) 6.43 5.95 5.60 5.68 5.76
(0.83) (0.35) (0.0) (0.08) (0.16)
H adsorption energy (eV) 1.79 1.93 2.19 2.16 1.62
(-0.40) (-0.26) (0.0) (-0.03) (-0.57)
: Oxygen vacancy formation energy E$_{\textrm f}$(V$_{\textrm O}$) and hydrogen adsorption energy E$_{\textrm {ads}}$(H) (in eV) for different oxygen sites (following the labeling given in Fig. 1b) obtained with the PBE functional. Numbers in brackets refer to the relative energy with respect to the most stable configuration. For geometries of adsorbed H see the Supplement.
\[table2\]
Functional E$_{\textrm {ads}}$(H$_2$O) Ti-O$_{\textrm W}$ H-O$_{\textrm W}$ H-O$_{\textrm S}$ H-O$_{\textrm W}$-H
------------ ----------------------------- -------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------------------
PBE -1.732 2.107, 3.090 1.055, 0.985 1.571 109.22
DFT-D2 -1.857 2.102, 3.061 1.057, 0.985 1.560 109.31
vdW-DFT -1.727 2.098, 3.167 1.059, 0.987 1.552 109.35
: Calculated water adsorption energies E$_{\textrm {ads}}$(H$_2$O) (in eV), bond lengths (Å) (O$_{\textrm W}$ and O$_{\textrm S}$ denotes O atoms in the water molecule and surface, respectively), and H-O$_{\textrm W}$-H angles ($^{\circ}$) for molecular adsorption configurations on the defective surface, calculated with different functionals.
\[table3\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the relationship between problems solvable by quantum algorithms in polynomial time and those for which zero-knowledge proofs exist. In prior work, Aaronson [@aaronson] showed an oracle separation between BQP and SZK, i.e. an oracle $A$ such that $\mathrm{SZK}^A \not\subseteq \mathrm{BQP}^A$. In this paper we give a simple extension of Aaronson’s result to *non-interactive* zero-knowledge proofs with perfect security. This class, NIPZK, is the most restrictive zero-knowledge class. We show that even for this class we can construct an $A$ with $\mathrm{NIPZK}^A \not\subseteq \mathrm{BQP}^A$.'
author:
- Benjamin Morrison
- Adam Groce
bibliography:
- 'simple.bib'
title: 'Oracle Separations Between Quantum and Non-interactive Zero-Knowledge Classes'
---
Introduction
============
We investigate the relationship between quantum-computable problems and those with zero-knowledge proofs. We are motivated by the general desire of complexity theory to understand all relationships between complexity classes, as well as implications this particular relationship has for quantum-resilient cryptography. Specifically we consider the class BQP, those languages decidable by a quantum computer in polynomial time with bounded error. (See [@mermin2007quantum] for a more thorough discussion.)
Zero-knowledge is really a family of complexity classes. In a zero-knowledge proof for language $L$, the prover $P$ must convince a verifier $V$ that $x \in L$. The zero-knowledge property requires that the verifier cannot learn anything other than the statement being proved. (For example, $P$ cannot send a witness for $x$.) This is formalized by requiring that a simulator without access to $P$ can produce a transcript $T'$ that is indistinguishable from a transcript $T$ of a real interaction. If $T'$ is required to be distributed identically to $T$, then the resulting complexity class is *perfect* zero-knowledge (PZK). If it is required only to be statistically close, we get *statistical* zero-knowledge (SZK). If it is only required to be computationally indistinguishable, we get *computational* zero-knowedge (CZK). (See [@goldreichbook] for a more thorough discussion.)
We can further restrict the three classes above by requiring that the protocols be *non-interactive*. That is, we require that the whole interaction between $P$ and $V$ consist of a single message sent from $P$ to $V$. To make this possible, we must give the parties access to a common random string. We therefore have three non-interactive classes, analogous to those above (NICZK, NISZK, and NIPZK).
There are no unconditional results proving anything about the relationship between BQP and any of the six zero-knowledge classes discussed above. However, Aaronson [@aaronson] gave an oracle separation, an oracle $A$ under which $\mathrm{SZK}^A \not\subseteq \mathrm{BQP}^A$. This is evidence that there are problems with zero-knowledge proofs but no quantum algorithms, and it rules out many proof techniques for proving otherwise. In this paper we give a simple extension of this result, showing an oracle separation between BQP and NIPZK. NIPZK is the most restrictive of the zero-knowledge classes, so when we show an $A$ such that $\mathrm{NIPZK}^A \not\subseteq \mathrm{BQP}^A$ we implicitly show the same for PZK, NICZK, and NISZK.
#### Implications for cryptography
In recent years a variety of cryptographic protocols have been built using non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs. For example, Miller *et al.* use them to create a cryptocurrency that can be generated and spent anonymously [@miller-kosba-katz-shi]. Haralambiev uses them to create leakage-resilient signatures, signatures that remain secure even when some of the secret key is disclosed [@haralambiev]. Juels *et al.* show they can be used in a less desirable way, allowing crowdfunding to be used to reward hackers for disclosing the secret information of their victims [@juels-kosba-shi].
The cryptographic community has also recently spent considerable effort finding protocols that will remain secure in the face of adversaries with quantum computers. If the non-interactive zero-knowledge classes were contained in BQP, it would imply that cryptographic protocols using such proofs could not be made resilient to such quantum adversaries.
Oracle Separation Between SZK and BQP
=====================================
Aaronson [@aaronson] proved the following result:
\[separation-aaronson\] There exists an oracle A such that $\mathrm{SZK}^A \not\subseteq \mathrm{BQP}^A$.
Our own proofs follow a similar structure and rely on some of Aaronson’s lemmas, so we begin by recalling a few key details of his proof. He begins with a lower bound for the quantum query complexity of the Collision Problem. The problem is defined as follows.
Let $n$ be an integer and $X~:~\{1,...,n\}~\rightarrow~\{1,...,n\}$, represented in the standard way as a list of outputs. Suppose either $X$ is one-to-one (that is, each element of $\{1,...,n\}$ is output for exactly one input) or $X$ is r-to-one[^1] for a fixed $r \geq 2$ (that is, each element of $\{1,...,n\}$ is output for exactly r inputs or not at all.) Then given the ability to query $X$, the Collision Problem $\mathrm{Col}^r_n$ is to accept if $X$ is one-to-one and reject if $X$ is $r$-to-one.
Aaronson then shows the following result, which we present without proof. $Q_2(\cdot)$ represents the (bounded error) quantum *query* complexity of the problem, defined as the number of bits of the input that the algorithm must examine.
\[collision-aaronson\] $Q_2\left(\mathrm{Col}_n^2\right) = \Omega\left(n^{1/5}\right)$.
Kutin [@kutin] proves a stronger version of the collision lower bound, $\Omega\left((n/r)^{1/3}\right)$, that also applies when $r \neq 2$. (This result is also a strengthening of the result of Shi [@shi2002quantum], which gives the same bound but requires a larger output set for the function.) From either result, a diagonalization can be performed to produce the desired oracle separation.
Oracle Separation Between NIPZK and BQP
=======================================
We now prove the following new result:
There exists an oracle $A$ such that $\mathrm{NIPZK}^A \not\subseteq \mathrm{BQP}^A$.
It suffices to demonstrate a NIPZK algorithm for $\mathrm{Col}^2_n$. The algorithm, inspired by the algorithm for uniformity testing given by Malka [@malka], proceeds as follows. The prover divides the shared random string into two strings $r_1$ and $r_2$, each of length $n$. For each $r_i$, it chooses uniformly a string $x_i$ with $X(x_i) = r_i$. It then sends the chosen $x_i$ to the verifier. The verifier accepts if $X(x_i) = r_i$ for both $i$.
We now prove the algorithm is NIPZK. First, we prove its completeness. If $X$ is one-to-one, then its image equals its codomain, and so the $x_i$ can always be selected to be valid, regardless of the $r_i$. Thus the verifier will always accept any one-to-one function.
Next, we prove its soundness. If $X$ is two-to-one, then half of its codomain is not in its image. Thus, with probability $\frac{3}{4}$, at least one of $r_1$ or $r_2$ is not in the image of $X$. Thus, with probability $\frac{3}{4}$, the prover cannot select $x_i$ that the verifier will accept. Thus the soundness error is $\frac{1}{4}$.
Next, we prove its perfect zero-knowledge property. The simulator can simply randomly pick two inputs $x_1$ and $x_2$, then run them through $X$ to get appropriate $r_i$. Since the $x_i$ are selected uniformly, when $X$ is one-to-one the $r_i$ are also uniformly distributed. Furthermore, for those $r_i$, there is only one possible pair of $x_i$; thus the simulator can exactly recreate the distribution over inputs to the verifier. From there, it can simply perfectly simulate any verifier on those inputs.
Thus $\mathrm{Col}^2_n \in$ NIPZK, and the theorem follows as above.
Conclusion
==========
We constructed a NIPZK query algorithm for the collision problem. Using this algorithm and the quantum query lower bound on the collision problem we have demonstrated the existence of an oracle relative to which NIPZK $\not\subseteq$ BQP. This result has applications to the quantum-resistance of cryptography and cryptocurrency, where algorithms occasionally rely on non-interactive zero-knowledge proof protocols. Our result suggests that the use of those proofs does not introduce vulnerabilities into those algorithms in the presence of a quantum adversary. The next step would be to extend this oracle separation into an algebraic oracle separation [@aaronson-wigderson], which would rule out a wider array of proof techniques and give additional evidence that NIPZK $\not\subseteq$ BQP.
[^1]: It is sufficient for our result to restrict the problem to the $r=2$ case.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The association of PSR B1757$-$24 and the supernova remnant (SNR) G5.4$-$1.2 was recently questioned by Thorsett et al. (2002) on the basis of proper motion measurements of the pulsar and the “incorrect" orientation of the vector of pulsar transverse velocity \[inferred from the orientation of the cometary-shaped pulsar wind nebula (PWN)\]. We showed, however, that the association could be real if both objects are the remnants of an off-centred cavity supernova (SN) explosion.'
author:
- 'V.V.Gvaramadze'
title: 'The Association of PSR B1757$-$24 and the SNR G5.4$-$1.2'
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
Recent proper motion measurements of PSR B1757$-$24 by Thorsett, Brisken, & Goss (2002) put a $2\sigma$ upper limit on the pulsar transverse velocity, $v_{\rm p} \leq 160 \, d_{5} \,{\rm
km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$, where $d_{5}$ is the distance to the pulsar in units of 5 kpc. This upper limit is at least an order of magnitude less than the velocity estimate inferred from the angular displacement of PSR B1757$-$24 from the geometric centre of G5.4$-$1.2 (Frail & Kulkarni 1991; Manchester et al. 1991). Thorsett et al. interpreted the discrepancy between the “measured" and inferred velocities as an indication of equally large discrepancy between the kinematic age of the system, $t_{\rm
kin} =l/v_{\rm p}$, where $l$ is the distance traveled by the pulsar from its birthplace, and the characteristic age of the pulsar, $\tau = P/(n-1)\dot{P}$. The latter discrepancy and the “incorrect" orientation of the inferred line of pulsar proper motion (the cometary-shaped PWN does not point to the geometric centre of G5.4$-$1.2; Frail, Kassim & Weiler 1994) constitutes two arguments against the physical association of PSR B1757$-$24 and G5.4$-$1.2 proposed by Thorsett et al. (2002). In this paper we show, however, that the association could be real if both objects are the remnants of a SN explosion within a bubble blown-up by the moving SN progenitor star during the Wolf-Rayet (WR) phase of its evolution.
SNR G5.4$-$1.2 and its progenitor star
======================================
Let us explain why we believe that the pre-SN was a WR star and that the SN exploded within the WR bubble, but not in the bubble created during the preceding main-sequence (MS) phase. In our reasoning we proceed from the fact that a young neutron star (born with a moderate kick velocity of appropriate orientation) can overrun the shell of the associated SNR only on conditions that: a) the SN exploded within a pre-existing bubble surrounded by a massive shell, b) the SN explosion site was significantly offset from the centre of the bubble (e.g. Gvaramadze 2002a,b). It is unlikely, however, that these conditions can be fulfilled for the MS bubbles. Indeed, simple estimates show that most of massive stars explode outside their MS bubbles, while the bubbles stall and loss their shells well before the end of the MS phase (Brighenti & D’Ercole 1994). On the other hand, if a massive star ended its evolution as a WR star, the energetic WR wind could create a new large-scale bubble, whose supersonic expansion drives a shell of swept-up interstellar matter (ISM) during the whole relatively short WR phase. Besides, it is the short duration of the WR phase that results in that even a runaway massive star could explode within its WR bubble.
We assume that the SN exploded near the west edge of the WR bubble (cf. Gvaramadze & Vikhlinin 2003) on the line defined by the cometary-shaped PWN, i.e. the SN exploded $\simeq 9 \, d_5$ pc east of the current position of the pulsar (or about $3.5 \, d_5$ pc behind the west edge of G5.4$-$1.2). In this case, $t_{\rm
kin} (\simeq 5.4\times 10^4$ yr) could be reconciled with $\tau$ if $n\leq 1.6$, i.e. for braking indices comparable with $n$ measured for the Vela pulsar (cf. Thorsett et al. 2002).
The further evolution of the blast wave depends on the mass of the pre-existing shell, $M_{\rm sh} = (4\pi / 3) R_{\rm sh} ^3 \rho
_{\rm ISM}$, where $R_{\rm sh}$ is the radius of the shell, $\rho
_{\rm ISM} =1.3 m_{\rm H} n_{\rm ISM}$, $m_{\rm H}$ is the mass of a hydrogen atom and $n_{\rm ISM}$ is the number density of the ambient ISM. The number density could be evaluated by comparing the observed minimum size of the PWN ahead of the moving pulsar, $R_{\rm n}$, with the theoretically predicted one, $\kappa R_{0} =
\kappa (|\dot{E}| /4\pi c \rho _{\rm ISM} v_{\rm p} ^2 )^{1/2}$, where $\kappa \simeq 1.26$ (Bucciantini 2002), $R_{0}$ is the stand-off distance, $|\dot{E}| \simeq 2.6 \times 10^{36} \, {\rm
erg} \, {\rm s}^{-1}$ is the spin-down luminosity of the pulsar and $c$ is the speed of light. For $R_{\rm n} = 3.6\times 10^{-2}
d_{5}$ pc (Gaensler & Frail 2000) and $v_{\rm p} =160 \, {\rm
km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$, one has $n_{\rm ISM} \simeq 1.0 \, {\rm
cm}^{-3}$. Then assuming that $R_{\rm sh} =20$ pc, one has $M_{\rm
sh} \simeq 10^3 \, M_{\odot}$.
The numerical simulation of cavity SN explosions by Tenorio-Tagle et al. (1991) showed that the SN blast wave evolves into a momentum-conserving stage if the mass of the pre-existing shell was larger than $\simeq 50 M_{\rm ej}$, where $M_{\rm ej}$ is the mass of the SN ejecta. For any reasonable initial mass of the SN progenitor, one has that $M_{\rm sh} >> 50\, M_{\rm ej}$. Thus the SNR G5.4$-$1.2 is in the radiative stage (with the initial expansion velocity of $\simeq 100 \, {\rm km} \, {\rm s}^{-1}$), so that the pulsar can easily overrun the SNR.
G5.27$-$0.9
===========
We now discuss the origin of a compact source G5.27$-$0.9 located between PSR B1757$-$24 and G5.4$-$1.2 (e.g. Frail & Kulkarni 1991). We suggest that G5.27$-$0.9 is a lobe of a low Mach number jet of gas outflowing from the interior of G5.4$-$1.2 through the hole bored in the SNR’s shell by the escaping pulsar.
The gas velocity at the origin of the jet is $v_{\rm j} \simeq \sqrt
{3} \, c_{\rm j}$, where $c_{\rm j}$ is the sound speed of the outflowing gas. The structure and the dynamics of supersonic jets propagating through the ambient medium are mainly determined by two parameters: the jet Mach number, ${\cal{M}}_{\rm j} =v_{\rm j} /c_{\rm j}$, and the jet to ambient medium density ratio, ${\rho}_{\rm j} /\rho
_{\rm ISM}$ (see Norman et al. 1982). In our case ${\cal{M}}_{\rm j} \simeq 1.7$ and ${\rho}_{\rm j} /\rho _{\rm
ISM} << 1$. Numerical simulations conducted by Norman et al. (1982) showed that a low-density, Mach 1.5 jet ends itself in a gradually inflating and slowly-moving lobe. The morphological similarity of this lobe (see Fig.10a of Norman et al. 1982) and G5.27$-$0.9 (see Fig.1b of Frail & Kulkarni 1991) allows us to consider the existence of inner bright spots in G5.27$-$0.9 and the edge-darkened appearance of this source as indications that the jet is already reached its maximum spatial extent (see Norman et al. 1982). Therefore the pulsar moving along the jet axis was able to overrun the lobe and now it travels through the ISM.
PSR B1757$-$24 and its PWN
==========================
Is is clear that the proper motion of a neutron star born in an off-centred cavity SN explosion could be oriented arbitrarily with respect to the geometric centre of the associated SNR (Gvaramadze 2002a,b). Therefore one should not comment why the cometary-shaped PWN does not point to the geometric centre of G5.4$-$1.2. Let us briefly discuss some points related to the origin of this nebula.
The supersonic motion of PSR B1757$-$24 through the ISM results in the origin of an elongated structure, where the pulsar wind is swept back by the ram pressure. The region occupied by the wind is bounded by a contact discontinuity, which asymptotically becomes cylindrical with a characteristic radius $R\simeq 0.85
{\cal{M}}_{\rm p} ^{3/4} (1-0.85 {\cal{M}}_{\rm p} ^{-1/2}
)^{-1/4} R_0$, where ${\cal{M}}_{\rm p} = v_{\rm p} /c_{\rm ISM}$ and $c_{\rm ISM}$ is the sound speed of the ambient ISM (Bucciantini 2002). For the temperature of the ambient ISM of $\simeq 8\,000 \, {\rm K}$, one has that $R (\simeq 7^{\arcsec} \,
d_5 ^{-1})$ is few times larger than the half-width of the PWN, i.e. most of the pulsar wind is unobservable.
We suggest that the non-thermal X-ray emission of the cometary tail behind the pulsar (Kaspi et al. 2001) is due to the synchrotron losses of the relativistic pulsar wind shocked at the termination shock, which extends in the tail up to a distance of $L \simeq 1.29 \, {\cal{M}}_{\rm p} R_0$ (see Bucciantini 2002 and Fig.1 therein) and where the wind particles acquire non-zero pitch angles. An indirect support to this suggestion comes from the comparison of $L \simeq 19^{\arcsec} \, d_5 ^{-1}$ with the observed length of the X-ray tail of $\simeq 20^{\arcsec}$.
We also suggest that the (non-thermal) radio emission of the PWN originates in the vicinity of the termination shock and in a much more extended narrow cylindrical region of subsonically moving shocked pulsar wind (cf. Bucciantini 2002). This suggetion implies that in the absence of the radio source G5.27$-$0.9 the radio tail would be much longer than its X-ray counterpart \[perhaps as long as the tail of the radio nebula “Mouse" (G359.23$-$0.82; Yusef-Zadeh & Bally 1987) powered by a young pulsar PSR J1747$-$2958 (whose spin characteristics are almost the same as those of PSR B1757$-$24; Camilo et al. 2002)\].
Concluding remark
=================
To conclude, we note that the idea of off-centred cavity SN explosion could be used not only to assess the reliability of proposed neutron star/SNR associations (Gvaramadze 2002a; Bock & Gvaramadze 2002), but also to explain the diverse morphologies of the known SNRs (Gvaramadze 2002b, 2003; Gvaramadze & Vikhlinin 2003) and to search for new stellar remnants associated with SNRs (Gvaramadze & Vikhlinin 2003).
I am grateful to R.N.Manchester, M.Orine and H. Rickman, whose support allows me to attend the symposium.
Bock, D.C.-J., & Gvaramadze, V.V. 2002, , 394, 533
Brighenti F., & D’Ercole A. 1994, , 270, 65
Bucciantini, N. 2002, , 387, 1066
Camilo, F., Manchester, R.N., Gaensler, B.M., & Lorimer, D.R. 2002, , 579, L25
Frail, D.A., & Kulkarni, S.R. 1991, Nature, 352, 785
Frail, D.A., Kassim, N.E., & Weiler, K.W. 1994, , 107, 1120
Gaensler, B.M., & Frail, D.A. 2000, Nature, 406, 158
Gvaramadze, V.V. 2002a, in ASP Conf. Ser., 271, Neutron Stars in Supernova Remnants, ed. P.O. Slane & B.M. Gaensler (San Francisco: ASP), 23
Gvaramadze, V.V. 2002b, in New Visions of the X-ray Universe in the XMM-Newton and Chandra Era, ed. F. Jansen (ESA SP-488), in press (astro-ph/0208028)
Gvaramadze, V.V., & Vikhlinin, A.A. 2003, , 401, 625
Gvaramadze, V.V. 2003, in High Energy Processes and Phenomena in Astrophysics, IAU Symp. 214, eds. X.Li, Z.Wang, & V.Trimble, in press \[astro-ph/0212541\]
Kaspi, V.M., Gotthelf, E.V., Gaensler, B.M., & Lyutikov, M. 2001, , 562, L163
Manchester, R.N., Kaspi, V.M., Johnston, S., Lyne, A.G., & D’Amico, N. 1991, , 253, 7p
Norman, M.L., Smarr, L., Winkler, K.-H.A., & Smith, M.D. 1982, , 113, 285
Tenorio-Tagle, G., Różyczka, M., Franco, J., & Bodenheimer, P. 1991, , 251, 318
Thorsett, S.E., Brisken, W.F., & Goss, W.M. 2002, , 573, L111
Yusef-Zadeh, F., & Bally, J. 1987, Nature, 330, 455
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that Abelian sandpiles with random initial states converge almost surely to unique scaling limits. The proof follows the Armstrong-Smart program for stochastic homogenization of uniformly elliptic equations. Using a different approach, we prove an analogous result for the divisible sandpile and identify its scaling limit as exactly that of the averaged divisible sandpile. As a corollary, this gives a new quantitative proof of known results on the stabilizability of random divisible and Abelian sandpiles.'
author:
- 'Ahmed Bou-Rabee'
bibliography:
- 'random\_piles.bib'
title: Convergence of the Random Abelian sandpile
---
{width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"}\
{width="40.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"}
Introduction
============
The Abelian sandpile is a simple combinatorial model which produces striking, fractal-like patterns [@bak1987self; @holroyd2008chip]. W. Pegden and C. Smart began the rigorous understanding of these patterns by showing that scaling limits of sandpiles exist and are Laplacians of solutions to elliptic obstacle problems [@pegden2013convergence]. Their proof technique is flexible: it was first applied to the single-source sandpile and it works for any sandpile with a periodic initial configuration. However, their proof does not extend to random initial configurations. In this paper, as a first step towards understanding random sandpiles, we show that sandpiles with random initial states also have scaling limits.
As a simple example, consider the following random sandpile on the two-dimensional square lattice. For each site $x$ in a ball of radius $n$ in $\Z^2$, flip a fair coin. If the coin lands heads, put $3$ grains of sand at $x$; otherwise put $5$ grains of sand at $x$. Then, let the sandpile stabilize. If you repeat this procedure for large $n$ and rescale, a non-random pattern emerges. The pattern looks remarkably similar to the scaling limit of the single-source sandpile - compare Figure 1 with Figure 2. Our main result explains this similarity by proving that the scaling limit of the random sandpile is the Laplacian of the solution to an elliptic obstacle problem with two operators. One operator depends on the distribution of the randomness. The other operator is the exact same one appearing in the scaling limit of the single source sandpile.
More generally let $\eta: \Z^d \to \Z$ be stationary, ergodic, bounded, and satisfy $\E(\eta(0)) > 2 d-1$. Let $W \subset \R^d$ be a bounded Lipschitz subset. For each $n \in \N$, let $W_n = \Z^d \cap n W$ denote the finite difference approximation of $W$. Initialize the sandpile according to $\eta$ in $W_n$ and set it to be 0 elsewhere. Then, stabilize the sandpile, counting how many times each site topples through the [*odometer function*]{} $v_n : \Z^d \to \N$. Denote the stable sandpile by $s_n: \Z^d \to \Z$. Our main result is the following.
\[thetheorem\] Almost surely, as $n \to \infty$, the rescaled functions $\bar{v}_n:= n^{-2} v_n([n x])$ converge uniformly to the unique solution of the elliptic obstacle problem $$\min \{ v \in C(\R^d) : v \geq 0 \mbox{ and } \bar{F}_{\eta}(D^2 v) \leq 0 \mbox{ in $W$ and } \bar{F}_0(D^2 v) \leq 0 \mbox{ in $\R^d$}\},$$ where $\bar{F}_\eta$ is a nonrandom, degenerate elliptic operator, $$\begin{split}
\bar{F}_0(M) := \inf \{ s \in \R | \exists u: \Z^d \to \Z & \mbox{ such that for all $y \in \Z^d$} \\
&\mbox{ $\Delta_{\Z^d} u(y) \leq 2 d -1$ and $u(y) \geq \frac{1}{2} y^T(M - s I) y$} \},
\end{split}$$ and the differential inequalities are interpreted in the viscosity sense. In turn, almost surely, the rescaled sandpiles, $\bar{s}_n(x) := s_n( [n x])$ converge weakly-\* to a deterministic function $s \in L^\infty(\R^d)$ as $n \to \infty$. Moreover, the limit satisfies $\int_{\R^d} s dx = |W| \E( \eta(0))$, $s \leq 2 d-1$, $s = 0$ in $\R^d \backslash B_R^{}(W)$ for some constant $R > 0$ depending on $W$ and $\E(\eta(0))$.
The main challenge in proving the above theorem is that there is no inherent linear or subadditive quantity governing the behavior of the sandpile. The Abelian sandpile is nonlocal: one unstable pile can cause a far-reaching avalanche of topplings. This difficulty is the same one faced by those studying stochastic homogenization of fully nonlinear elliptic PDEs. Fortunately, since the sandpile can be expressed as the solution to a nonlinear discrete PDE, we can use those same methods here. To be specific, we import the stochastic homogenization tools introduced by S. Armstrong and C. Smart in [@armstrong2014quantitative]. Most of the work will be in identifying the appropriate sandpile ingredients. Some of the tools also need to be rebuilt due to the lack of uniform ellipticity.
Outline of the paper
--------------------
In Section \[prelims\], we precisely state the assumptions of our result. Then, in Section \[sec:sandpile\], we recall some necessary properties of the Abelian sandpile. Next, in Section \[sec:monotone\_quantity\], we define a subadditive quantity, $\mu$, which will implicitly control the random sandpile. Through an appropriate perturbation of $\mu$, we identify $\bar{F}_\eta$ in Section \[sec:identify\]. In Section \[sec:proof\_of\_theorem\] we prove the main result. It is here that the alternative proof of stabilizability of random sandpiles appears. Then, in Section \[sec:divisible\_sandpile\] we show a simpler proof of convergence of a related model, the random [*divisible*]{} sandpile, invented by L. Levine and Y. Peres [@levine2009strong; @levine2010scaling]. In stark contrast to the Abelian sandpile, the limit for the random divisible sandpile is exactly the limit of the averaged divisible sandpile. We end with some generalizations and open questions in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Acknowledgments
---------------
I am grateful to Charles K. Smart for suggesting the program in [@armstrong2014quantitative], patiently providing essential advice throughout this project, and carefully reviewing a previous draft of this paper. I am also grateful to Steven P. Lalley for useful conversations, encouragement, and first introducing me to this problem. I also acknowledge Khalid Bou-Rabee, Nawaf Bou-Rabee, Gregory Lawler, Lionel Levine, and Micol Tresoldi for inspiring conversations.
Preliminaries {#prelims}
=============
Notation and Conventions
------------------------
The constant $d \in \N$ will refer to dimension. We denote $\symm^d$ as the set of symmetric $d \times d$ matrices with real entries. If $M \in \symm^d$, we write $M \geq 0$, if $M$ has nonnegative eigenvalues. $|M|_2$ will also refer to the largest absolute eigenvalue of $M$. For a vector $x \in \R^d$, $|x|_\infty$ denotes the maximum norm and $|x|_2$ the 2-norm. We sometimes omit the subscript, in which case $|x|$ refers to the 2-norm. We also write $q_M(x) : = \frac{1}{2} x^T M x$ and $q_l(x) := \frac{1}{2} |x|^2$. For both functions and vectors, inequalities between them are to be interpreted as pointwise. We write $y \sim x$ when $y - x \in \Z$ and $|y-x| = 1$. For a subset $A \subset \Z^d$, $d \geq 1$, denote its discrete boundary by $$\partial A = \{ y \in \Z^d \backslash A : \exists x \in A: y \sim x \}.$$ and its discrete closure by $$\bar{A} = A \cup \partial A.$$ The diameter of $A$ is $$\diam(A) = \max\{ |x-y|_2 : x,y \in A\}$$ For $x \in \Z^d$, $$Q_n(x) = \{ y \in \Z^d : |x-y|_\infty < n \},$$ is the cube of radius $n$ centered at $x$: and $$B_n(x) = \{y \in \Z^d: |x - y|_2 < n\},$$ is the ball of radius $n$ centered at $x$. For short, $B_n := B_n(0)$, $Q_n := Q_n(0)$. We will also use $Q_n$ and $B_n$ to refer to cubes and balls on $\R^d$.
We similarly overload notation so that for $A \subset \Z^d$, $|A|$ refers to the number of elements in $A$ and for measurable $L \subset \R^d$, $|L|$ is the Lebesgue measure of $L$. For $f: \Z^d \to \R$, we denote its discrete Laplacian by $$\Delta_{\Z^d} f = \sum_{y \sim x} ( f(y) - f(x)),$$ and its discrete second-differences by $$\Delta_i f = f(x+e_i) + f(x-e_i) - 2 f(x),$$ where $\{ \pm e_i\}$ are the $2 d$ coordinate directions in $\Z^d$. $\Delta$ will refer to the Laplace operator on the continuum. The convex hull of a set of points $A$ will be denoted $$\conv(A) = \{y \in \R^d: y = \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i x_i \mbox{ for $x_i \in A$, $\sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i = 1$, $\lambda_i \in [0,1]$}\}.$$ Throughout the proofs the constant $C$ will denote a positive constant which may change from line to line. When needed, explicit dependence of $C$ on other constants will be denoted by, for example, $C_d$.
Assumptions {#subsec:assumptions}
-----------
We consider the sandpile on the integer lattice $\Z^d$ for $d \geq 2$, (although this assumption is not an essential one). Let $\Omega$ denote the set of all bounded functions $\eta: \Z^d \to \Z$. Endow $\Omega$ with the $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{F}$ generated by $\{ \eta \to \eta(x) : x \in \Z^d\}$. We model the randomness by a probability measure $\mathbf{P}$ on $(\Omega, \mathcal{F})$ with the following properties. First, there exists $\eta_{\min}, \eta_{\max} \in \Z$ so that for every $x \in \Z^d$, $$\mbox{Uniform Boundedness: } \mathbf{P}\left[ \eta_{\min} \leq \eta(x) \leq \eta_{\max} \right] = 1.$$ Note this may be replaced by an appropriate concentration assumption. We further assume that $\mathbf{P}$ is and . Denote the action of translation by $T: \Z^d \times \Omega \to \Omega$, $$T(y, \eta)(z) = (T_y \eta)(z) := \eta(y + z),$$ and extend this to $\mathcal{F}$ by defining $T_y E := \{ T_y \eta : \eta \in E\}$. Stationarity and ergodicity is then $$\mbox{Stationarity: for all $E \in \mathcal{F}, y \in \Z^d$: } \mathbf{P}(T_y E) = \mathbf{P}(E),$$ $$\mbox{Ergodic: $E = \cap_{y \in \Z^d} T_y E$ implies that $\mathbf{P}(E) \in \{0,1\}$ } .$$ Lastly, we assume that the density of sand in the initial sandpile is high: $$\mbox{ High density: } \E(\eta(0)) > 2 d - 1.$$ High density is a natural, weak assumption which forces interesting behavior to occur. See Section \[sec:conclusion\] for further discussion of this.
Sandpiles {#sec:sandpile}
=========
The results in this section are reformulations of fundamental facts about the Abelian sandpile. See, for example, [@corry2018divisors; @redig2005mathematical; @jarai2018sandpile]. Fix a bounded, connected $A \subset \Z^d$ and a starting sandpile $\eta: \bar{A} \to \Z$. We call positive integer-valued functions on $\bar{A}$, [*toppling functions*]{}. Recall that a toppling function $u$ is [*legal*]{} for $\eta$ if it can be decomposed into a sequence of topplings so that only sites $x$ where $\eta(x) \geq 2 d$ are toppled. More precisely, $u$ is legal for $\eta$ if we can express for some $n \geq 0 $, $$u = u_0 + u_1 + \cdots + u_n,$$ where $u_0 = 0$ and for $i \geq 1$, $u_i(x) = 0$ for all $x \in \Z^d$ except for one $\hat{x}_i \in A$ for which $u_i(\hat{x}_i) = 1$ and $$\left( \Delta_{\Z^d} (u_1 + \cdots + u_{i-1}) + \eta \right)(\hat{x}_i) \geq 2 d.$$ When $\eta \leq 2d -1$, the only legal toppling function is $u = u_0 = 0$. An important observation is that any legal toppling function satisfies $\Delta_{\Z^d} u + \eta \geq \min(0, \eta)$ but this inequality does not imply $u$ is legal. A toppling function $v$ is [*stabilizing*]{} for $\eta$ in a set $A$ if $ \Delta_{\Z^d} v + \eta \leq 2 d-1$ in $A$.
Denote the set of legal topplings for $\eta$ in $A$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}(\eta, A) = &\{ u: \Z^d \to \N : \mbox{ there exists $w:\Z^d \to \N$ and $\hat{u}: \Z^d \to \N$ with $u = w + \hat{u}$ } \\
&\mbox{ so that $w(x) = 0$ for $x \in A$, $\hat{u}(x) = 0$ for $x \in \Z^d \backslash A$ and $\hat{u}$ is legal for $\Delta_{\Z^d} w + \eta$}\}\end{aligned}$$ and the set of stabilizing topplings for $\eta$ in $A$ as $$\mathcal{S}(\eta, A) = \{ v: \Z^d \to \N: \Delta_{\Z^d} v(x) + \eta(x) \leq 2 d-1 \mbox{ for $x \in A$} \}.$$ It is important to note that these sets only enforce their constraints in $A$, they may include arbitrary topplings outside $A$.
The [*odometer*]{} function, $v: \Z^d \to \N$, counts the number of times each site in $\eta$ topples when stabilizing. Here we distinguish between two common scenarios. In the first scenario, once a grain of sand leaves $A$, it falls off and disappears. We call this the [*closed boundary*]{} condition. In this case $v = 0$ on $\Z^d \backslash \bar{A}$. In the second scenario, grains continue to spread and topplings can occur outside of $A$. This is the [*open boundary*]{} condition. The sandpile we consider in our main theorem has the open boundary condition. However, as we will discuss in Section \[sec:conclusion\], our methods also apply to other sandpiles including those with closed boundaries. In this section, we state results for sandpiles with the closed boundary condition. First, we recall the least-action principle for sandpiles and rephrase it in a way amenable to the methods of this paper. We will refer to this as the [*discrete sandpile PDE*]{}.
The odometer function $v$ uniquely solves each of the following problems.
1. Longest legal toppling: $v = \sup\{ u: \Z^d \to \N : u \in \mathcal{L}(\eta, A), \mbox{ $v = 0$ on $\Z^d \backslash A$}\}$
2. Shortest stabilizing toppling: $v = \inf\{ u: \Z^d \to \N : u \in \mathcal{S}(\eta, A), \mbox{ $u = 0$ on $\Z^d \backslash A$}\} $
3. Stabilizing, legal toppling: $ v \in \mathcal{L}(\eta, A) \cap \mathcal{S}(\eta, A)$ and $v = 0$ on $\Z^d \backslash A$
We will henceforth think of legal toppling functions as subsolutions and stabilizing toppling functions as supersolutions.
A certain class of sandpiles, known as [*recurrent*]{} sandpiles will help in the sequel. We say $\eta$ is recurrent if we can find $s: A \to \N$ and $u \in \mathcal{L}(s + 2 d - 1, A)$ with $u = 0$ on $\Z^d \backslash A$ so that $\eta = 2 d- 1 + s + \Delta_{\Z^d} u$. In other words, $\eta$ is recurrent if we can reach $\eta$ by starting with $2d-1$ grains at every site in $A$, adding grains of sand at some sites in $A$ and then toppling some sites legally. Also we call $\eta$ [*stable*]{} in $A$ if $\eta \leq 2 d-1$ in $A$.
A useful consequence of Dhar’s burning algorithm will aid in controlling topplings in stable, recurrent sandpiles. Recall that the burning algorithm provides a recipe for checking if a stable sandpile is recurrent: topple the boundary of a sandpile once, if the sandpile is recurrent, each inner site will topple exactly once when stabilizing. More generally, topple sites along $\partial A$ and then legally stabilize $s$ in $A$. If $s$ is a stable sandpile, no site in $A$ will topple more times than a boundary site has toppled. And, if $s$ is a recurrent sandpile, some site in $A$ will topple at least as many times as some boundary site. This leads to both a maximum principle and a comparison principle for the sandpile.
\[burning\] For $f: \partial A \to \Z$, a sandpile $s: A \to \Z$, let $v$ solve $$\begin{cases}
v \in \mathcal{L}(s) \cap \mathcal{S}(s) &\mbox{ on $A$} \\
v = f & \mbox{on $\partial A$}
\end{cases}$$ If $s$ is stable, then $$\sup_{x \in A} v(x) \leq \sup_{y \in \partial A} f(y).$$ If $s$ is recurrent, then $$\inf_{x \in A} v(x) \geq \inf_{y \in \partial A} f(y).$$ In particular, when $s$ is stable and recurrent, we have the following comparison principle: let $u$ solve $$\begin{cases}
u \in \mathcal{L}(s) \cap \mathcal{S}(s) &\mbox{ on $A$} \\
u = f' & \mbox{on $\partial A$},
\end{cases}$$ for some $f': \partial A \to \Z$. Then, $$\inf_{x \in A} (u -v)(x) \geq \inf_{y \in \partial A} (f' - f)(y).$$ Furthermore, for any integer-valued functions $g, h : \bar{A} \to \Z$ with $\Delta_{\Z^d} g = \Delta_{\Z^d} h = 0$ in $A$, $$\inf_{x \in A} ( (u + g) - (v + h) )(x) \geq \inf_{y \in \partial A} ( (f'+g) - (f + h))(y).$$
We will also use the following consequence of the Abelian property: any legal, stabilizing toppling function can be decomposed into the usual odometer function for $\eta$ and an odometer function which keeps track of topplings originating from the boundary.
\[Abelian\] If $v \in \mathcal{L}(\eta,A ) \cap \mathcal{S}(\eta, A)$ and $v = f $ on $\partial A$, then $v$ can be decomposed into $$v = v_1 + v_2,$$ where $$\begin{cases}
v_1 \in \mathcal{L}(\eta) \cap \mathcal{S}(\eta) &\mbox{ on $A$} \\
v_1 = 0 & \mbox{on $\partial A$}
\end{cases}$$ and $$\begin{cases}
v_2 \in \mathcal{L}(\eta + \Delta_{\Z^d} v_1) \cap \mathcal{S}(\eta + \Delta_{\Z^d} v_1) &\mbox{ on $A$} \\
v _2= f & \mbox{on $\partial A$}
\end{cases}$$
We conclude the section by noting a useful alternative characterization of recurrent sandpiles. If each site in $\eta$ has toppled at least once, then what remains is recurrent.
\[recurrent\] If $W$ is a connected subset of $\Z^d$ and $A \subset W$ is also connected if $w \in \mathcal{L}(\eta, W)$, and $w \geq 1$ in $A$, $w \geq 0$ on $\partial A$, then $\Delta_{\Z^d} w+ \eta$ is recurrent in $A$.
Since $v \geq 1$ and topplings are legal we see that $s \geq 0$. Now, suppose for sake of contradiction that $s$ is not recurrent. Then, $s$ contains a forbidden sub-configuration. Consider the vertex in the with $v(\sigma)$ minimal. Then, consider the toppling procedure in which $\sigma$ finishes toppling first. Then, each of its neighbors in $W$ must topple at least once afterwards, which contradicts the definition of forbidden sub-configuration.
A monotone quantity {#sec:monotone_quantity}
===================
The definition of $\mu$.
-------------------------
In this section we introduce $\mu$, a monotone quantity which will control solutions to the discrete sandpile PDE. For a function $v: \Z^d \to \Z$ and $x \in A \subset \Z^d$ let $$\partial^+(v, x,A) = \{ p \in \R^d : v(x) + p \cdot (y-x) \geq v(y) : \mbox{ for all $y \in \bar{A}$}\}$$ denote the supergradient set of $v$ at $x$ in $A$. Similarly, $$\partial^-(v, x,A) = \{ p \in \R^d : v(x) + p \cdot (y-x) \leq v(y) : \mbox{ for all $y \in \bar{A}$}\}$$ is the subgradient set at $x$. For short-hand, we omit the set $A$ when it is clear and write $$\partial^+(v, A) = \cup_{x \in A} \partial^+(v,x).$$
To completely identify a fully nonlinear elliptic PDE, it suffices to recognize when a parabola is a supersolution or a subsolution. This fundamental observation is due to Caffarelli [@caffarelli1999note] and was employed by Caffarelli, Souganidis, and Wang in their obstacle problem argument for homogenization of fully nonlinear uniformly elliptic equations [@caffarelli2005homogenization; @armstrong2014stochastic].
Our method is similar: we will perturb solutions by a parabola and then define the effective equation, $\bar{F}_{\eta}$, through these perturbed limits. For $l \in \R$ and $M \in \symm^d$, denote the set of perturbed subsolutions as $$S(A, \omega, l, M) = \{ u: \Z^d \to \Z : u \in \mathcal{L}(\eta, A) \} - \left( q_l + q_M \right)$$ and the set of perturbed supersolutions as $$S^*(A, \omega, l, M) = \{ v: \Z^d \to \Z : v \in \mathcal{S}(\eta, A) \} - \left( q_l + q_M \right).$$ The monotone quantity controlling subsolutions is then $$\mu(A, \omega, l, M) = \sup \{ |\partial^+(w,A)|: w \in S(A, \omega, l, M) \},$$ while the monotone quantity which controls supersolutions is $$\mu^*(A, \omega, l, M) = \sup \{ |\partial^-(w,A)|: w \in S^*(A, \omega, l , M) \}.$$
Comparing subsolutions and supersolutions.
------------------------------------------
We will need to compare legal and stabilizing toppling functions throughout this paper. However, the discrete sandpile PDE is nonlinear: if $v$ is a stabilizing toppling function for $\eta$, then $-v$ is not a legal toppling function for $-\eta$ (unless $v = 0$). This makes it difficult to compare legal toppling functions and stabilizing toppling functions. However, through $\mu$, we can compare the two using the following lemma.
\[stabilizing-legal\] If $u \in \mathcal{L}(\eta, A)$, the solution of $$h \in \mathcal{L}(\eta, A) \cap \mathcal{S}(\eta, A) \mbox{ and $h = u$ on $\partial A$},$$ satisfies $\partial^+(u, A) \subseteq \partial^+(h, A)$. Similarly, if $v \in \mathcal{S}(\eta, A)$, then the solution of $$h^* \in \mathcal{L}(\eta, A) \cap \mathcal{S}(\eta, A) \mbox{ and $h^* = v$ on $\partial A$},$$ satisfies $\partial^-(v, A) \subseteq \partial^-(h^*, A)$.
By the least action principle, we know that for all $x \in A$, $h(x) \geq u(x)$. Also, by assumption $u(x) = h(x)$ on $\partial A$. Hence, for each $p \in \partial^+(u, x, A)$ if we let $$t = \inf \{ c \in \R: u(x) + p \cdot(y-x) + c \geq h(y) \mbox{ for all $y \in \bar{A}$} \}$$ we see that $t \geq 0$. And since $A$ is finite, $t$ is bounded. Further since $h= u$ on $\partial A$, we must have $y \in A$ for which $$u(x) + p \cdot(y-x) + t = h(y) ,$$ which shows $p \in \partial^+(h, y, A)$. The proof for subgradients is similar.
Basic properties of $\mu$.
--------------------------
We now establish control on solutions from above and below which will follow from the proof of the Alexandroff-Bakelman-Pucci (ABP) inequality [@roberts1995fully; @gutierrez2001monge].
\[ABP\] There exists $C_d > 0$ so that for all $w \in S(B_n, \omega, l , M)$, $$\max_{x \in B_n} w(x) \leq \max_{x \in \partial B_n} w(x) + C_d n \mu(B_n, \omega, l ,M)^{1/d}$$ and for all $w \in S^*(B_n, \omega, l , M)$, $$\inf_{x \in \partial B_n} w(x) \leq \inf_{x \in B_n} w(x) + C_d n \mu^*(B_n, \omega, l ,M)^{1/d}.$$
Let $a = \max_{x \in B_n} w(x) - \max_{x \in \partial B_n} w(x)$. Assume $a > 0$, otherwise the claim is immediate. Choose $x_0$ so that $\max_{x \in B_n} w(x) = w(x_0)$. Let $p \in \R^d$ satisfy $|p| \leq a \mbox{diam}(B_n)^{-1} = C_d a/n$. Then, for each $x \in B_n$, $$\label{ABPeq:1}
w(x_0) + p \cdot (x-x_0) \geq w(x_0) - |p| |x-x_0| > w(x_0) - w(x_0) + \max_{x \in \partial B_n} w(x) = \max_{x \in \partial B_n} w(x).$$ Now, we shift up the hyperplane just enough so that it lies above $w$ in $\bar{B}_n$: let $$t = \inf\{ c \in \R: w(x_0) + p \cdot(x-x_0) + c \geq w(x) \mbox{ for all $x \in \bar{B}_n$} \}$$ and note that $t \geq 0$ and that there exists $y \in \bar{B}_n$ with $$w(y) = w(x_0) + p \cdot(y-x_0) + t.$$ If $t > 0$, then shows that $y \in B_n$. If $t = 0$, we can choose $y = x_0$. Hence, there is a $y \in B_n$ with $p \in \partial^+(w, y , B_n)$. Since this holds for every $|p| < a/|\mbox{diam}(B_n)|$, this implies that $$|\partial^+(w, B_n)| > C_d \frac{a^d}{ {\diam}(B_n)^d}.$$ And so rearranging, we get $$a \leq |\partial^+(w, B_n)|^{1/d} C_d \diam(B_n) \leq C_d n \mu(B_n, \omega, l, M)^{1/d}$$ The proof for $\mu^*$ is identical.
Next we introduce the concave envelope of a subsolution. First, we extend the discrete domain $Q_n$ and its closure to their convex hulls: $\mathcal{Q}_n := \conv{Q_n}$ and $\mathcal{\bar{Q}}_n := \conv{\bar{Q}}_n$. Then, define the concave envelope of $w$ by, $\Gamma_w: \mathcal{\bar{Q}}_n \to \R$, $$\Gamma_w(x) = \inf_{p \in \R^d} \max_{y \in \bar{Q}_n} \left( w(y) + p \cdot (x-y) \right),$$ noting that $\Gamma_w$ is the pointwise least concave function so that on $\bar{Q}_n$, $\Gamma_w \geq w$. We recall a useful representation of the concave envelope.
We can alternatively represent $$\Gamma_w(x) = \sup\{ \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i w(x_i) : x_i \in \bar{Q}_n, \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i x_i = x, \lambda_i \in [0,1], \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i = 1\},$$ and if $$\Gamma_w(x) = \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i w(x_i) ,$$ then for each $x_i$, $\Gamma_w(x_i) = w(x_i)$ and $\Gamma_w$ is linear in $\conv(x_1, \ldots, x_{d+1})$.
Define $$\Phi_w = \sup\{ \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i w(x_i) : x_i \in \bar{Q}_n, \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i x_i = x, \lambda_i \in [0,1], \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i = 1\},$$ and note that $\Phi_w$ is concave on $\mathcal{\bar{Q}}_n$ and $\Phi_w \geq w$ on $\bar{Q}_n$. Now, take any other concave function $f \geq w$ and define $$\hat{f}(x) = \sup\{ \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i f(x_i) : x_i \in \bar{Q}_n, \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i x_i = x, \lambda_i \in (0,1], \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i = 1\}.$$ By concavity of $f$, $$\hat{f}(x) = f(x),$$ but $\hat{f}(x) \geq \Gamma_w(x)$. This shows $f \leq \Gamma_l$, meaning $\Gamma_l$ is the concave envelope of $\hat{u}_l$.
Next, suppose $$\Gamma_w(x) = \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \lambda_i w(x_i)$$ with $\lambda_i > 0$. By definition of $\Gamma_w$, we must have $\Gamma_w(x_i) = u_l(x_i)$, otherwise we would contradict the definition of $\Gamma_l$. In fact, the same reasoning implies for each $y = \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \nu_i x_i$ we must have $\Gamma_w(y) = \sum_{i=1}^{d+1} \nu_i w(x_i)$. And so $\Gamma_w$ is linear in $C:= \Co(x_1, \ldots, x_{d+1})$.
The next statement uses this representation to show that the measure of the supergradient set is preserved under the operation of taking the concave envelope.
\[MA-rep\] If we define $$\partial^+(\Gamma_w, \mathcal{Q}_n) = \{p \in \R^d: \exists x \in \mathcal{Q}_n : \Gamma_w(x) + p \cdot (y-x) \geq \Gamma_w(y) : \mbox{ for all $y \in \mathcal{\bar{Q}}_n$}\},$$ then $$\sum_{x \in Q_n} |\partial^+(w, x, Q_n)| = |\partial^+(w, Q_n)| = |\partial^+(\Gamma_w, \mathcal{Q}_n)| = \sum_{\{ x: \Gamma_w(x) = w(x) \}} |\partial^+(\Gamma_w, x, Q_n)|.$$
We split the proof into two steps.
### Step 1 {#step-1 .unnumbered}
We first show that $$|\partial^+(w, Q_n)| = \sum_{x \in Q_n} |\partial^+(w, x, Q_n)|,$$ which follows from the proof in the continuous setting: since $$|\partial^+(w, Q_n)| = | \cup_{x \in Q_n} \partial^+(w, x)|,$$ it suffices to show that $$S = \{ p \in \R^d : \mbox{ there exists $x,y \in Q_n$, $x \not = y$ and $p \in \partial^+(u_l, x) \cap \partial^+(u_l, y)$} \}$$ has measure zero. Denote the discrete Legendre transform $w^*: \R^d \to \R$ by $w^*(p) := \min_{x \in \bar{Q}_n} (x \cdot p - w(x))$. This is a concave, finite function as $Q_n$ is bounded and it is a minimum of affine functions. Further, if $p \in \partial^+(w, x)$, then $w^*(p) = x \cdot p - w(x)$. And hence, if $p \in S$, then $w^*(p) = x_1 \cdot p - w(x_1) = x_2 \cdot p - w(x_2)$ for $x_1 \not = x_2$. This implies that $w^*(p)$ is not differentiable at $p$. But, since $w^*$ is concave it is differentiable almost everywhere, which implies $S$ has measure zero since it is a subset of a measure zero set. This completes the proof of Step 1.
### Step 2 {#step-2 .unnumbered}
We now show that $$|\partial^+(w, Q_n)| = |\partial^+(\Gamma_w, \mathcal{Q}_n)| = \sum_{\{ x: \Gamma_w(x) = w(x) \}} |\partial^+(\Gamma_w, x, Q_n)|.$$ First consider $p \in \partial^+(w, x)$ and the affine function $L(y) = w(x) + p \cdot(y-x)$. By definition of the concave envelope, $\Gamma = \min(\Gamma, L)$, and so $p \in \partial^+(\Gamma_w, \mathcal{Q}_n)$. Next, suppose $p \in \partial^+(\Gamma_w, x)$ for $x \in \mathcal{Q}_n$ and $$\Gamma_w(x) = \sum_{i=1}^{k} \lambda_i w(x_i),$$ for $\lambda_i > 0$, $x_i \in \bar{Q}_n$, and some $k \geq 1$. This implies that $p \in \partial^+(\Gamma_w, x_i)$ for some $x_i$, if $k = 1$ and $x_i = x \in Q_n$, we are done, so suppose not. Then, we have some $x_i \not = x$ and $p \in \partial^+(\Gamma_w, x) \cap \partial^+(\Gamma_w, x_i)$. However, the argument in Step 1 implies that such $p$ have measure zero. This also implies the third equality.
The arithmetic-geometric mean inequality and the lower bound on the Laplacian of subsolutions imply an upper bound on $\mu$.
\[mu-is-bounded\] There is $C := C_{ \eta_{\max}, l, M, d}$ and $C^* := C_{\eta_{\min}, l, M, d}^*$ for which $$\mu(Q_n, \omega, l ,M) < C |Q_n| ,$$ $$\mu^*(Q_n, \omega, l ,M) < C^* |Q_n|.$$ For $l \geq \eta_{\max} - \mbox{Tr}(M)$ $$\mu(Q_n, \omega, l , M) = 0$$ and for $l \leq \eta_{\min} - (2 d - 1) - \mbox{Tr}(M)$ $$\mu^*(Q_n, \omega, l, M) = 0.$$
Let $w := u - q_l - q_M \in S(A, \omega, l, M)$. Since $u$ is legal, $\Delta_{\Z^d} u \geq \min(-\eta_{\max},0)$ in $Q_n$. Using $\Delta_{\Z^d} q_M = \mbox{Tr}(M)$, we get $\Delta_{\Z^d} w \geq l + \mbox{Tr}(M) -\eta_{\max}$. Choose, $x \in Q_n$ so that $|\partial^+(w, x)| > 0$. For $p \in \partial^+(w,x)$, by definition $$w(x)+ p \cdot(x + e_i - x) \geq w(x+e_i),$$ and $$w(x) + p \cdot( x - e_i - x) \geq w(x-e_i).$$ Putting these two inequalities together, we get for each direction $i = 1, \ldots, d$, $$\label{discreteMA1}
w(x+e_i) - w(x) \leq p_i \leq w(x) - w(x-e_i).$$ And so, $$|\partial^+(w,x)| \leq \prod_{i=1}^d \left( 2 w(x) - w(x-e_i) - w(x+e_i) \right) = \prod_{i=1}^d (- \Delta_i w).$$ The inequality implies $\Delta_i w \geq 0$, and so an application of the arithmetic geometric mean inequality yields $$- \Delta_{\Z^d} w = \sum_{i=1}^d (-\Delta_i w) \geq d \left( \prod_{i=1}^d (-\Delta_i w) \right)^{1/d}.$$ And so $$|\partial^+(w,x)| \leq d^{-d} (-\Delta_{\Z^d} w)^d \leq d^{-d} (\eta_{\max} - \mbox{Tr}(M) - l)^d,$$ which implies the claim by Lemma \[MA-rep\]. The other direction is similar.
Our next lemma uses the bound on the discrete Laplacian of subsolutions together with the representation of $\Gamma_l$ to establish a bound on $\diam(\partial^+(\Gamma_w, x))$ when $\Gamma_w(x) = w(x)$.
Let $w \in S(Q_n, \omega, l, M)$. There exists a constant $C: = C_{l,M, \eta_{\min} }$ so that for every $x_0 \in \{x \in Q_n: \Gamma_w(x) = w(x)\}$ $$\diam(\partial^+(\Gamma_w, x_0)) \leq C.$$
Suppose $\Gamma_w(x) = w(x)$ and note that since $\Gamma_w \geq w$ on $\bar{Q}_n$, $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta_i \Gamma_w(x) &= 2 \Gamma_w(x) - \Gamma_w(x + e_i) - \Gamma_w(x -e_i) \\
&= 2 w(x) - \Gamma_w(x + e_i) - \Gamma_w(x -e_i) \\
&\leq 2 w(x) - \Gamma_w(x + e_i) - \Gamma_w(x -e_i) \\
&= -\Delta_i w(x),\end{aligned}$$ which shows $-\Delta_i w(x) \geq 0$. And so, $$-\Delta_i \Gamma_w(x) \leq -\Delta_i w(x) \leq -\Delta w(x) \leq C_{l, M, \eta_{\min}}.$$ This fact, together with the linearity of $\Gamma_w$ between contact points shows the claim.
Next, we use the following consequence of the discrete Harnack inequality [@lawler2010random] to regulate the growth of the concave envelope in balls around contact points.
\[harnack\] Fix $0 < \beta < 1$. For any $f: \Z^d \to \R$ nonnegative, with $f(0) = 0$ and $|\Delta_{\Z^d} f| \leq \lambda$ in $B(0, R)$ there is a constant $C_{\beta,\lambda}$ so that $$\label{harnack_eq}
f(x) \leq C_{\beta,\lambda} |x|^2$$ for $x \in B(0, \beta R)$.
Using this, we show the following.
\[concaveregularity\] Suppose $w \in S(Q_n, \omega, l, M) \cap S^*(Q_n, \omega, l, M)$. There exists $C := C_{\eta_{\min}, \eta_{\max}, l,M, d}$ so that for every $x_0 \in \{x \in Q_n: \Gamma_w(x) = w(x)\}$, $p \in \partial^+(\Gamma_w, x_0)$, and every $12 < 2 r < R$ with $B_R \subset Q_n$, $$\partial^+(\Gamma_w, B_r^{}(x_0)) \subset B_{C (r+2)^2}(p).$$
By an affine transformation and translation, we can assume $x_0 = 0$, $p = 0$, and $w(0) = \Gamma_w(0) = 0$. Suppose $q \in \partial^+(\Gamma_w, B_r^{}(0))$ and that $|q|_\infty = |q_i|$ for some direction $i$. As $\Gamma_w$ is concave, by moving in the $e_i$ direction, we can find $y_0 \in B_{r+2} \cap \Z^d$ and $q^{(2)} \in \partial^+(\Gamma_w, y_0)$ so that $|q^{(2)}_i| \geq |q_i|$, so it suffices to bound $|q^{(2)}_i|$. Write $q = q^{(2)}$.
As $w \in S(Q_n, \omega, l, M) \cap S^*(Q_n, \omega, l, M)$, we have $|\Delta_{\Z^d} w | \leq C$. Hence, by Proposition \[harnack\] and the definition of $\Gamma_w$, for every $y \in B_{4 r /3}$, $$\Gamma_w(y) \geq w(y) \geq -C |y|^2.$$ Then, by the definition of subgradient, $$\Gamma_w(y_0) + q \cdot(y_0 - e_i - y_0) \geq \Gamma_w(y_0-e_1),$$ so $$\Gamma_w(y_0) - q_i \geq \Gamma_w(y_0-e_i).$$ But since $\Gamma_w \leq 0$, $$q_i \leq \Gamma_w(y_0) - \Gamma_w(y_0-e_i) \leq C|y_0|^2 \leq C (r+2)^2.$$ Repeating this for $-q_i$ completes the proof.
Convergence of $\mu$
--------------------
We next use the multiparameter subadditive ergodic theorem of Akcoglu and Krengel as stated in [@armstrong2014regularity] to show almost sure convergence of $\mu$.
\[sub-additive-ergodic\] For each $M$ and $l$, there exists constants $0 \leq \mu(l,M) \leq C_{M,l, \eta_{\min}}$, $0 \leq \mu(l,M)^* \leq C_{M,l, \eta_{\max}}^*$ and an event $\Omega_{l,M}$ of full probability so that for each $\omega \in \Omega_{l,m}$ and bounded Lipschitz set $W$, $$\mu(l, M): = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\mu(n W \cap \Z^d, \omega, l, M) }{|n W \cap \Z^d|}$$ and $$\mu^*(l,M) := \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\mu^*(n W \cap \Z^d , \omega, l, M) }{|n W \cap \Z^d|}.$$
Fix $M$ and $l$ and let $W_n = n W \cap \Z^d$. We apply the multiparameter subadditive ergodic theorem to $$f(W_n, \omega) = \sup\{ |\partial^+(w, W_n)| : w \in S(W_n, \omega, l, M)\}.$$ By Lemma \[mu-is-bounded\], $0 \leq f(W_n, \omega) \leq C |W| n^d$ for all $\omega$. Also stationarity and ergodicity of $f$ follow from the corresponding assumptions on the random background $\eta$ and the probability space. It remains to check subadditivity for connected subsets of $\Z^d$. Let $A$ be a connected subset of $\Z^d$ and let $A_1, \ldots, A_k$ be pairwise disjoint connected subsets of $\Z^d$ which satisfy $\cup_{j=1}^k A_j = A$.
Let $u$ be a legal toppling function in $A$. For each $A_i$, we can decompose $u$ into illegal topplings on $\partial A_i$ followed by legal topplings inside $A$. Hence $u - q_l - q_M$ is a subsolution for each $A_i$. Suppose $p \in \partial^+(u - q_l - q_M, x, A)$. Then since $x \in A_i$ for some $i$, we have $p \in \partial^+(u - q_l-q_M, x, A_i)$. And so for each $x \in A$ there is an $A_i$ so that $$\partial^+(u-q_l-q_M, x, A) \subset \partial^+(u - q_l-q_M, x, A_i),$$ hence by Lemma \[MA-rep\] and disjointness of the $A_i$, $$|\partial^+(u-q_l-q_M, A)| = \sum_{x \in A} |\partial^+(u-q_l-q_M, x, A)| \leq \sum_{i=1}^k \sum_{x \in A_i} |\partial^+(u - q_l-q_M, A_i, x)| = \sum_{i=1}^k |\partial^+(u - q_l-q_M, A_i)|.$$ Since this holds for any legal toppling $u$ of $A$, taking the supremum of both sides implies that $$f(A, \omega) \leq \sum_{j=1}^k f(A_j, \omega),$$ which completes the proof. The exact same argument, using the fact that any stabilizing toppling for $A$ also stabilizes in $A_i$, shows convergence of $\mu^*$.
As in the continuous case [@lin2015algebraic], if both $\mu(l,M)$ and $\mu^*(l,M)$ are 0, we have a comparison principle in the limit. This will allow us to identify the effective equation; and hence is what we carry out in the next section.
The effective equation {#sec:identify}
======================
Finding the effective equation
------------------------------
We will identify, for each parabola $M$, the largest real number $l_M$, so that in the limit $\mu(l_M,M) = \mu^*(l_M,M) = 0$. This then defines the effective equation $\bar{F}_{\eta}$. To show that such a number exists, since $\mu$ is bounded, it suffices to show that $\mu$ is continuous in the limit. In the continuum, this is done with an argument that utilizes a certain regularity of concave envelopes of subsolutions which we do not have. This difficulty is circumvented by a consequence of the stationarity of $\eta$, Lemma \[strict-convexity\]. We first prove the easier direction of continuity, monotonicity of the curvature.
\[monotonicity\] For $s \geq 0$, $$\mu(Q_n, \omega, l + s ,M) \geq \mu(Q_n, \omega, l, M).$$ and $$\mu^*(Q_n, \omega, l-s, M) \geq \mu^*(Q_n, \omega, l, M).$$
Let $w \in S(Q_n, \omega, l, M)$ . By Lemma \[MA-rep\], it suffices to show $$|\partial^+(w, x, Q_n)| \leq |\partial^+(w - q_s, x, Q_n)|,$$ for each $x \in Q_n$. Choose $p \in \partial^+(w, x)$, if this is not possible, we are done. Then, for each $y \in \bar{Q}_n$, $$\begin{aligned}
w(x) + (p - s x ) \cdot(y-x) + \frac{1}{2} s (|y|^2 - |x|^2) &= w(x) + p \cdot(y-x) - s x y + s |x|^2 + \frac{1}{2} s |y|^2 - \frac{1}{2} s |x|^2 \\
&\geq w(y) + \frac{1}{2} s |x - y|^2 \\
&\geq w(y).\end{aligned}$$ And so rearranging, we get $$w(x) - q_s(x) + (p - s x) \cdot(y-x) \geq w(y) -q_s(y),$$ meaning $p - sx \in \partial^+(w-q_s, x, Q_n)$. Since this holds for all $p \in \partial^+(w,x,Q_n)$, this implies $$|\partial^+(w, x, Q_n)| \leq |\partial^+(w - q_s, x, Q_n)|.$$ The proof for $\mu^*$ is identical.
In the next result, we show that if $\mu$ is strictly positive in the limit, then a subsolution must curve downwards in every direction.
\[strict-convexity\]
Suppose that $\alpha := \mu(l_M,M) > 0$. For each $\omega$ in a set $\Omega_{l,M}$ of full probability and $0 < \beta < 1$, there exists a constant $C := C_{\eta_{\min}, l, M, d, \beta, \omega}$ so that the following holds. For every Lipschitz subset $W$, $W_n := n W \cap \Z^d$, there exists $n_0 \in \N$ so that for all $n \geq n_0$, there exists $w_n \in S(W_{n}, \omega, l, M)$ so that for each $x_0 \in \{ \Gamma_{w_n} = w_n\} \cap W_{(1-\beta) n}$ and $p_0 \in \partial^+(w_n, x_0, W_n)$ $$w_n(y) \leq w_n(x_0) + p_0 \cdot (y-x) - C n^2$$ for all $y \in \partial W_n$.
By rescaling and approximation, it suffices to prove the claim for $W_n = Q_{n m}$. As $\alpha > 0$, by the subadditive ergodic theorem, we can choose a set of full probability $\Omega_{l,M}$, so that for each $\omega \in \Omega_{l,m}$ there exists $n_0, m$ so that for all $n \geq n_0$, there exists $w_n \in S(Q_{n m}, \omega, l, M)$ which satisfies $$\label{spreadout}
\frac{\alpha}{2} \leq \frac{ |\partial^+(\Gamma_{w_n},Q_m(x))|)}{|Q_m|} \leq \frac{\mu(Q_m(x))}{|Q_m|} \leq 2 \alpha \mbox{ for all $x$ with $Q_{m}(x) \subset Q_{n m}$},$$ (see for example Lemma 3.2 in [@armstrong2014stochastic]).
In light of Lemma \[stabilizing-legal\], we can assume $w \in S(Q_{n m}, \omega, l, M) \cap S^*(Q_{n m}, \omega, l,M)$. As $|\partial^+(w, Q_m)| > 0$, we can find $w_n(x_0) = \Gamma_{w_n}(x_0)$ with $|\partial^+(w_n,x_0)| > 0$. By a translation and affine transformation, we can suppose $\Gamma_{w_n}(x_0) = 0$, $0 \in \partial^+(\Gamma_{w_n}, x_0)$, and $x_0 = 0$. Then, it suffices to show $$\label{strict-concavity}
\Gamma_w(y) \leq - \alpha C n^2/m$$ for $y \in \partial Q_{n m}$.
Consider $\phi_n : B_{1-\beta}^{} \to \R$ which we define as a rescaled version of the inner part of the concave envelope, $$\phi_n:= \frac{1}{n^2 m^2} \Gamma_{w_n}( [n m x]), \mbox{ for $x \in Q_{n m \beta}$}.$$ By Lemma \[concaveregularity\] applied everywhere, $\phi_n$ is equicontinuous and uniformly bounded. Hence, for some subsequence, $\phi_n$ converges uniformly to a continuous, differentiable concave function $\phi$ with Lipschitz gradient. By the area formula for Lipschitz functions, this implies that for every Borel measurable $A \subset B_{1-\beta}^{}$, $$|\partial^+(\phi, A)| = \int_{A} \det -D^2 \phi(x) dx.$$ Further, by weak convergence of the Monge-Ampere measures (Lemma 2.2 in [@trudinger2008monge]), , and the Lebesgue differentiation theorem, $$C \geq \det -D^2 \phi \geq C \alpha.$$ This also implies by Lemma \[concaveregularity\] that $D^2 \phi \leq m \mbox{Id}$ and so $D^2 \phi \geq C \alpha/m \mbox{Id}$. Taking a further subsequence if necessary and undoing the scaling, we have .
We next use Lemma \[strict-convexity\] to show Lipschitz continuity of $\mu$.
\[continuity\] For each $\omega \in \Omega_{l,M}$, an event of probability 1, there exists a constant $C := C_{\eta_{\min}, l, M, d, \beta, \omega}$ so that for all $n \geq n_0$ and $0 < s < 1$, $$\mu(Q_{n}, \omega, l, M) \leq \mu(Q_{n}, \omega, l-s, M)+ s C |Q_{n}|.$$
Choose $\omega \in \Omega_{l,M}$ and C from Lemma \[strict-convexity\]. If $\mu(l,M) < C s$, taking $n$ larger if needed, we automatically have the bound by the ergodic theorem, so suppose not. We will show that after removing a portion of the square proportional to $s$, the set of slopes remaining must be in $\partial^+(w + q_s, Q_{n})$ for all $w$ close to achieving the supremum in $\mu(Q_{n}, \omega, l, M)$.Take $$A := Q_{C s n},$$ so that we can apply Lemma \[strict-convexity\] to all contact points $x \in A$. As a consequence, we can find $w \in S(Q_{n}, \omega, l, M)$ so that for every $x \in A$ with $\Gamma_{w}(x) = w(x)$ and $p \in \partial^+(w, x)$ for all $y \in \partial Q_n$, $$w(x) + p \cdot(y -x) \geq w(y) + q_s(y).$$ Hence, the argument in the proof of Lemma \[ABP\] shows that $p \in \partial^+(w + q_s, Q_{n m})$ and since this applies for all such $p$, $$\partial^+(w, A) \subseteq \partial^+(w + q_s, Q_{n}).$$ Further, using Lemma \[mu-is-bounded\], $$|\partial^+(w, Q_{n} \backslash A)| \leq s C |Q_{n}|,$$ which completes the proof.
Due to Lemma \[sub-additive-ergodic\], the above results show continuity of the limiting $\mu$ at each fixed $l$. Repeating this for every rational $l$ in the interval specified by Lemma \[mu-is-bounded\] and using the intermediate value theorem, we can choose the largest $l_M \in \R$ so that in the limit, $$\mu(l_M, M) = \mu^*(l_M,M),$$ then define the [*effective equation*]{} uniquely as $$\bar{F}_{\eta}(M) = l_M.$$
Basic properties of the effective equation.
-------------------------------------------
Here we show that the effective equation is bounded, degenerate elliptic, and Lipschitz continuous. This together with the fact any legal stabilizing toppling function has bounded Laplacian is enough to ensure that we have a comparison principle for solutions to the effective equation (see, for example, [@roberts1995fully] and the proof in Section \[subsec:proof\_of\_theorem\]).
For every $M, N \in \symm^d$, the following hold.
1. Degenerate elliptic: If $M \leq N$, $\bar{F}_{\eta}(M) \geq \bar{F}_{\eta}(N)$.
2. Lipschitz continuous: $|\bar{F}_{\eta}(M) - \bar{F}_{\eta}(N)| \leq C |M-N|_2$.
3. Bounded: $|\bar{F}_{\eta}(M)| < \infty$.
We show the first inequality. Suppose $N = M + A$ with $A \geq 0$. The proof of Lemma \[monotonicity\], using $q_A \geq 0$ in place of $q_s \geq 0$, shows that $\mu(l_M, M+A) \geq \mu(l_M, M)$ and $\mu^*(l_M, M+A) \leq \mu(l_M, M) = 0$. Hence, $l_{M+A} \leq l_M$ and so $\bar{F}_{\eta}(M+A) \leq \bar{F}_{\eta}(M)$.
For the second inequality, first rewrite, $$\mu(l_M, M) = \mu(l_M, N + (M-N)) = \mu(l_M - |M-N|_2, N + (M-N) + |M-N|_2 I ),$$ then observe that $(M-N) + |M-N|_2 I \geq 0$. Hence, by the argument in the first paragraph, $$\mu(l_M - |M-N|_2, N + \left( (M-N) + |M-N|_2 I \right) ), \geq \mu(l_M - |M-N|_2, N),$$ and so $$0 = \mu(l_M, M) \geq \mu(l_M - |M-N|_2, N).$$ Similarly, $$0 = \mu^*(l_M,M) \geq \mu^*(l_M + |M-N|_2, N),$$ meaning $$|\bar{F}_{\eta}(M) - \bar{F}_{\eta}(N)| \leq 2 |M-N|_2.$$ The last statement follows due to the construction of $\bar{F}_{\eta}$ using Lemma \[mu-is-bounded\].
Proof of the Theorem {#sec:proof_of_theorem}
====================
For each $n$, recall that $$v_n = \min \{ v : \Z^d \to \N: \Delta_{\Z^d} v_n + \eta I(\cdot \in W_n) \leq 2 d-1 \},$$ is the odometer function for the sandpile on $W_n$ with the [*open*]{} boundary condition and $\bar{v}_n = n^{-2} v_n([n x])$ is its rescaled linear interpolation. We start by showing that $\bar{v}_n$ is equicontinuous and bounded. Then, we show that the high density assumption, $\E(\eta(0)) > 2 d -1$, implies $v_n \geq 1$ in $W_{n - o(n)}$, enabling an essential tool in the proof of Lemma \[flat\], (Dhar’s burning algorithm, Lemma \[burning\]). We then conclude by showing that every scaled subsequence converges to the same limit.
An upper bound on the odometer function.
----------------------------------------
\[compactness\] For every subsequence $n_k \to \infty$ there is a subsequence $n_{k_j}$ and a function $\bar{v} \in C(\R^d)$ so that $\bar{v}_{n_{k_j}} \to \bar{v}$ uniformly as $j \to \infty$.
We show boundedness of $\bar{v}_n$ by constructing a toppling function which stabilizes $\eta_{\max}$ and hence $\eta$. Since $\eta_{\max}$ is constant, we can stabilize by toppling one dimension at a time, a trick from [@fey2010growth], and restated below for the reader. (Note one could also compare to the divisible sandpile as in [@levine2009strong] to get a tighter bound).
Let $\ell \in \N$ be given. Pick $k \in \N$ so that $R_k := \eta_{\max} - (2d-k) = 2 r $ for some $r \in \N$. Then, there exists $g: \Z \to \N$ so that $$\Delta_{\Z^d} g = f,$$ where $f: \Z \to \Z$ is given by $$f(x) =
\begin{cases}
-R_k &\mbox{ for $|x| \leq \ell$ } \\
2 &\mbox{ for $\ell < |x| \leq \ell(r + 1) $} \\
1 &\mbox{ for $\ell(r+1) < |x| \leq \ell(r+1) + r$}
\end{cases}$$ Moreover, $g$ is supported in $I = \{ x \in \Z: |x| < \ell(r+1) + r\}$ and there exists $C:= C_{r}$ for which $$\label{quadratic bound}
g(x) \leq C x^2.$$
Cover $W_n$ with a box of side length $C_{d, W} n$ for some $C_{d, W} \in \N$. Choose $g$ from the above with $\ell = C_{d, W} n$ and for $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_d) \in \Z^d$, define $$u_i(x) = g(x_i),$$ and observe that by definition of $g$, $\Delta_{\Z^d} u_i+ \eta_{\max} \leq 2 d -1$. Hence, by the least action principle, as $\min(u_1, \ldots, u_d)$ is also stabilizing, $$v_n(x) \leq \min(u_1(x), \ldots, u_d(x)) \leq C_d |x|^2.$$ Hence, $\bar{v}_n \leq C_d$ and is supported in $Q_{C_{d,W} n}$. We have equicontinuity since $|\Delta_{\Z^d} v_n| \leq C_{d, \eta_{\min}, \eta_{\max}}$ ([@kuo2005estimates]). The Arzela-Ascoli theorem now implies the claim.
A lower bound on the odometer function.
---------------------------------------
In this subsection, we use a comparison principle argument to show that on an event of probability 1, $v_n \geq 1$ in $Q_{n - o(n)}$ As a corollary, this argument gives a quantitative proof of the (now classical) fact that if $\E(\eta(0)) > 2 d -1$ then $\eta$ is almost surely [*exploding*]{}, (see [@fey2009stabilizability]). The technique takes inspiration from Lemma 4.2 in [@levine2009strong]. In essence, the proof is a comparison of $v_n$ with the odometer function for the random divisible sandpile with threshold $2 d-1$. See Section \[sec:divisible\_sandpile\] for more on the random divisible sandpile, including a proof of convergence which uses Lemma \[divisible\_homogenize\].
We start by briefly recalling the Green’s function for simple random walk on $\Z^d$ and its estimates, these results can be found in [@lawler2010random; @levine2010scaling]. Let $S_n$ be simple random walk started at the origin in $\Z^d$ and for $d \geq 3$, let $$G(x) = \frac{1}{2d } \E \sum_{n=0}^\infty I(S_n = x),$$ and for $d = 2$, let $$a(x) = \frac{1}{4} \sum_{n = 0 }^\infty [P(S_n = 0) - P(S_n = x) ].$$ Next, define for each $n \in \N$, $$g_{n}(x) = \begin{cases}
-a(x) + a( n e_1) &\mbox{ for $d = 2$} \\
G(x) - G(n e_1) &\mbox{ for $d \geq 3$},
\end{cases}$$ so that $$\Delta_{\Z^d} g_n = -\delta_0.$$ We use the following asymptotic estimate on $g_n$ $$\label{asymptotic}
g_n(x) = \begin{cases}
- C_d \log |x| - a(n e_1) + O(|x|^{-2}) &\mbox{ for $d = 2$} \\
C_d |x|^{2-d} + G(ne_1) + O(|x|^{-d}) &\mbox{ for $d \geq 3$},
\end{cases}$$ and the following difference estimate, $$\label{difference}
|g_n(x) - g_n(x + e_i) | \leq C_d |x|^{1-d}.$$ Next, define for each $n$ $$r_n(x) := \sum_{y \in Q_{n}} g_{n}(x - y) \eta(y),$$ $$d_n(x) := \sum_{y \in Q_{n}} g_{n}(x - y) \E(\eta(0)).$$ The next lemma uses these estimates together with the ergodic theorem to show that $r_n$ and $d_n$ are identical in the scaling limit.
\[divisible\_homogenize\] For each $\omega \in \tilde{\Omega}_0$, an event of probability 1, there is a constant $C: = C_{d, \omega}$ so that the following holds. For each $\epsilon > 0$, there exist $ n_0 \in \N$ so that for all $n \geq n_0$, $$\label{eq:divisible_homogenize}
\sup_{x \in \bar{Q}_{n}} \left| r_n(x) -d_n(x) \right| \leq \epsilon C n^2$$
Let $\epsilon > 0$ be given. By the multiparameter ergodic theorem, on an event of full probability, $\tilde{\Omega}_0$, for $\omega \in \tilde{\Omega}_0$, we can find $m$ and $n_0$ so that for all $n \geq n_0$, $$\label{ergodic}
|Q_m| \left( \E(\eta(0)) - \epsilon \right) \leq \sum_{y \in Q_m(x)} \eta(y) \leq |Q_m| \left( \E(\eta(0)) + \epsilon \right) \mbox{ for all $Q_m(x) \subset Q_{m n }$}.$$ By approximation we then consider $Q_{n m}$ instead of $Q_n$ so that $$\label{eq1}
r_n(x) - d_n(x) = \sum_{Q_m \subset Q_{m n }} \sum_{y \in Q_m} g_{n m}(x - y) (\eta(y) - \E(\eta(0))),$$ where the outer sum is over a fixed partition of disjoint cubes of radius $m$ which cover $Q_{n m}$. The rest of the argument is roughly the following. Imagine a non-random sandpile, $\eta_{avg}$, in which $\E(\eta(0))$ grains of sand are at each coordinate in $\Z^d$. In each small cube, $Q_m$, we try to rearrange the grains of sand in the random sandpile, $\eta$, to match the deterministic sandpile $\eta_{avg}$. It’s possible that there aren’t enough grains to do this, so at this point, we then add just enough grains to turn it into $\eta_{avg}$. By , we only need to add at most an additional $\epsilon |Q_m|$ grains of sand. Hence, by the asymptotic estimate, the total cost associated with adding grains is of order $\epsilon O(n^2)$, by the difference estimate, the total cost of rearranging grains is of order $o(n^2)$, leading to .
Here are the details, start by fixing $x \in \bar{Q}_{n m}$. As estimates for $g_n(\cdot)$ blow up near the origin, we start by removing a constant number of cubes which are close to $x$ from consideration, $$A _x= \{ Q_m \subset Q_{m n} : \inf_{y \in Q_m} |x-y| \leq m \}.$$ We can provide a rough upper bound on the contribution from these cubes in , using $\sup_{x \in Q_{m}} g_{n m}(x) = C_d n m$ to get, $$\label{close}
\sum_{Q_m \in A_x} \sum_{y \in Q_m} g_{n m}(x - y) (\eta(y) - \E(\eta(0))) \leq C_d n m |Q_m| (\eta_{max} + \E(\eta(0))) = o(n^2).$$ Next consider any cube, $Q_m$, in $A_x^c$ and iterate so that $$\sup_{z,y \in Q_m} |g_{n m}(z) - g_{n m }(y)| \leq C_d m \sup_{z \in Q_m} |z|^{1-d},$$ and note that an integral approximation of yields $$\sum_{y \in Q_{n m}} g_{n m} (x-y) = C_{d} n^2$$ Putting this all together and making another integral approximation, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{Q_m \subset Q_{m n }} \sum_{y \in Q_m} g_{n m }(x-y) \eta(y) &\leq \epsilon C n^2 + C n m + \sum_{Q_m \subset Q_{m n}} \sum_{y \in Q_m} g_{n m }(x-y) \E(\eta(0)) \\
&= \epsilon C n^2 + \sum_{Q_m \subset Q_{m n}} \sum_{y \in Q_m} g_{n m }(x-y) \E(\eta(0)).
\end{aligned}$$ The other direction follows similarly.
We next use this to provide the desired lower bound on $v_n$.
\[lowerbound\] For each $\omega \in \tilde{\Omega}_0$, an event of probability 1, and each $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $n_0$ so that for all $n \geq n_0$, the odometer function $v_n$ for $\eta$ in $Q_{n}$ satisfies $$v_n \geq 1 \mbox{ for all $x \in Q_{(1-\epsilon)n}$}$$
Let $\epsilon > 0$ be given and $$\delta' := \left( \E(\eta(0)) - 2 d - 1\right) > 0.$$ Choose $\tilde{\Omega}_0$, $C$, and $n_0$ from Lemma \[divisible\_homogenize\] with $\epsilon' > 0$ small to be chosen below. Let $v_n$ be the odometer function for $\eta$ restricted to $B_{n}$, $$v_n \in \mathcal{L}(\eta, B_{n}) \cap \mathcal{S}(\eta,B_{n}) \mbox{ and $v_n = 0$ on $\partial B_{n}$}.$$ Redefine, $$r_n(x) := \sum_{y \in B_{n}} g_{n}(x - y) \eta(y),$$ $$d_n(x) := \sum_{y \in B_{n}} g_{n}(x - y) \E(\eta(0)),$$ so that the scaling limit of $d_n$ is radially symmetric.
As $v_n - r_n - q_{2 d- 1}$ is superharmonic in $B_{n}$, for $x \in B_{n}$, $$v_n(x) - r_n - q_{2 d -1} \geq \min_{ y \in \partial B_{n}} v_n(y) -r_n(y)- q_{2 d - 1} ,$$ then since $v_n = 0$ on $\partial B_{n}$, we have $$v_n -r_n(x) - q_{2 d - 1} \geq -(2d-1) \frac{1}{2} n^2 + \min_{y \in \partial B_{n}} -r_n(y)+ o(n^2).$$ Radial symmetry of the scaling limit of $d_n$ and Lemma \[divisible\_homogenize\] implies that $$\begin{aligned}
v_n(x) &\geq d_n(x) + q_{2 d- 1} -(2d-1) \frac{1}{2} n^2 + \min_{y \in \partial B_{n}} -d_n(y)+ \epsilon' C n^2 \\
&= d_n(x) + q_{2d - 1} -(2d-1) \frac{1}{2} n^2 + \epsilon' C n^2 \end{aligned}$$ We also know that $$d_n(x) + q_{2 d - 1 + \delta'}$$ is superharmonic in $B_{n}$ and so $$d_n(x) + q_{ 2 d- 1 + \delta'} \geq \min_{ y \in \partial B_{n}} d_n(y) + (2d-1 + \delta') n^2/2$$ Using again $d_n(y) = o(n^2)$ on $\partial B_{n}$, $$v_n(x) \geq \delta'/2 (n^2 - |x|^2) + \epsilon' C n^2.$$ In particular, we can choose $\epsilon'$ small and $n$ large so that so that $$v_n(x) \geq 1$$ for $x \in B_{(1-\epsilon) n}$ . The extension to $Q_{(1-\epsilon) n}$ is done by a covering argument and the Abelian property.
A comparison principle in the limit
-----------------------------------
In order to compare subsequential limits of odometer functions for different realizations of the random sandpile we must show that $\mu(l_M, M) = \mu^*(l_M,M) = 0$. The argument is roughly this: if both $\mu$ and $\mu^*$ are strictly positive in the limit, then there is a subsolution and supersolution whose difference bends upwards in every direction. However, when there are enough topples, this difference obeys a comparison principle on the microscopic scale, due to Proposition \[burning\], and so this cannot happen.
\[flat\] $\mu(l_M,M) = \mu^*(l_M,M) = 0$
We will show that it is impossible for both $\mu(l_M,M)$ and $\mu^*(l_M,M)$ to be strictly positive. Suppose for sake of contradiction that $\mu(l_M, M) = \mu^*(l_M,M) = \alpha > 0$. Then, by Lemma \[stabilizing-legal\], there exist legal, stabilizing toppling functions $u$ and $v$ for which Lemma \[strict-convexity\] holds. Moreoever, as $\mu$ is invariant under affine transformations, we can find affine functions $L_u$ and $L_v$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{positive}
&\inf_{x \in B_{n}} -(u - q_{M} + L_u)(x) = (u - q_{M} + L_u)(x_0) = 0 \\
&\inf_{x \in B_{n}} (v - q_{M} + L_v)(x) = (u - q_{M} + L_v)(x_0^*) = 0 \nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ for some $x_0, x_0^* \in Q_m \subset B_n$, where $m \in \N$ is large, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{curveup}
& -(u - q_{M} + L_u) \geq C n^2 \mbox{ on } \partial B_{n} \\
& (v - q_{M} + L_v) \geq C n^2 \mbox{ on } \partial B_{n} \nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
Now, use the Abelian property, Proposition \[Abelian\], to decompose $u$ and $v$ into the initial toppling of $\eta$ and then topplings originating from the boundary, $u = u_1 + w$ and $v = v_1 + w$. Due to Lemma \[lowerbound\] and Proposition \[recurrent\], (moving the boundary of the ball inwards if necessary and accumulating an $o(n^2)$ error), $\Delta_{\Z^d} w + \eta$ is recurrent. Now, approximate $L_v(x) = p \cdot x +r$ by $$\tilde{L}_v(x) = [p] \cdot x + [r],$$ an integer-valued function, (this approximation also incurs an $o(n^2)$ error). Repeat for $L_u$ with $\tilde{L}_u$. Hence, by Proposition \[burning\] and $$\begin{aligned}
\left( (v + \tilde{L}_v - q_M) - (u + \tilde{L}_u - q_M) \right)(0) &= \left( (v_1 + \tilde{L}_v )- (u_1 + \tilde{L}_u) \right)(0) \\
&\geq \inf_{y \in \partial B_{n}} \left( (v_1 + \tilde{L}_v )- (u_1 + \tilde{L}_u) \right)(y) \\
&= \inf_{y \in \partial B_{n}} \left( (v + L_v - q_M)- (u + L_u - q_M) \right)(y) - o(n^2) \\
&\geq C n^2.\end{aligned}$$ However, this contradicts the Harnack inequality for $n$ large. Indeed, due to and $$\max(|\Delta_{\Z^d} (v - q_{M} + L_v)|, |\Delta_{\Z^d} (u - q_{M} + L_u))| \leq C,$$ we can apply the Harnack inequality, Lemma \[harnack\], to see $$\label{small}
\left( (v + L_v - q_M) - (u + L_u - q_M) \right)(0) \leq C m^2,$$ as $x_0, x_0^* \in Q_m$.
Proof of Theorem \[thetheorem\] {#subsec:proof_of_theorem}
-------------------------------
Choose $\Omega_0$ to be the intersection of $\Omega_{l,M}$ in Lemma \[sub-additive-ergodic\] over all $l \in \R$ and $M \in \symm^d$ with rational entries and $\tilde{\Omega}_0$ from Lemma \[lowerbound\]. Pick $\omega, \omega' \in \Omega_0$ and choose respectively two subsequences $\bar{v}_n$ and $\bar{v}_n'$ which converge uniformly to $v$ and $v'$. Suppose for sake of contradiction that $v \not = v'$. Since $v = v' = 0$ outside $B_R$ for some $R > 0$, we may assume without loss of generality that $$\sup_{B_R} (v - v') > 0 = \sup_{\partial B_R} (v - v')$$ We restate for the reader results contained in [@pegden2013convergence].
[@pegden2013convergence] \[regularity\]
1. There exists $a \in \R^d$ either in $W$ or outside the closure of $W$ so that $v(a) > v'(a)$, both $v$ and $v'$ are twice differentiable at $a$ and $D^2(v - v')(a) < -\delta I'$ for some $\delta > 0$.
2. For each $\epsilon > 0$, if $a$ is outside the closure of $W$, we may select $u : \Z^d \to \Z$ such that $$\Delta_{\Z^d} u(x) \leq 2 d -1 \mbox{ and } u(x) \geq \frac{1}{2} x^T (D^2 v(a) - \epsilon I) x \mbox { for all $x \in \Z^d$ }.$$
3. For each $\epsilon > 0$, if $a$ is in $W$, we may select $u: \Z^d \to \Z$ such that $$\Delta_{\Z^d} u(x) \leq 2 d -1 \mbox{ and } u(x) \geq \frac{1}{2} x^T (D^2 v(a) - \epsilon I) x + o(|x|^2) \mbox { for all $x \in \Z^d$ }.$$
The first and second statements are Lemma 4.1 and Proposition 2.5 in [@pegden2013convergence]. We sketch the third. For each $\epsilon > 0$, the proof of Lemma 4.1 in [@pegden2013convergence] gives a function $$u : \Z^d \to \Z$$ with $$u(x) \geq \frac{1}{2} x^T (D^2 v(x_0) - \epsilon I) x.$$ and $$\Delta_{\Z^d} u + \tilde{\eta} \leq 2 d -1$$ where $\tilde{\eta}$ is a periodic tiling of $\eta$ in $B_{ r n }$ for some $r > 0$ and $n \in \N$ large. Due to the ergodic theorem, picking $n$ larger if necessary, we have $$\sum_{x \in B_{r n}} \eta(x) \geq 2 d -1$$ Hence, by Rossin’s observation [@levine2016apollonian], as a sandpile configuration on $\Z^d$, $\Delta_{\Z^d} u$ is stabilizable, and so by toppling it, we find a bounded $w: \Z^d \to \N$ so that $$\Delta_{\Z^d} (u + w) \leq 2 d -1,$$ and $(u + w)(x) = q_{D^2 v(a) - \epsilon}(x)+ o(|x|^2)$.
If $a \in \R^d$ is outside the closure of $W$, the argument in Theorem 4.2 in [@pegden2013convergence] which uses Lemma \[regularity\] leads to a contradiction. So, it suffices to suppose $a \in W$. In this case, we cannot use the same argument to compare $v$ and $v'$ as they stabilize (possibly) different random sandpiles. Instead, we use $\mu$ to compare the two.
Since $v'$ is twice differentiable at $a$, by Taylor’s theorem, $$v'(x) = \phi(x) + o(|x-a|^2)$$ where $$q_M + L_{\phi} := \phi(x) := v'(a) + D v'(a) \cdot (x - a) + \frac{1}{2} (x - a)^T D^2 v'(a)(x - a)$$ Pick the unique $l := \bar{F}_{\eta}(D^2 v'(a)) \in \R$ so that $$\mu(l, D^2 v'(a)) = \mu^*(l, D^2 v'(a)) = 0.$$ Then, by Lemma \[ABP\], (recalling that $\mu$ is invariant under affine transformations), for all small $r > 0$, $$\max_{x \in B_{r n}(a)} \left( v_n - q_M - n L_\phi -q_l \right)(x) \leq \max_{y \in \partial B_{r n}(a)} \left( v_n - q_M - n L_\phi - q_l \right)(y) + C_d n \mu(B_{r n}, \omega, 0, M)^{1/d}.$$ And so, after rescaling, $$\max_{x \in n^{-1} B_{r n}(a)} \left( \bar{v}_n - \phi - q_l \right)(x) \leq \max_{y \in \partial n^{-1} B_{r n}(a)} \left( \bar{v}_n - \phi - q_l \right)(y) + \left( \frac{C_d n \mu(B_{r n}, \omega, 0, M)^{1/d} }{n^2}\right)$$ which implies by uniform convergence of $\bar{v}_n \to v$ and the ergodic theorem, $$\sup_{x \in B_r^{}(a)} \left( v- \phi - q_l \right)(x) \leq \sup_{y \in \partial B_{r} (a) } \left( v - \phi - q_l \right)(y).$$ In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{almost_strict_max}
(v - v' - q_l)(a) &= (v - \phi - q_l)(a) \\ \nonumber
&\leq \sup_{y \in \partial B_{r} (a) } \left( v - \phi - q_l \right)(y) \\ \nonumber
&= \sup_{y \in \partial B_{r} (a) } \left( v - v' - q_l \right)(y) + o(r^2) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Suppose $l \leq 0$, then implies that that $$(v - v' )(a) \leq \sup_{y \in \partial B_{r} (a) } \left( v - v' \right)(y) + o(r^2) - l/2 r^2$$ however, for small $r > 0$, this contradicts that $v-v'$ has a strict local maximum at $a$, and so $l > 0$. Then by the ergodic theorem applied to $\mu^*$ and the other part of Lemma \[ABP\], $$(v' - \phi)(a) \geq \inf_{y \in \partial B_{r}(a)} (v' -\phi)(a) + l/2 r^2 - o(r^2).$$ However, since $v'$ is twice differentiable at $a$, $$(v' - \phi)(a) \leq \inf_{y \in \partial B_{r}(a)} (v' - \phi)(a) + o(r^2),$$ a contradiction for small $r > 0$.
Convergence of the random divisible sandpile {#sec:divisible_sandpile}
============================================
One of the challenges involved in the Abelian sandpile model is the integrality constraint on the odometer function. In the [*divisible sandpile*]{} model, this constraint is relaxed and sites are allowed to topple a fractional number of times. This relaxation enables the use of Green’s functions estimates which leads to a more direct proof of convergence.
Description of the divisible sandpile.
--------------------------------------
We briefly describe the divisible sandpile, referring the interested reader to [@levine2010scaling; @levine2016divisible] for more details. Begin with some, possibly fractional, distribution of sand and holes, $\eta_0 : \Z^d \to \R$. A site $x \in \Z^d$ is unstable whenever $\eta_0(x) > 1$, in which case the [*excess mass*]{}, $1 - \eta_0(x)$, is equally distributed among the neighbors of $x$ until every site is stable. The odometer function, $v_0$, then counts the total mass emitted by each site. Here, the starting point is also a discrete obstacle problem: the [*least action principle for the divisible sandpile*]{}.
$v_0 = \min\{ f: \Z^d \to \R^+: \Delta_{\Z^d} f + \eta_0 \leq 1 \}$.
Convergence of the odometer function
------------------------------------
As in Section 2, we consider a stationary, ergodic, probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbf{P})$, with $\Omega$ the set of all bounded backgrounds, $$\eta_0 : \Z^d \to \R$$ for which $$\sup_{x \in \Z^d} \eta_0(x) < \infty.$$ In this case, we do not require $\eta$ to be high density, but we do assume for simplicity uniform boundedness: there exists $\eta_{\min_0}, \eta_{\max_0} \in \R$ so that for every $x \in \Z^d$, $$\mathbf{P}\left[ \eta_{\min_0} \leq \eta_0(x) \leq \eta_{\max_0} \right] = 1.$$ Let $W \subset \R^d$ be a bounded Lipschitz subset. For each $n \in \N$, let $W_n = \Z^d \cap n W$ denote the discrete approximation of $V$. Initialize the sandpile according to $\eta_0(x)$ in $W_n$ and let $v_{n_0}$ be its odometer function. Next, consider the averaged initial sandpile, $$\eta_{avg} := \E \eta(0),$$ and the corresponding odometer function, $v_{avg_n}$ for $\eta_{avg}$ in $W_n$. For the reader’s convenience, we restate Lemma \[divisible\_homogenize\]. Let $$r_n(x) := \sum_{y \in W_{n}} g_{n}(x - y) \eta(y),$$ $$d_n(x) := \sum_{y \in W_{n}} g_{n}(x - y) \E(\eta(0)).$$
\[divisible\_homogenize2\] There exists a constant $C := C_d$ so that on an event of full probability, for each $\epsilon > 0$, there exist $n_0 \in \N$ so that for all $n \geq n_0$, $$\label{eq2}
\sup_{x \in \bar{W}_{n}} \left| r_n(x) -d_n(x) \right| \leq \epsilon C_d n^2$$
Levine and Peres showed in [@levine2010scaling] that $\bar{v}_{avg_n}$ converges uniformly to the solution of a certain continuous obstacle problem. So, in order to show that $\bar{v}_n$ has a scaling limit, it suffices to show that it stays close to $\bar{v}_{avg_n}$ for all large $n$. Most of the work for this proof is done in Lemma \[divisible\_homogenize2\], all that’s left is a use of the least action principle for the divisible sandpile.
\[divisible\_theorem\] On an event of full probability, as $n \to \infty$, the rescaled functions $\bar{v}_n:= n^{-2} v_n([n x])$ and $\bar{v}_{avg_n}:= n^{-2} v_{avg_n}([n x])$ converge uniformly together, $$\sup_{x \in n^{-1} \bar{W}_n} |\bar{v}_n(x) - \bar{v}_{avg_n}(x)| \to 0.$$
By definition, $$\Delta_{\Z^d} v_n + \eta \leq 1,$$ which can be rewritten as $$\Delta_{\Z^d} (v_n - (r_n - d_n)) + \eta_{avg} \leq 1.$$ Let $\epsilon > 0$ be given. For $n$ large, Lemma \[divisible\_homogenize2\] implies $-(r_n - d_n) + \epsilon C n^2$ is positive in $W_n$. Hence, by the least action principle in $W_n$, $$v_n - (r_n - d_n) + \epsilon C n^2 \geq v_{avg_n}$$ and so, $$v_n - v_{avg_n} \geq (r_n - d_n) - \epsilon C n^2.$$ Scale and invoke Lemma \[divisible\_homogenize2\] again to see that $$\bar{v}_n - \bar{v}_{avg_n} \geq \epsilon C.$$ The other direction is identical.
Concluding remarks {#sec:conclusion}
==================
We conclude with some straightforward extensions of our results and open questions.
Single-source sandpile on a random background
---------------------------------------------
![Start with $10^7$ chips at the origin in $\Z^2$ with an iid Bernoulli(0,-1,1/2) background and stabilize. What’s displayed is an approximation of the weak-\* limit.[]{data-label="fig_SS_rand"}](G_SS_rand1-_AVG.png){width="80.00000%"}
Arguments as in [@pegden2013convergence] and this paper show that single-source sandpiles on random backgrounds also have scaling limits. See Figure \[fig\_SS\_rand\] for an example.
Let $v_n$ be the odometer function for the sandpile with $n$ chips at the origin and an almost surely bounded, not exploding, stationary ergodic random background, $\eta$: $$v_n \in \mathcal{L}(\eta + n \delta_0 , \Z^d) \cap \mathcal{S}(\eta + n \delta_0, \Z^d) .$$ Almost surely, as $n \to \infty$, the rescaled functions $\bar{v}_n:= n^{-2/d} v_n([n^{1/d} x])$ converge locally uniformly away from the origin to the unique solution $\bar{v} \in C(\R^d \backslash \{0\})$ of the obstacle problem $$\bar{v} := \min\{ w \in C(\R^d \backslash \{0\}) | w \geq 0, \Delta w + \delta_0 \leq 2 d-1, \mbox{and } \bar{F}_\eta(D^2 w) \leq 0\},$$ where $\bar{F}_\eta$ is a unique degenerate elliptic operator, the minimum is taken pointwise, and the differential inclusion is interpreted in the viscosity sense.
Sandpiles with closed boundaries
--------------------------------
The same argument given in this paper also works for sandpiles with the closed boundary condition.
Let $W$ be a bounded Lipschitz subset and let $v_n$ be the odometer function for the sandpile $W_n := \Z^d \cap n W$ with the closed boundary condition: $$v_n \in \mathcal{L}(\eta, W_n) \cap \mathcal{S}(\eta, W_n) \mbox{ and } v_n = 0 \mbox{ on $\partial W_n$}.$$ Almost surely, as $n \to \infty$, the rescaled functions $\bar{v}_n:= n^{-2} v_n([n x])$ converge uniformly to the unique viscosity solution $\bar{v} \in C(\R^d)$ of the deterministic equation $$\begin{cases}
\bar{F}_{\eta}(D^2 \bar{v} ) = 0 &\mbox{ in $W$} \\
\bar{v} = 0 &\mbox{ on $\partial W$},
\end{cases}$$ where $\bar{F}_\eta$ is a unique degenerate elliptic operator.
![Start with an iid Bernoulli(3,5,1/2) sandpile configuration and stabilize with the closed boundary condition. Darker reds are closer to 2 while lighter reds are closer to 3. The displays are approximations of the weak-\* limits.[]{data-label="closed_boundary"}](averaged_little_NonConvexrand2.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}\
![Start with an iid Bernoulli(3,5,1/2) sandpile configuration and stabilize with the closed boundary condition. Darker reds are closer to 2 while lighter reds are closer to 3. The displays are approximations of the weak-\* limits.[]{data-label="closed_boundary"}](averagedNonConvexRand2.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![Start with an iid Bernoulli(3,5,1/2) sandpile configuration and stabilize with the closed boundary condition. Darker reds are closer to 2 while lighter reds are closer to 3. The displays are approximations of the weak-\* limits.[]{data-label="closed_boundary"}](averagedRand2.png "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
Note that $\bar{F}_\eta$ is the [*same*]{} operator appearing in the limit for the open boundary sandpile. For example, if the background is is the product Bernoulli measure, simulations reveal interesting pictures. These may help in characterizing $\bar{F}_\eta$ - see Figure \[closed\_boundary\].
Sandpiles with $\E(\eta(0)) \leq 2 d -1$
----------------------------------------
![A heat map of the odometer function for a Bernoulli(0,4,1/2) initial sandpile with $p = 0.528$ started in a circle of radius $6 \cdot 10^3$ with the open boundary condition. Note that $\E(\eta(0)) = 2.122 < 17/8$.[]{data-label="fig_percolation"}](percolation_pic_0528_compressed.png){width="80.00000%"}
The high density assumption, $\E(\eta(0)) > 2 d -1$, was used in two places in the paper. The first was to ensure that after stabilizing $\eta$ in a sufficiently large initial domain what is left is close to a recurrent configuration. The second was to show that solutions to $\bar{F}_{\eta}(D^2 \bar{v}) \leq 0$ also satisfy $\bar{F}_0(D^2 \bar{v}) \leq 0$.
For the first usage, we can replace the assumption on $\E(\eta(0))$ by assuming that after toppling in nested volumes and removing an $o(n)$ portion of the boundary $\eta$ is recurrent. For example, for each $p \in [0,1]$, the following random sandpile on $\Z^2$ has a scaling limit by our argument as it is always recurrent, $$\eta(x) = \begin{cases}
2 \mbox{ with probability $p$} \\
4 \mbox{ with probability $1 - p$}.
\end{cases}$$
For the second usage, it suffices to use the weaker bound $\E(\eta(0)) \geq d$. And in fact, if $\E(\eta(0)) < d$, the sandpile is almost surely stabilizable. This implies, by conservation of density, (Lemma 2.10 in [@fey2009stabilizability], Lemma 3.2 in [@levine2016divisible]), that the stable sandpiles converge weakly\* to $\E(\eta(0))$ and so $\bar{v}_n \to 0$.
This still leaves unaddressed sandpiles with $\E(\eta(0)) \in [d, 2d-1]$ which are not stabilizable, but also not close to a recurrent configuration. We believe, but cannot prove, that all such sandpiles have odometer functions with subquadratic growth. See Figure \[fig\_percolation\] for an example of what could be such a sandpile.
Characterizing the effective equation.
--------------------------------------
Recently L. Levine, W. Pegden, and C. Smart characterized $\bar{F}_0$ on $\Z^2$ as the downwards closure of an Apollonian circle packing [@levine2016apollonian; @levine2017apollonian]. Then, W. Pegden and C. Smart explained the microscale structure of the sandpile on $\Z^2$ by establishing a rate of the convergence to the continuum obstacle problem and showing pattern stability [@pegden2017stability].
Analogous results for $\bar{F}_{\eta}$ are currently out of reach. Numerical evidence indicates that $\bar{F}_{\eta}$ is not the Laplacian; one reason for this may be the extra log factor in the mixing time of the sandpile Markov chain, see the recent work by B. Hough, D. Jerison, and L. Levine [@hough2019sandpiles]. Lemma \[regularity\] also shows that solutions to $\bar{F}_\eta(D^2 v ) \leq 0$ also satisfy $\bar{F}_0(D^2 v) \leq 0$. However, a finer characterization of the effective equation is yet to be seen.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
In this appendix we include some of the proofs omitted in the main text.
Sandpiles {#sandpiles .unnumbered}
---------
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We use variational arguments to introduce a notion of mean curvature for surfaces in the Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ endowed with its Carnot-Carathéodory distance. By analyzing the first variation of area, we characterize $C^2$ area-stationary surfaces as those with mean curvature zero (or constant if a volume-preserving condition is assumed) and such that the characteristic curves meet orthogonally the singular curves. Moreover, a Minkowski type formula relating the area, the mean curvature, and the volume is obtained for volume-preserving area-stationary surfaces enclosing a given region.
As a consequence of the characterization of area-stationary surfaces, we refine the Bernstein type theorem given in [@chmy] and [@gp] to describe entire area-stationary graphs over the $xy$-plane in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. A calibration argument shows that these graphs are globally area-minimizing.
Finally, by using the description of the singular set in [@chmy], the characterization of area-stationary surfaces, and the ruling property of constant mean curvature surfaces, we prove our main results where we classify volume-preserving area-stationary surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with non-empty singular set. In particular, we deduce the following counterpart to Alexandrov uniqueness theorem in Euclidean space: any compact, connected, $C^2$ surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, area-stationary under a volume constraint, must be congruent with a rotationally symmetric sphere obtained as the union of all the geodesics of the same curvature joining two points. As a consequence, we solve the isoperimetric problem in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ assuming $C^2$ smoothness of the solutions.
address:
- |
Departamento de Geometría y Topología\
Universidad de Granada\
E–18071 Granada\
España
- |
Departamento de Geometría y Topología\
Universidad de Granada\
E–18071 Granada\
España
author:
- Manuel Ritoré
- César Rosales
title: |
Area-stationary surfaces\
in the Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$
---
[^1]
**Introduction** {#sec:intro}
================
In the last years the study of variational questions in sub-Riemannian geometry has received an increasing interest. In particular, the desire to achieve a better understanding of global variational questions involving the area, such as the *Plateau problem* or the *isoperimetric problem*, has motivated the recent development of a theory of *constant mean curvature surfaces* in the *Heisenberg group* ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ endowed with its *Carnot-Carathéodory distance*.
It is well-known that constant mean curvature surfaces arise as critical points of the area for variations preserving the volume enclosed by the surface. In this paper, we are interested in surfaces immersed in the Heisenberg group which are *stationary points* of the sub-Riemannian area, with or without a *volume constraint*. In order to precise the situation and state our results we recall some facts about the Heisenberg group, that will be treated in more detail in Section \[sec:preliminaries\].
We denote by ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ the $3$-dimensional *Heisenberg group*, which we identify with the Lie group $\mathbb{C}\times{{\mathbb{R}}}$, where the product is given by $$[z,t]*[z',t']=[z+z',t+t'+\text{Im}\big(z\overline{z}'\big)].$$ The Lie algebra of ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is generated by three left invariant vector fields $\{X,Y,T\}$ with one non-trivial bracket relation given by $[X,Y]=-2T$. The $2$-dimensional distribution generated by $\{X,Y\}$ is called the *horizontal distribution* in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. Usually ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is endowed with a structure of sub-Riemannian manifold by considering the Riemannian metric on the horizontal distribution so that the basis $\{X,Y\}$ is orthonormal. This metric allows to measure the length of horizontal curves and to define the *Carnot-Carathéodory distance* between two points as the infimum of length of horizontal curves joining both points, see [@Gr]. It is known that the Carnot-Carathédory distance can be approximated by the distance functions associated to a family of dilated Riemannian metrics, see [@gromov2], [@pansu] and [@mont §1.10]. The Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is also a pseudo-hermitian manifold. It is the simplest one and can be seen as a blow-up of general pseudo-hermitian manifolds ([@chmy Appendix]). In addition, ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is also a *Carnot group* since its Lie algebra is stratified and $2$-nilpotent, see [@dgn].
Since ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is a group one can consider its Haar measure, which turns out to coincide with the Lebesgue measure in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$. From the notions of distance and measure one can also define the Minkowski content and the sub-Riemannian perimeter of a set, and the spherical Hausdorff measure of a surface, so that different surface measures may be given on ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. As it is shown in [@msc] and [@fsc], all these notions of “area” coincide for a $C^2$ surface.
In this paper we introduce the notions of volume and area in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ as follows. We consider the left invariant Riemannian metric $g={\big<\cdot\,,\cdot\big>}$ on ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ so that $\{X,Y,T\}$ is an orthonormal basis at every point. We define the volume $V({\Omega})$ of a Borel set ${\Omega}{\subseteq}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ as the Riemannian measure of the set. The area of an immersed $C^1$ surface ${\Sigma}$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is defined as the integral $$A({\Sigma})=\int_{{\Sigma}}|N_{H}|\,d{\Sigma},$$ where $N$ is a unit vector normal to the surface, $N_{H}$ denotes the orthogonal projection onto the horizontal distribution, and $d{\Sigma}$ is the Riemannian area element induced on ${\Sigma}$ by the metric $g$. This definition of area agrees for $C^2$ surfaces with the ones mentioned above.
With these notions of volume and area, we study in Section \[sec:meancurvature\] surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ which are *stationary* points of the area either for arbitrary variations, or for variations preserving the volume enclosed by the surface. As in Riemannian geometry, one may expect that some geometric quantity defined on such a surface vanishes or remains constant. By using the first variation of area in Lemma \[lem:dp/dt\] we will see that any $C^2$ area-stationary surface under a volume constraint must have *constant mean curvature*. The mean curvature $H$ of a surface ${\Sigma}$ is defined in as the Riemannian divergence relative to ${\Sigma}$ of the *horizontal unit normal vector* to ${\Sigma}$ given by ${\nu_{H}}=N_{H}/\,|N_{H}|$. We remark that a notion of mean curvature in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ for graphs over the $xy$-plane was previously introduced by S. Pauls [@pauls]. A more general definition of mean curvature has been proposed by J.-H. Cheng, J.-F. Hwang, A. Malchiodi and P. Yang [@chmy], and by N. Garofalo and S. Pauls [@gp]. As was shown in [@revolucion] our definition agrees with all the previous ones.
The analysis of the *singular set* plays an important role in the study of area-stationary surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. Given a surface ${\Sigma}$ immersed in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, the singular set ${\Sigma}_0$ of ${\Sigma}$ is the set of points where ${\Sigma}$ is tangent to the horizontal distribution. Its structure has been determined for surfaces with bounded mean curvature in [@chmy], where it is proved that ${\Sigma}_{0}$ consists of isolated points and $C^1$ curves, see Theorem \[th:chmy\] for a more detailed description. The *regular part* ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$ of ${\Sigma}$ is foliated by horizontal curves called the *characteristic curves*. As is pointed out in [@chmy], when the surface ${\Sigma}$ has constant mean curvature $H$, any of these curves is part of a *geodesic* in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ of curvature $H$. In particular, any surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with $H\equiv 0$ is foliated, up to the singular set, by horizontal straight lines.
The recent study of surfaces with constant mean curvature in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ has mainly focused on minimal surfaces (those with $H\equiv 0$). In fact, many interesting questions of the classical theory of minimal surfaces in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$, such as the Plateau problem, the Bernstein problem, or the global behavior of properly embedded surfaces, have been treated in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, see [@pauls], [@chmy], [@gp], [@ch], and [@pauls2]. These works also provide a rich variety of examples of minimal surfaces. However, in spite of the last advances, very little is known about non-minimal constant mean curvature surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. It is easy to check that a graph $t=u(x,y)$ of class $C^2$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with constant mean curvature $H$ satisfies the following degenerate (elliptic and hyperbolic) PDE $$(u_{y}+x)^2u_{xx}-2\,(u_{y}+x)(u_{x}-y)\,u_{xy}+(u_{x}-y)^2u_{yy}=
-2H\,((u_{x}-y)^2+(u_{y}+x)^2)^{3/2}.$$ In [@chmy] some relevant properties concerning the above equation, such as the uniqueness of solutions for the Dirichlet problem or the structure of the singular set, are studied. As to the examples, the only known complete surfaces with non-vanishing constant mean curvature are the compact spherical ones described in [@monti] and [@leomas], and the complete surfaces of revolution that we classified in [@revolucion].
Now we briefly describe the organization and the results obtained in this paper. After the preliminaries Section \[sec:preliminaries\], we make a detailed study of sub-Riemannian geodesics and Jacobi fields in Section \[sec:geodesics\]. In Section \[sec:meancurvature\] we look at the first variation of area and prove a Minkowski-type formula for an area-stationary surface under a volume constraint relating area, volume and the mean curvature, Theorem \[th:minkowski\]. Then, a detailed analysis of the first variation of area, together with the aforementioned description of the singular set in Theorem \[th:chmy\], leads us to prove in Theorem \[th:constant\] that an immersed surface is area-stationary if and only if its mean curvature is zero (or constant under a volume constraint) and the characteristic curves meet orthogonally the singular curves. This result allows us to refine in Section \[sec:bernstein\] the Bernstein-type theorems given in [@chmy] and [@gp] for minimal graphs in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. We classify all entire area-stationary graphs in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ over the $xy$-plane in Theorem \[th:bernstein\], and show that they are globally area-minimizing in Theorem \[th:areaminimizing\]. In Section \[sec:mainresult\], we prove our main results, where we completely describe immersed area-stationary surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ under a volume constraint with non-vanishing mean curvature and non-empty singular set, Theorems \[th:spheres\] and \[th:classification\]. As a consequence we deduce an Alexandrov uniqueness type theorem for compact surfaces, Theorem \[th:alexandrov\], and we solve the isoperimetric problem in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ assuming $C^2$ regularity of the solutions in Theorem \[th:iso\].
Now we describe our results in more detail.
A classical formula by Minkowski in Euclidean space involving the integral of the support function over a compact surface in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$ with constant mean curvature yields the relation $A=3HV$, where $A$ is the area of the surface, $V$ is the volume enclosed, and $H$ is the mean curvature of the surface. Our analysis of the first variation of the sub-Riemannian area and the existence in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ of a one-parameter group of dilations provide a Minkowski-type formula for a surface ${\Sigma}$ which is area-stationary under a volume constraint in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. Such a formula reads $$3A=8HV,$$ where $A$ is the sub-Riemannian area of ${\Sigma}$, $H$ the mean curvature of ${\Sigma}$, and $V$ the volume enclosed.
From previous works, as [@chmy], [@dgn], [@gp], and [@revolucion], it was already known that a necessary condition for a surface ${\Sigma}$ to be area-stationary is that the mean curvature of ${\Sigma}$ must be zero (or constant if the surface is area-stationary under a volume constraint). In Theorem \[th:constant\] we show that such a condition is not sufficient. To obtain a stationary point for the area we must require in addition that the *characteristic curves meet orthogonally the singular curves*. We prove this result by obtaining an expression for the first variation of area for arbitrary variations of the surface ${\Sigma}$, not only for those fixing the singular set. Observe that the situation is different from the one in Riemannian geometry, where stationary surfaces are precisely those with vanishing mean curvature.
As a consequence of this analysis, we show that most of the entire graphs obtained in [@chmy] and [@gp] with mean curvature zero are not area-stationary. We refine their result to prove that the only entire area-stationary graphs over the $xy$-plane in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ are the Euclidean planes and vertical rotations of the graphs $$u(x,y)=xy+(ay+b),$$ where $a$, $b\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$. Geometrically, the latter surfaces can be described as the union of all horizontal lines in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ which are orthogonal to a given horizontal line (the singular curve). By using a calibration argument, we can prove that they are globally area-minimizing. This result is similar to the Euclidean one, where planes, the only entire minimal graphs in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$, are area-minimizing. In [@chmy §6], also by a calibration argument, it was proved that a compact portion of the regular part of a graph with mean curvature zero is area-minimizing.
It was already known that the regular part of a surface ${\Sigma}$ immersed in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with constant mean curvature $H$ is foliated by horizontal geodesics of curvature $H$. We derive in Section \[sec:geodesics\] an intrinsic equation for such geodesics and for Jacobi fields, and show in Theorem \[th:ruled\] that the characteristic curves of the surface are geodesics of curvature $H$. This is the starting point, together with the local description of the singular set in Theorem \[th:chmy\], to construct new examples and to classify surfaces of constant mean curvature in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$.
In Section \[sec:mainresult\] we use this idea to describe any complete, volume-preserving area-stationary surface ${\Sigma}$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with non-vanishing mean curvature and non-empty singular set. We prove in Theorem \[th:spheres\] that if ${\Sigma}$ has at least one isolated singular point then it must be congruent with one of the compact spherical examples ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$ obtained as the union of all the geodesics of curvature ${\lambda}>0$ joining two given points (Example \[ex:spheres\]). Then, we introduce in Proposition \[prop:sigmala\] a procedure to construct examples of complete surfaces with non-vanishing constant mean curvature ${\lambda}$. Geometrically these surfaces consist of a horizontal curve ${\Gamma}$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, from which geodesics of curvature ${\lambda}$ leave (or enter) orthogonally. An analysis of the variational vector field associated to this family of geodesics is necessary to understand the behavior of the geodesics far away from ${\Gamma}$. It follows that the resulting surface has two singular curves apart from ${\Gamma}$. Moreover, the family of geodesics meets both curves orthogonally if and only if they are equidistant to ${\Gamma}$. This geometric property allows to conclude in Theorem \[th:curve\] the strong restriction that *the singular curves of any volume-preserving area-stationary surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with $H\neq 0$ are geodesics of ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$*. This is the key ingredient to classify in Theorem \[th:classification\] all surfaces of this kind. It follows that they must be congruent either with the cylindrical embedded surfaces in Example \[ex:cilindros\] or with the helicoidal immersed surfaces in Example \[ex:helices\].
This technique can also be used to describe complete area-stationary surfaces with singularities. It was proved in [@ch Proposition 2.1] and [@gp Lemma 8.2] that Euclidean planes are the only complete minimal surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with at least one isolated singular point. In Proposition \[prop:onesingu\] we give a nice geometric description of complete area-stationary surfaces with singular curves: the singular curve is a unique, arbitrary horizontal curve and the surface consists of the union of all the horizontal lines orthogonal to this singular curve.
Alexandrov uniqueness theorem in Euclidean space states that the only embedded compact surfaces with constant mean curvature in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$ are round spheres. This result is not true for immersed surfaces as illustrated by the toroidal examples in [@wente]. In pseudo-hermitian geometry, an interesting restriction on the topology of an immersed compact surface with bounded mean curvature inside a $3$-spherical pseudo-hermitian manifold was given in [@chmy], where it was proved that such a surface is homeomorphic either to a sphere or to a torus. As shown in [@chmy] this bound on the genus is optimal on the standard pseudo-hermitian $3$-sphere, where examples of constant mean curvature spheres and tori may be given. This estimate on the genus is also valid in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ since the proof is based on the local description of the singular set (Theorem \[th:chmy\]) and on the Hopf Index Theorem. In Theorem \[th:alexandrov\] we prove the following counterpart in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ to Alexandrov uniqueness theorem in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$: any compact, connected, $C^2$ immersed volume-preserving area-stationary surface ${\Sigma}$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is congruent with a sphere ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$. In particular we deduce the non-existence of volume-preserving area-stationary immersed tori in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$.
Finally in Section \[sec:iso\] we study the *isoperimetric problem* in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. This problem consists of finding sets in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ minimizing the sub-Riemannian perimeter under a volume constraint. It was proved by G. P. Leonardi and S. Rigot [@lr] that the solutions to this problem exist and they are bounded, connected open sets. This information is clearly far from characterizing isoperimetric sets. In the last years many authors have tried to adapt to the Heisenberg group different proofs of the classical isoperimetric inequality in Euclidean space. In [@monti2], [@monti] and [@leomas] it was shown that there is no a direct counterpart in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ to the Brunn-Minkowski inequality in Euclidean space, with the surprising consequence that the Carnot-Carathédory balls in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ cannot be the solutions. Recently, interest has focused on solving the isoperimetric problem restricted to certain sets with additional symmetries. It was proved by D. Danielli, N. Garofalo and D.-M. Nhieu that the sets bounded by the spherical surfaces ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$ are the unique solutions in the class of sets bounded by two $C^1$ radial graphs over the $xy$-plane [@dgn Theorem 14.6]. In [@revolucion] we pointed out that assuming $C^2$ smoothness and rotationally symmetry of isoperimetric regions, these must be congruent with the spheres ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$. We finish this work by showing in Theorem \[th:iso\] that the spherical surfaces ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$ are the unique isoperimetric regions in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ assuming $C^2$ regularity of the solutions, solving a conjecture by P. Pansu [@pansu3 p. 172]. Regularity of solutions is still a hard, open question.
After the distribution of this paper, we have noticed some related works. In [@chy], interesting results for graphs in the Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}^n$ have been established. In particular, the authors prove in [@chy p. 30] that $C^2$ minimal graphs in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ are area-minimizing if and only if the characteristic curves meet orthogonally the singular curves. In [@dgn2] it is proved that the sets bounded by the spheres ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{{\lambda}}$ are the unique isoperimetric regions in the class of sets bounded by the union of two $C^1$ graphs over the $xy$-plane. In [@dgn3] the authors show that there exists a family of entire *intrinsic minimal graphs* in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ that are not area-minimizing. In [@bc] the mean curvature flow of a $C^2$ convex surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, described as the union of two radial graphs, is proved to converge to a sphere ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{{\lambda}}$. In [@bscv], it is introduced a general calibration method to study the Bernstein problem for entire regular intrinsic minimal graphs in the Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}^n$. Finally we mention the interesting survey [@survey], where the authors give a broad overview of the isoperimetric problem in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^n$.
[**Preliminaries**]{} {#sec:preliminaries}
=====================
The *Heisenberg group* ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is the Lie group $({{\mathbb{R}}}^3,*)$, where the product $*$ is defined, for any pair of points $[z,t]$, $[z',t']\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^3\equiv\mathbb{C}\times{{\mathbb{R}}}$, as $$[z,t]*[z',t']:=[z+z',t+t'+\text{Im}(z\overline{z}')], \qquad (z=x+iy).$$ For $p\in{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, the *left translation* by $p$ is the diffeomorphism $L_p(q)=p*q$. A basis of left invariant vector fields (i.e., invariant by any left translation) is given by $$X:=\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x}+y\,\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}, \qquad
Y:=\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}y}-x\,\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}, \qquad
T:=\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}.$$ The *horizontal distribution* $\mathcal{H}$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is the smooth planar one generated by $X$ and $Y$. The *horizontal projection* of a vector $U$ onto $\mathcal{H}$ will be denoted by $U_{H}$. A vector field $U$ is called *horizontal* if $U=U_H$. A *horizontal curve* is a $C^1$ curve whose tangent vector lies in the horizontal distribution.
We denote by $[U,V]$ the Lie bracket of two $C^1$ vector fields $U$, $V$ on ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. Note that $[X,T]=[Y,T]=0$, while $[X,Y]=-2T$. The last equality implies that $\mathcal{H}$ is a bracket generating distribution. Moreover, by Frobenius Theorem we have that $\mathcal{H}$ is nonintegrable. The vector fields $X$ and $Y$ generate the kernel of the (contact) $1$-form $\omega:=-y\,dx+x\,dy+dt$.
We shall consider on ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ the (left invariant) Riemannian metric $g={\big<\cdot\,,\cdot\big>}$ so that $\{X,Y,T\}$ is an orthonormal basis at every point, and the associated Levi-Civitá connection $D$. The modulus of a vector field $U$ will be denoted by $|U|$. The following derivatives can be easily computed $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\notag D_{X}X&=0, \qquad \ \ \ \, D_{Y}Y=0, \qquad \,D_{T}T=0, \\
\label{eq:christoffel}
D_{X}Y&=-T, \qquad \, D_{X}T=Y, \qquad \, D_{Y}T=-X, \\
\notag D_{Y}X&=T, \qquad \ \ \,\,D_{T}X=Y, \qquad D_{T}Y=-X.\end{aligned}$$ For any vector field $U$ on ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ we define $J(U):=D_UT$. Then we have $J(X)=Y$, $J(Y)=-X$ and $J(T)=0$, so that $J^2=-\text{Identity}$ when restricted to the horizontal distribution. It is also clear that $$\label{eq:conmute}
{\big<J(U),V\big>}+{\big<U,J(V)\big>}=0,$$ for any pair of vector fields $U$ and $V$. The endomorphism $J$ restricted to the horizontal distribution is an involution of $\mathcal{H}$ that, together with the contact $1$-form $\omega=-y\,dx+x\,dy+dt$, provides a pseudo-hermitian structure on ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, as stated in the Appendix in [@chmy].
Let ${\gamma}:I\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ be a piecewise $C^1$ curve defined on a compact interval $I{\subset}{{\mathbb{R}}}$. The *length* of ${\gamma}$ is the usual Riemannian length $L({\gamma}):=\int_{I}|\dot{{\gamma}}|$, where $\dot{{\gamma}}$ is the tangent vector of ${\gamma}$. For two given points in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ we can find, by Chow’s connectivity Theorem , a horizontal curve joining these points. The *Carnot-Carathédory distance* $d_{cc}$ between two points in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is defined as the infimum of the length of horizontal curves joining the given points.
Now we introduce notions of volume and area in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. The volume $V({\Omega})$ of a Borel set ${\Omega}{\subseteq}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is the Riemannian volume of the left invariant metric $g$, which coincides with the Lebesgue measure in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$. Given a $C^1$ surface ${\Sigma}$ immersed in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, and a unit vector field $N$ normal to ${\Sigma}$, we define the area of ${\Sigma}$ by $$\label{eq:area}
A({\Sigma}):=\int_{{\Sigma}}|N_{H}|\,d{\Sigma},$$ where $N_{H}=N-{\big<N,T\big>}\,T$, and $d{\Sigma}$ is the Riemannian area element on ${\Sigma}$. If ${\Sigma}$ is a $C^1$ surface enclosing a bounded set ${\Omega}$ then $A({\Sigma})$ coincides with the ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$-perimeter of ${\Omega}$, as defined in [@cng], [@fsc] and [@revolucion]. The area of ${\Sigma}$ also coincides with the Minkowski content in $({{\mathbb{H}}}^1,d_{cc})$ of a set ${\Omega}\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ bounded by a $C^2$ surface ${\Sigma}$, as proved in [@msc Theorem 5.1], and with the 3-dimensional spherical Hausdorff measure in $({{\mathbb{H}}}^1,d_{cc})$ of ${\Sigma}$, see [@fsc Corollary 7.7].
For a $C^1$ surface ${\Sigma}{\subset}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ the *singular set* ${\Sigma}_0$ consists of those points $p\in{\Sigma}$ for which the tangent plane $T_p{\Sigma}$ coincides with the horizontal distribution. As ${\Sigma}_0$ is closed and has empty interior in ${\Sigma}$, the *regular set* ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$ of ${\Sigma}$ is open and dense in ${\Sigma}$. It was proved in [@d2 Lemme 1], see also [@balogh Theorem 1.2], that the Hausdorff dimension with respect to the Riemannian distance on ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ of ${\Sigma}_{0}$ is less than two.
If ${\Sigma}$ is a $C^1$ oriented surface with unit normal vector $N$, then we can describe the singular set ${\Sigma}_0{\subset}{\Sigma}$, in terms of $N_H$, as ${\Sigma}_{0}=\{p\in{\Sigma}:N_H(p)=0\}$. In the regular part ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$, we can define the *horizontal unit normal vector* $\nu_H$, as in [@dgn], [@revolucion] and [@gp] by $$\label{eq:nuh}
\nu_H:=\frac{N_H}{|N_H|}.$$ Consider the *characteristic vector field* $Z$ on ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$ given by $$\label{eq:zeta}
Z:=J(\nu_H).$$ As $Z$ is horizontal and orthogonal to $\nu_H$, we conclude that $Z$ is tangent to ${\Sigma}$. Hence $Z_{p}$ generates the intersection of $T_{p}{\Sigma}$ with the horizontal distribution. The integral curves of $Z$ in ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$ will be called *characteristic curves* of ${\Sigma}$. They are both tangent to ${\Sigma}$ and horizontal. Note that these curves depend on the unit normal $N$ to ${\Sigma}$. If we define $$\label{eq:ese}
S:={\big<N,T\big>}\,\nu_H-|N_H|\,T,$$ then $\{Z_{p},S_{p}\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $T_p{\Sigma}$ whenever $p\in{\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$.
In the Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ there is a one-parameter group of *dilations* $\{\varphi_s\}_{s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ generated by the vector field $$\label{eq:w}
W:=xX+yY+2tT.$$ From the Christoffel symbols , it can be easily proved that $\operatorname{div}W=4$, where $\operatorname{div}W$ is the Riemannian divergence of the vector field $W$. We may compute $\varphi_{s}$ in coordinates to obtain $$\label{eq:dilations}
\varphi_{s}(x_{0},y_{0},t_{0})=(e^sx_{0},e^sy_{0},e^{2s}t_{0}).$$ From this expression we get, for fixed $s$ and $p\in{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, that $(d\varphi_{s})_{p}(X_{p})=e^s X_{\varphi_{s}(p)}$, $(d\varphi_{s})_{p}(Y_{p})=e^s Y_{\varphi_{s}(p)}$, and $(d\varphi_{s})_{p}(T_{p})=e^{2s} T_{\varphi_{s}(p)}$.
Any isometry of $({{\mathbb{H}}}^1,g)$ leaving invariant the horizontal distribution preserves the area of surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. Examples of such isometries are left translations, which act transitively on ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. The Euclidean rotation of angle $\theta$ about the $t$-axis given by $$(x,y,t)\mapsto r_{\theta}(x,y,t)=(\cos\theta\,x-\sin\theta\,y,
\sin\theta\,x+\cos\theta\,y,t),$$ is also an area-preserving isometry in $({{\mathbb{H}}}^1,g)$ since it transforms the orthonormal basis $\{X,Y,T\}$ at the point $p$ into the orthonormal basis $\{\cos\theta\,X+\sin\theta\,Y, -\sin\theta\,X+\cos\theta\,Y,
T\}$ at the point $r_{\theta}(p)$.
**Geodesics and Jacobi fields in the Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$** {#sec:geodesics}
==========================================================================
Usually, geodesics in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ are defined as horizontal curves whose length coincides with the Carnot-Carathéodory distance between its endpoints. It is known that geodesics in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ are curves of class $C^\infty$, see [@monti2 Lemma 2.5]. We are interested in computing the equations of geodesics in terms of geometric data of the left invariant metric $g$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. For that we shall think of a geodesic in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ as a smooth horizontal curve that is a critical point of length under any variation by horizontal curves with fixed endpoints. In this section we will obtain an *intrinsic* equation for the geodesics in terms of the left invariant metric $g$.
Let ${\gamma}:I\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ be a $C^2$ horizontal curve defined on a compact interval $I{\subset}{{\mathbb{R}}}$. A variation of ${\gamma}$ is a $C^2$ map $F:I\times J\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, where $J$ is an open interval around the origin, such that $F(s,0)={\gamma}(s)$. We denote ${\gamma}_{\varepsilon}(s)=F(s,{\varepsilon})$. Let $V_{{\varepsilon}}(s)$ be the vector field along ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$ given by $({\partial}F/{\partial}{\varepsilon})(s,{\varepsilon})$. Trivially $[V_{{\varepsilon}},\dot{{\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}}]=0$. Let $V=V_{0}$. We say that the variation is *admissible* if the curves ${\gamma}_{\varepsilon}$ are horizontal and have fixed boundary points. For such a variation it is clear that $V$ vanishes at the endpoints of ${\gamma}$. Moreover, we have ${\big<\dot{{\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}},T\big>}=0$. As a consequence $$\begin{aligned}
0=\frac{d}{d{\varepsilon}}\bigg|_{{\varepsilon}=0}{\big<\dot{{\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}},T\big>}
&={\big<D_{V}\dot{{\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}},T\big>}+{\big<\dot{{\gamma}},D_{V}T\big>}
\\
&={\big<D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}V,T\big>}+{\big<\dot{{\gamma}},J(V)\big>}
\\
&=\dot{{\gamma}}\big({\big<V,T\big>}\big)-{\big<V,D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}T\big>}
+{\big<\dot{{\gamma}},J(V_H)\big>}
\\
&=\dot{{\gamma}}\big({\big<V,T\big>}\big)-{\big<V_{H},J(\dot{{\gamma}})\big>}
+{\big<\dot{{\gamma}},J(V_{H})\big>}
\\
&=\dot{{\gamma}}\big({\big<V,T\big>}\big)-2\,{\big<V_{H},J(\dot{{\gamma}})\big>},\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we have used .
Conversely, if $V$ is a $C^1$ vector field along ${\gamma}$ vanishing at the endpoints and satisfying the equation $$\label{eq:condition}
\dot{{\gamma}}\big({\big<V,T\big>}\big)=2\,{\big<V_{H},J(\dot{{\gamma}})\big>},$$ then it is easy to check that there is an admissible variation of ${\gamma}$ so that the associated vector field coincides with $V$. Indeed, since $V=f\dot{{\gamma}}+V_{0}$, with $V_{0}\perp \dot{{\gamma}}$, we may assume that $V$ is orthogonal to ${\gamma}$. Define, for $s\in I$ and ${\varepsilon}$ small, $F(s,{\varepsilon}):=\exp_{{\gamma}(s)}({\varepsilon}\,V(s))$, where $\exp$ is the exponential map associated to the Riemannian metric $g$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. If $V$ is horizontal in some interval of ${\gamma}$ then, by , we have $V=V_{H}={\lambda}\dot{{\gamma}}$, so that $V$ vanishes. If $V(s_{0})$ is not horizontal, $F$ defines locally a surface which is transversal to the horizontal distribution. This surface is foliated by horizontal curves. So there is a $C^2$ function $f(s,{\varepsilon})$ such that ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}(s):=\exp_{{\gamma}(s)}(f(s,{\varepsilon})\,V(s))$ is a horizontal curve. We may take $f$ so that $({\partial}f/{\partial}{\varepsilon})(s_{0},0)=1$. The vector field $V_{1}$ associated to the variation by horizontal curves ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$, is given by $({\partial}f/{\partial}{\varepsilon})(s,0)\,V(s)$, and satisfies equation . Since $V$ also satisfies this equation we obtain that $({\partial}^2f/{\partial}s\,{\partial}{\varepsilon})(s,0)=0$, and $({\partial}f/{\partial}{\varepsilon})(s,0)$ is constant. As $({\partial}f/{\partial}{\varepsilon})(s_{0},0)=1$ we conclude that $V_{1}(s)=V(s)$.
Let ${\gamma}:I\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ be a $C^2$ horizontal curve parameterized by arc-length. Then ${\gamma}$ is a critical point of length for any admissible variation if and only if there is $\lambda\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ such that ${\gamma}$ satisfies the second order ordinary differential equation $$\label{eq:geodesic}
D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}\dot{{\gamma}}+2\lambda\,J(\dot{{\gamma}})=0.$$
Let $V$ be the vector field of an admissible variation $\gamma_{\varepsilon}$ of $\gamma$. Since ${\gamma}$ is parameterized by arc-length, by the first variation of length [@cheeger §1,(1.3)], we know that $$\label{eq:lprima}
\frac{d}{d{\varepsilon}}\bigg|_{{\varepsilon}=0} L({\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}})=-
\int_{I}{\big<D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}\dot{{\gamma}},V\big>}.$$ Suppose that $\gamma$ is a critical point of length for any admissible variation. As $|\dot{{\gamma}}|=1$ we deduce that ${\big<D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}\dot{{\gamma}},\dot{{\gamma}}\big>}=0$. On the other hand, as ${\gamma}$ is a horizontal curve, we have ${\big<D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}\dot{{\gamma}},T\big>}=0$. So $D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}\dot{{\gamma}}$ is proportional to $J(\dot{{\gamma}})$ at any point of ${\gamma}$. Assume, without loss of generality, that $I=[0,a]$. Consider a $C^1$ function $f:I\to{{\mathbb{R}}}$ vanishing at the endpoints and such that $\int_{I}f=0$. Let $V$ be the vector field on ${\gamma}$ so that $V_{H}=f\,J(\dot{{\gamma}})$ and ${\big<V,T\big>}(s)=2\,\int_{0}^s f$. As $V$ satisfies , inserting it in the first variation of length , we obtain $$\int_{I}f\,{\big<D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}\dot{{\gamma}},J(\dot{{\gamma}})\big>}=0.$$ As $f$ is an arbitrary $C^1$ mean zero function we conclude that ${\big<D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}\dot{{\gamma}},J(\dot{{\gamma}})\big>}$ is constant. Hence we find $\lambda\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ so that ${\gamma}$ satisfies equation . The proof of the converse is easy taking into account and .
We will say that a $C^2$ horizontal curve ${\gamma}$ is a *geodesic of curvature* ${\lambda}$ if it is parameterized by arc-length and satisfies equation . Observe that the parameter ${\lambda}$ in changes to $-{\lambda}$ for the reversed curve ${\gamma}(-t)$.
Given a point $p\in{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, a unit horizontal vector $v\in T_{p}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, and $\lambda\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$, we denote by ${\gamma}_{p,v}^\lambda$ the unique solution to with initial conditions ${\gamma}(0)=p$, $\dot{{\gamma}}(0)=v$. Note that ${\gamma}_{p,v}^\lambda$ is a geodesic since it is horizontal and parameterized by arc-length (the functions ${\big<\dot{{\gamma}},T\big>}$ and $|\dot{{\gamma}}|^2$ are constant along any solution of ).
Let us now compute the equation of the geodesics in Euclidean coordinates. Consider a $C^2$ curve ${\gamma}(s)=(x(s),y(s),t(s))$ parameterized by arc-length. Then $$\dot{{\gamma}}=(\dot{x},\dot{y},\dot{t})=
\dot{x}\,X+\dot{y}\,Y+(-\dot{x}y+x\dot{y}+\dot{t})\,T,$$ so that ${\gamma}$ is horizontal if and only if $$-\dot{x}y+x\dot{y}+\dot{t}=0.$$ Moreover: $$D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}\dot{{\gamma}}=\ddot{x}\,X+\ddot{y}\,Y, \qquad
2\lambda\,J(\dot{{\gamma}})=2\lambda\,\big(\dot{x}\,Y-\dot{y}\,X\big).$$ Hence ${\gamma}=(x,y,t)$ is a geodesic of curvature $\lambda$ if it satisfies the following system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{x}&=2\lambda\,\dot{y}, \\
\ddot{y}&=-2\lambda\,\dot{x}, \\
\dot{t}&=\dot{x}y-x\dot{y}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us solve first the case $\lambda\neq 0$. Calling $\dot{x}=u$, $\dot{y}=v$ we get $\ddot{u}+(2\lambda)^2u=0$, from which, if $(\dot{x}(0),\dot{y}(0))=(A,B)$, we have $u(0)=A$, $\dot{u}(0)=2\lambda B$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}(s)&=u(s)=A\,\cos(2\lambda\,s)+B\,\sin(2\lambda\,s), \\
\dot{y}(s)&=v(s)=-A\,\sin(2\lambda\,s)+B\,\cos(2\lambda\,s).\end{aligned}$$ If $(x(0),y(0),t(0))=(x_{0},y_{0},t_{0})$, then: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
x(s)&=x_{0}+A\,\bigg(\frac{\sin(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg)
+B\,\bigg(\frac{1-\cos(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg),
\\
\label{eq:geocoor}
y(s)&=y_{0}-A\,\bigg(\frac{1-\cos(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg)
+B\,\bigg(\frac{\sin(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg),
\\
\nonumber
t(s)&=t_{0}+\frac{1}{2\lambda}\,
\bigg(s-\frac{\sin(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg)
\\
\nonumber &+(Ax_{0}+By_{0})\left(\frac{1-\cos(2\lambda\,
s)}{2{\lambda}}\right)
-(Bx_{0}-Ay_{0})\,\left(\frac{\sin(2\lambda\, s)}{2{\lambda}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which are Euclidean helices of vertical axis. Thus, we have recovered the expressions in [@andre p. 28] and [@monti2 p. 160]. Assume now that $\lambda=0$. In this case, we have the following system of ordinary differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{x}&=0, \\
\ddot{y}&=0, \\
\dot{t}&=\dot{x}y-x\dot{y}.\end{aligned}$$ For initial conditions $(x(0),y(0),t(0))=(x_{0},y_{0},t_{0})$, $\dot{x}(0)=A$, $\dot{y}(0)=B$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
x(s)&=x_{0}+As, \\
y(s)&=y_{0}+Bs, \\
t(s)&=t_{0}+(Ay_{0}-Bx_{0})\,s,\end{aligned}$$ which are Euclidean horizontal lines. This fact was previously observed in [@chmy Proposition 4.1]. We conclude that complete geodesics in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ are horizontal lifts of curves with constant geodesic curvature in the Euclidean $xy$-plane (circles or straight lines).
\[re:propertiesgeo\] 1. Any isometry in $({{\mathbb{H}}}^1,g)$ preserving the horizontal distribution transforms geodesics in geodesics since it respects the Levi-Civitá connection and commutes with $J$.
2\. A dilation $\varphi_{s}(x,y,t)=(e^sx,e^sy,e^{2s}t)$ carries geodesics of curvature ${\lambda}$ to geodesics of curvature $e^{-s}{\lambda}$.
3\. If we consider the geodesic ${\gamma}_{0,v}^\lambda$, where $v$ is a horizontal unit vector in $T_{0}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ and $\lambda\neq 0$, then the coordinate $t(s)$ in is monotone increasing and unbounded. It follows that ${\gamma}_{0,v}^\lambda$ leaves every compact set in finite time. The same is true for any other horizontal geodesic, since it can be transformed into ${\gamma}_{0,v}^{\lambda}$ by a left translation.
Let $\lambda>0$, $p\in{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, and $v$, $w\in T_{p}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ horizontal unit vectors with $v\neq w$. Then ${\gamma}_{p,v}^\lambda(\pi/\lambda)={\gamma}_{p,w}^\lambda(\pi/\lambda)$ and ${\gamma}_{p,v}^\lambda(s_{1})\neq{\gamma}_{p,w}^\lambda(s_{2})$ for all $s_{1}$, $s_{2}\in (0,\pi/\lambda)$.
After applying a left translation and a rotation about the $t$-axis we may assume that $p=(0,0,0)$, that $v=(1,0,0)$ and that $w=(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,0)$, with $\cos\theta\neq 1$. From , we have that ${\gamma}_{p,v}^{\lambda}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
x_{v}(s)&=(2\lambda)^{-1}\sin(2\lambda s), \\
y_{v}(s)&=(2\lambda)^{-1}\,\big(-1+\cos(2\lambda s)\big), \\
t_{v}(s)&=(2\lambda)^{-1}\,\big(s-(2\lambda)^{-1}\sin(2\lambda
s)\big),\end{aligned}$$ and ${\gamma}_{p,w}^\lambda$ by $$\begin{aligned}
x_{w}(s)&=(2\lambda)^{-1}\,\big(\sin\theta+\sin(2\lambda s-\theta)\big), \\
y_{w}(s)&=(2\lambda)^{-1}\,\big(-\cos\theta+\cos(2\lambda s-\theta)\big), \\
t_{w}(s)&=(2\lambda)^{-1}\,\big(s-(2\lambda)^{-1}\sin(2\lambda
s)\big).\end{aligned}$$ Equality ${\gamma}_{p,v}^\lambda(\pi/\lambda)={\gamma}_{p,w}^\lambda(\pi/\lambda)$ is easily checked from these equations. Suppose that ${\gamma}_{p,v}^\lambda(s_{1})={\gamma}_{p,w}^\lambda(s_{2})$ for some $s_1,s_2\in (0,\pi/\lambda)$. As $t_{v}=t_{w}$ is an increasing function, we deduce $s_1=s_2$, and so there is $s\in (0,\pi/{\lambda})$ such that $(x_{v}(s),y_{v}(s))=(x_{w}(s),y_{w}(s))$. Therefore, we get $$\begin{aligned}
(1-\cos\theta)\,\sin(2\lambda s)&=(1-\cos(2\lambda s))\,\sin\theta,
\\
\sin(2\lambda s)\,\sin\theta&=(1-\cos\theta)\,(\cos(2\lambda s)-1),\end{aligned}$$ for some $s\in (0,\pi/\lambda)$. Finally, as the determinant $$\det\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1-\cos\theta &-\sin\theta
\\
\sin\theta &1-\cos\theta
\end{array}
\right)\neq 0,$$ we conclude that $\sin(2\lambda s)=0$ and $1-\cos(2 \lambda s)=0$, a contradiction.
\[ex:spheres\] Given $\lambda>0$, we define ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$ as the union of all geodesics ${\gamma}_{0,v}^\lambda$ restricted to the interval $[0,\pi/\lambda]$. The lemma above implies that ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$ is a compact embedded surface homeomorphic to a sphere, see Figure \[fig:spheres\]. Any ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{{\lambda}}$ has two singular points at the *poles* $(0,0,0)$ and $(0,0,\pi/(2\lambda^2))$. Alternatively, it was proved in [@leomas Proof of Theorem 3.3] that ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{{\lambda}}$ can be described as the union of the following radial graphs over the $xy$-plane $$\label{eq:spheregraphs}
t=\frac{\pi}{2{\lambda}^2}\pm\frac{1}{2{\lambda}^2}\,\left ({\lambda}\rho\,\sqrt{1-{\lambda}^2\rho^2}
+\arccos ({\lambda}\rho)\right),\qquad\rho=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}{\leqslant}\frac{1}{{\lambda}}.$$ From we can see that ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{{\lambda}}$ is $C^2$ but not $C^3$ around the poles. This was also observed in [@dgn Proposition 14.11].
Now, we prove some analytical properties for the vector field associated to a variation of a curve which is a geodesic.
\[lem:jacobi1\] Let ${\gamma}:I\to {{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ be a geodesic of curvature ${\lambda}$, and $V$ the $C^1$ vector field associated to a variation of ${\gamma}$. Then the function $${\lambda}\,{\big<V,T\big>}+{\big<V,\dot{{\gamma}}\big>}$$ is constant along ${\gamma}$.
First note that $$\dot{{\gamma}}\,({\big<V,T\big>})={\big<D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}V,T\big>}+{\big<V,J(\dot{{\gamma}})\big>}
={\big<D_{V}\dot{{\gamma}},T\big>}-{\big<\dot{{\gamma}},J(V)\big>}
=-2\,{\big<\dot{{\gamma}},J(V)\big>},$$ where we have used $[V,\dot{{\gamma}}]=0$, equality , and that ${\gamma}$ is a horizontal curve. On the other hand, we have $$\dot{{\gamma}}\,({\big<V,\dot{{\gamma}}\big>})={\big<D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}V,\dot{{\gamma}}\big>}
+{\big<V,-2{\lambda}\,J(\dot{{\gamma}})\big>}
={\big<D_{V}\dot{{\gamma}},\dot{{\gamma}}\big>}+2{\lambda}\,{\big<\dot{{\gamma}},J(V)\big>}
=2{\lambda}\,{\big<\dot{{\gamma}},J(V)\big>},$$ since ${\gamma}$ is parameterized by arc-length and satisfies . From the two equations above the result follows.
As in Riemannian geometry we may expect that the vector field associated to a variation of a given geodesic by geodesics of the same curvature satisfies a certain second order differential equation. In fact, we have
\[lem:jacobi2\] Let ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$ be a variation of ${\gamma}$ by geodesics of the same curvature ${\lambda}$. Assume that the associated vector field $V$ is $C^2$. Then $V$ satisfies $$\label{eq:jacobieq}
\ddot{V}+\emph{R}(V,\dot{{\gamma}})\dot{{\gamma}}+
2{\lambda}\,(J(\dot{V})-{\big<V,\dot{{\gamma}}\big>}\,T)=0,$$ where $\emph{R}$ denotes the Riemannian curvature tensor in $({{\mathbb{H}}}^1,g)$.
As any ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$ is a geodesic of curvature ${\lambda}$, we have $$D_{\dot{{\gamma}}_{\varepsilon}}\dot{{\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}}+2{\lambda}\,J(\dot{{\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}})=0.$$ Thus, if we derive with respect to $V$ and we take into account that $D_VD_{\dot{{\gamma}}}\dot{{\gamma}}=\text{R}(V,\dot{{\gamma}})\dot{{\gamma}}+D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}
D_V\dot{{\gamma}}+D_{[V,\dot{{\gamma}}]}\dot{{\gamma}}$ and that $[V,\dot{{\gamma}}]=0$, we deduce $$\ddot{V}+\text{R}(V,\dot{{\gamma}})\dot{{\gamma}}+2{\lambda}\,D_{V}J(\dot{{\gamma}})=0.$$ Finally, it is not difficult to see that $$D_{V}J(\dot{{\gamma}})=J(D_{V}\dot{{\gamma}})-{\big<V,\dot{{\gamma}}\big>}\,T=
J(\dot{V})-{\big<V,\dot{{\gamma}}\big>}\,T,$$ and the proof follows.
We call the *Jacobi equation* for geodesics in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ of curvature ${\lambda}$. It is clearly a linear equation. Any solution of is a *Jacobi field* along ${\gamma}$. It is easy to check that $V=f\dot{{\gamma}}$ is a Jacobi field if and only if $\ddot{f}\dot{{\gamma}}+2{\lambda}\dot{f}J(\dot{{\gamma}})=0$. Thus, any tangent Jacobi field to ${\gamma}$ is of the form $(as+b)\,\dot{{\gamma}}$, with $a=0$ when $\lambda\neq 0$.
**Area-stationary surfaces. Minkowski formula in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$** {#sec:meancurvature}
=====================================================================
In this section we shall consider critical surfaces for the area functional with or without a volume constraint. Let ${\Sigma}$ be an oriented immersed surface of class $C^2$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. Consider a $C^1$ vector field $U$ with compact support on ${\Sigma}$. Denote by ${\Sigma}_{t}$, for $t$ small, the immersed surface $\{\exp_{p}(tU_{p}); p\in{\Sigma}\}$, where $\exp_{p}$ is the exponential map of $({{\mathbb{H}}}^1,g)$ at the point $p$. The family $\{{\Sigma}_t\}$, for $t$ small, is the *variation* of ${\Sigma}$ induced by $U$. We remark that our variations can move the singular set ${\Sigma}_{0}$ of ${\Sigma}$. Define $A(t):=A({\Sigma}_t)$. In case ${\Sigma}$ is an embedded compact surface, it encloses a region ${\Omega}$ so that ${\Sigma}={\partial}{\Omega}$. Let ${\Omega}_{t}$ be the region enclosed by ${\Sigma}_{t}$ and define $V(t):=V({\Omega}_t)$. We say that the variation is *volume-preserving* if $V(t)$ is constant for $t$ small enough. We say that ${\Sigma}$ is *area-stationary* if $A'(0)=0$ for any variation of ${\Sigma}$. In case that ${\Sigma}$ encloses a bounded region, we say that ${\Sigma}$ is *area-stationary under a volume constraint* or *volume-preserving area-stationary* if $A'(0)=0$ for any volume-preserving variation of ${\Sigma}$.
Suppose that ${\Omega}$ is the set bounded by a $C^2$ embedded compact surface ${\Sigma}={\partial}{\Omega}$. We shall always choose the unit *inner* normal $N$ to ${\Sigma}$. The computation of $V'(0)$ is well-known since the volume is the one associated to a Riemannian metric, and we have ([@simon §9]) $$\label{eq:1stvol}
V'(0)=\int_{{\Omega}}\operatorname{div}U\,dv=-\int_{\Sigma}u\,d{\Sigma},$$ where $u={\big<U,N\big>}$, and $dv$ is the Riemannian volume element. It follows that $u$ has mean zero whenever the variation is volume-preserving. Conversely, it was proven in [@bdce Lemma 2.2] that, given a $C^1$ function $u:{\Sigma}\to{{\mathbb{R}}}$ with mean zero, a volume-preserving variation of ${\Omega}$ can be constructed so that the normal component of the associated vector field equals $u$.
Let ${\Sigma}$ be a $C^1$ compact immersed surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. Observe that the vector field $W$ defined in satisfies $\operatorname{div}W=4$, so that if ${\Sigma}$ is embedded, the divergence theorem yields $$\label{eq:immersedvolume}
\text{volume enclosed by
}{\Sigma}=-\frac{1}{4}\int_{{\Sigma}}{\big<W,N\big>}\,d{\Sigma},$$ where $N$ is the inner unit normal to ${\Sigma}$. Formula can be taken as a definition for the volume “enclosed” by an oriented compact immersed surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. The first variation for this volume functional is given by . Also the *variation* of enclosed volume can be defined for a noncompact surface. We refer the reader to [@bdce] for details.
Now we will compute the first variation of area. We need a previous lemma.
\[lem:derivatives\] Let ${\Sigma}\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ be a $C^2$ surface and $N$ a unit vector normal to ${\Sigma}$. Consider a point $p\in{\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$, the horizontal normal $\nu_H$ defined in , and $Z=J({\nu_{H}})$. Then, for any $u\in T_{p}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:uno} D_{u}N_{H}&=(D_{u}N)_{H}-{\big<N,T\big>}\,J(u)
-{\big<N,J(u)\big>}\,T,
\\
\label{eq:dos} u\,(|N_H|)&={\big<D_{u}N, {\nu_{H}}\big>}-{\big<N,T\big>}\,
{\big<J(u),{\nu_{H}}\big>},
\\
\label{eq:tres} D_{u}\nu_H&=|N_H|^{-1}\,
\big({\big<D_uN,Z\big>}-{\big<N,T\big>}\,
{\big<J(u),Z\big>}\big)\,Z+{\big<Z,u\big>}\,T.\end{aligned}$$
Equalities and are easily obtained since $N_H=N-~{\big<N,T\big>}\,T$. Let us prove . As $|\nu_H|=1$ and $\{({\nu_{H}})_{p},Z_{p},T_{p}\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $T_p{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, we get $$D_{u}{\nu_{H}}={\big<D_{u}{\nu_{H}},Z\big>}\,Z+ {\big<D_{u}{\nu_{H}},T\big>}\,T.$$ Note that ${\big<D_{u}{\nu_{H}},T\big>}=-{\big<{\nu_{H}},J(u)\big>}={\big<Z,u\big>}$ by . On the other hand, by using and the fact that $Z$ is tangent and horizontal, we deduce $${\big<D_{u}{\nu_{H}},Z\big>}=|N_H|^{-1}{\big<D_{u}N_H,Z\big>}=
|N_H|^{-1}\big({\big<D_uN,Z\big>}-{\big<N,T\big>}{\big<J(u),Z\big>}\big).\vspace{-0.75cm}$$
For a $C^1$ vector field $U$ defined on a surface ${\Sigma}$, we denote by $U^\top$ and $U^\bot$ the tangent and orthogonal projections, respectively. We shall also denote by $\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}U$ the Riemannian divergence of $U$ relative to ${\Sigma}$, which is given by $\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}U(p):=\sum_{1=1}^{2}{\big<D_{e_{i}}U,e_{i}\big>}$ for any orthonormal basis $\{e_{1},e_{2}\}$ of $T_{p}{\Sigma}$. Now, we can prove
\[lem:dp/dt\] Let ${\Sigma}\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ be an oriented $C^2$ immersed surface. Suppose that $U$ is a $C^1$ vector field with compact support on ${\Sigma}$ and normal component $u={\big<U,N\big>}$. Then the first derivative at $t=0$ of the area functional $A(t)$ associated to $U$ is given by $$\label{eq:1stvar}
A'(0)=\int_{\Sigma}u\,\big(\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\nu_H\big)\,d{\Sigma}-\int_{\Sigma}\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\big(u\,(\nu_H)^\top\big)\,d{\Sigma},$$ provided $\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}\nu_{H}\in L^1({\Sigma})$.
Moreover, if ${\Sigma}$ is area-stationary $($resp. volume-preserving area-stationary$)$ then $$\label{eq:1stvarst}
A'(0)=\int_{\Sigma}u\,(\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\nu_H)\,d{\Sigma}.$$
First we remark that the Riemannian area of the singular set ${\Sigma}_{0}$ of ${\Sigma}$ vanishes, as was proved in [@d2 Lemme 1] and [@balogh Theorem 1.2]. Thus we can integrate over ${\Sigma}$ functions defined on the regular set ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$.
Let $\{{\Sigma}_t\}$ be the variation of ${\Sigma}$ associated to $U$, and let $d{\Sigma}_t$ be the Riemannian area element on ${\Sigma}_t$. Consider a $C^1$ vector field $N$ whose restriction to ${\Sigma}_t$ coincides with a unit vector normal to ${\Sigma}_{t}$. By using and the coarea formula, we have $$A(t)=\int_{{\Sigma}_t}|N_H|\,d{\Sigma}_t=
\int_{\Sigma}(|N_H|\circ{\varphi}_t)\,|\text{Jac}\,{\varphi}_t|\,d{\Sigma}=
\int_{{\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}}(|N_H|\circ{\varphi}_t)\,|\text{Jac}\,{\varphi}_t|\,d{\Sigma},$$ where $\varphi_{t}(p)=\exp_{p}(tU_{p})$ and $\text{Jac}\,{\varphi}_t$ is the Jacobian determinant of the map ${\varphi}_t:{\Sigma}\to{\Sigma}_{t}$. Now, we differentiate with respect to $t$, and we use the known fact that $(d/dt)|_{t=0}\,|\text{Jac}\,{\varphi}_t|=\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}U$ ([@simon §9]), to get $$\begin{aligned}
A'(0)&=\int_{{\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}}\{U(|N_H|)+|N_H|\,\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}U\}\,d{\Sigma}\\
&=\int_{{\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}}\{U^\bot(|N_H|)+\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}(|N_H|\,U)\}\,d{\Sigma}\\
&=\int_{{\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}}\{\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}(|N_H|\,U^\top)+
U^\bot(|N_H|)+|N_H|\,\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}U^\bot\}\,d{\Sigma}\\
&=\int_{{\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}}\{U^\bot(|N_H|)+|N_H|\,\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}U^\bot\}\,d{\Sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the last equality we have used the Riemannian divergence theorem to get that the integral of the divergence of the Lipschitz vector field $|N_{H}|\,U^\top$ over ${\Sigma}$ vanishes (the modulus of a $C^1$ vector field in a Riemannian manifold is a Lipschitz function). We observe that the function $U^\bot(|N_H|)+|N_H|\,\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}U^\bot$ is bounded in ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$ and so it lies in $L^1({\Sigma})$.
On the other hand, we can use to obtain $$U^{\bot}(|N_H|)={\big<D_{U^{\bot}}N,\nu_H\big>} -{\big<N,T\big>}\,
\big<J(U^\bot),\nu_H\big>=-{\big<\nabla_{\Sigma}u,\nu_H\big>},$$ since $J(U^{\bot})$ is orthogonal to $\nu_H$ and $D_{U^\bot}N=-\nabla_{\Sigma}u$. Here $\nabla_{\Sigma}u$ represents the gradient of $u$ relative to ${\Sigma}$. Then, we get in ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$ $$\begin{aligned}
U^\bot(|N_H|)+|N_H|\,\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}U^\bot
&=-(\nu_H)^{\top}(u)+u\,|N_H|\,\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}} N
\\
&=-\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\big(u\,(\nu_H)^\top\big)+u\,\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\big((\nu_H)^\top\big)
\\
&\quad+u\,\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}(|N_H|\,N)
\\
&=-\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\big(u\,(\nu_H)^\top\big)+u\,\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\nu_H.\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, we conclude that $$\int_{{\Sigma}}\{U^\bot(|N_H|)+|N_H|\,\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}U^\bot\}\,d{\Sigma}=
\int_{\Sigma}u\,\big(\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\nu_H\big)\,d{\Sigma}-
\int_{\Sigma}\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\big(u\,(\nu_H)^\top\big)\,d{\Sigma}.$$ Since we are assuming that $\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}\nu_{H}\in L^1({\Sigma})$ we conclude that $\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}(u\,(\nu_{H})^\top)\in L^1({\Sigma})$ and so we have $$A'(0)=\int_{\Sigma}u\,\big(\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\nu_H\big)\,d{\Sigma}-
\int_{\Sigma}\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\big(u\,(\nu_H)^\top\big)\,d{\Sigma}.$$ Note that the second integral above vanishes by virtue of the Riemannian divergence theorem whenever $u$ has compact support disjoint from the singular set ${\Sigma}_{0}$.
Now we shall prove for area-stationary surfaces under a volume constraint. The proof for area-stationary ones follows with the obvious modifications. Inserting in mean zero functions of class $C^1$ with compact support inside the regular set ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$, we get that $\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}{\nu_{H}}$ is a constant function on ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$. If $u:{\Sigma}\to{{\mathbb{R}}}$ is any function, then we consider $v:{\Sigma}\to{{\mathbb{R}}}$ with support in ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$ such that $\int_{{\Sigma}}(u+v)\,d{\Sigma}=0$. Inserting the mean zero function $u+v$ in , taking into account that $\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}{\nu_{H}}$ is constant, and using the divergence theorem, we deduce that $\int_{{\Sigma}}\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}(u\,({\nu_{H}})^\top)\,d{\Sigma}=0$, and is proved.
The first variation of area holds for any $C^2$ surface whenever the support of the vector field $U$ is disjoint from the singular set, see also [@revolucion Lemma 3.2]. For area-stationary surfaces we have shown that is also valid for vector fields moving the singular set.
For a $C^2$ immersed surface ${\Sigma}$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with a $C^1$ unit normal vector $N$ we define, as in [@revolucion], the *mean curvature* $H$ of ${\Sigma}$ by the equality $$\label{eq:mc}
-2H(p):=(\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}{\nu_{H}})(p),\qquad p\in{\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}.$$ For any point in ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$ we consider the orthonormal basis of the tangent space to ${\Sigma}$ given by the vectors fields $Z$ and $S$ defined in and . Then we have $$-2H={\big<D_{Z}{\nu_{H}},Z\big>}+{\big<D_{S}\nu_{H},S\big>}.$$ From in Lemma \[lem:derivatives\] we get ${\big<D_{S}{\nu_{H}},S\big>}=0$, and we conclude that $$\label{eq:dznuh}
-2H={\big<D_{Z}{\nu_{H}},Z\big>}=|{N_{H}}|^{-1}\,{\big<D_{Z}N,Z\big>}.$$
By using variations supported in the regular set of a surface immersed in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, the first variation of area , and the first variation of volume , we get
\[cor:hconstant\] Let ${\Sigma}$ be a $C^2$ oriented immersed surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. Then
If ${\Sigma}$ is area-stationary then the mean curvature of ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$ vanishes.
If ${\Sigma}$ is area-stationary under a volume constraint then the mean curvature of ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$ is constant.
The first derivative of area for variations with compact support in the regular set, and the notion of mean curvature were given by S. Pauls [@pauls] for graphs over the $xy$-plane in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, and later extended by J.-H. Cheng, J.-F. Hwang, A. Malchiodi and P. Yang [@chmy] for any surface inside a $3$-dimensional pseudo-hermitian manifold. The case of the $(2n+1)$-dimensional Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}^n$ has been treated in [@dgn], [@revolucion] and [@bc]. In [@hp], R. Hladky and S. Pauls extend the notion of mean curvature and Corollary \[cor:hconstant\] for stationary surfaces inside vertically rigid sub-Riemannian manifolds. In the recent paper [@chy] the first variation of area for graphs over ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2n}$ has been computed for some more general variations moving the singular set. A definition of mean curvature by using Riemannian approximations to the Carnot-Carathéodory distance in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ can be found in [@ni p. 562] and [@survey §3].
1\. According to our definition, the graph of a $C^2$ function $u(x,y)$ has constant mean curvature $H$ if and only if satisfies the equation $$(u_{y}+x)^2u_{xx}-2\,(u_{y}+x)(u_{x}-y)\,u_{xy}+(u_{x}-y)^2u_{yy}=-2H\,
((u_{x}-y)^2+(u_{y}+x)^2)^{3/2}$$ outside the singular set.
2\. The spherical surface ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{{\lambda}}$ in Example \[ex:spheres\] has constant mean curvature ${\lambda}$ with respect to the inner normal vector. This can be seen by using the equation for constant mean curvature graphs above and . It was proved in [@revolucion Theorem 5.4] that ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{{\lambda}}$ is, up to a vertical translation, the unique $C^2$ compact surface of revolution around the $t$-axis with constant mean curvature ${\lambda}$.
The ruling property of constant mean curvature surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, already observed in [@chmy (2.1), (2.24)], [@gp Corollary 5.3] and [@hp Corollaries 4.5 and 6.10], follows immediately from the expression for the mean curvature and the equation of geodesics .
\[th:ruled\] Let ${\Sigma}$ be an oriented immersed surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ of class $C^2$ with constant mean curvature $H$ outside the singular set. Then any characteristic curve of ${\Sigma}$ coincides with an open arc of a geodesic of curvature $H$. As a consequence, the regular set of ${\Sigma}$ is foliated by geodesics of curvature $H$.
A characteristic curve ${\gamma}$ is parameterized by arc-length since the tangent to ${\gamma}$ is the characteristic vector field $Z$ defined in . We must see that ${\gamma}$ satisfies equation for $\lambda=H$. For any point of this curve, the vector fields $Z$, ${\nu_{H}}$ and $T$ provide an orthonormal basis of the tangent space to ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\dot{{\gamma}}}\dot{{\gamma}}=D_{Z}Z&={\big<D_{Z}Z,{\nu_{H}}\big>}\,{\nu_{H}}+{\big<D_{Z}Z,T\big>}\,T
\\
&=-{\big<Z,D_{Z}{\nu_{H}}\big>}\,{\nu_{H}}-{\big<Z,J(Z)\big>}\,T
\\
&=2H{\nu_{H}}=-2HJ(Z)=-2HJ(\dot{{\gamma}}),\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equalities we have used and that $J(Z)=-{\nu_{H}}$.
Let ${\Sigma}$ be a $C^2$ surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ and $\varphi_{s}$ the dilation of ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ defined in . The ruling property in Theorem \[th:ruled\] and the behavior of geodesics under $\varphi_{s}$ (Remark \[re:propertiesgeo\]) imply that ${\Sigma}$ has constant mean curvature ${\lambda}$ if and only if the dilated surface $\varphi_{s}({\Sigma})$ has constant mean curvature $e^{-s}{\lambda}$.
Now, we will prove a counterpart in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ of the Minkowski formula for compact surfaces in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$. We need the following consequence of , Corollary \[cor:hconstant\] and the definition of the mean curvature
\[cor:caract\] Let ${\Sigma}\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ be a $C^2$ surface enclosing a bounded region ${\Omega}$. Then ${\Sigma}$ is volume-preserving area-stationary if and only if there is a real constant $H$ such that ${\Sigma}$ is a critical point of the functional $A-2HV$ for any given variation.
This corollary and the existence in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ of a one-parameter group of dilations allow us to prove the following Minkowski type formula for volume-preserving stationary surfaces enclosing a bounded region in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. The result also holds for oriented compact immersed surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ when the volume is given by .
\[th:minkowski\] Let ${\Sigma}\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ be a volume-preserving area-stationary $C^2$ surface enclosing a bounded region ${\Omega}$. Then we have $$\label{eq:minkowski}
3A({\Sigma})=8H\,V({\Omega}),$$ where $H$ is the mean curvature of ${\Sigma}$ with respect to the inner normal vector.
We take the vector field $W$ in and the one-parameter group of dilations $\{\varphi_{s}\}_{s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ in . Let ${\Omega}_{s}=\varphi_{s}({\Omega})$ and ${\Sigma}_{s}={\partial}{\Omega}_{s}$. Denote $V(s):=V({\Omega}_{s})$ and $A(s):=A({\Sigma}_{s})$. From the Christoffel symbols , it can be easily proved that $\operatorname{div}W=4$, where $\operatorname{div}W$ is the Riemannian divergence of $W$. By the first variation formula of volume we have $$V'(0)=\int_{{\Omega}}\operatorname{div}W=
4\,V({\Omega}),$$ and so $V(s)=e^{4s}V({\Omega})$.
Let us calculate now the variation of area $A'(0)$. Recall that for fixed $s$ and $p\in{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, we have $(d\varphi_{s})_{p}(X_{p})=e^s X_{\varphi_{s}(p)}$, $(d\varphi_{s})_{p}(Y_{p})=e^s
Y_{\varphi_{s}(p)}$, and $(d\varphi_{s})_{p}(T_{p})=e^{2s} T_{\varphi_{s}(p)}$. Let $N$ be the inner unit normal to ${\Sigma}$, and $p\in{\Sigma}$. From the calculus of $(d\varphi_{s})_{p}$ we see that $\varphi_{s}$ preserves the horizontal distribution, so that $p$ lies in the regular part of ${\Sigma}$ if and only if $\varphi_{s}(p)$ lies in the regular part of ${\Sigma}_s$. Assume $p$ is a regular point of ${\Sigma}$. Then we can choose $\alpha$, $\beta\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ so that $\{e_{1},e_{2}\}$, with $e_{1}=\cos\alpha\,X_{p}+\sin\alpha\,Y_{p}$, and $e_{2}=\cos\beta\,(-\sin\alpha\,X_{p}+\cos\alpha\,Y_{p})+\sin\beta\,T_{p}$, is an orthonormal basis of $T_{p}{\Sigma}$. For the normal $N$ we have $\pm
N_{p}=-\sin\beta\,(-\sin\alpha\,X_{p}+\cos\alpha\,Y_{p})+\cos\beta\,T_{p}$, and so $|N_{H}|_{p}=|\sin\beta|$. We have $(d\varphi_{s})_{p}(e_{1})=e^s\,(\cos\alpha\,X_{\varphi_{s}(p)}
+\sin\alpha\,Y_{\varphi_{s}(p)})$, and $(d\varphi_{s})_{p}(e_{2})=
e^s\cos\beta\,(-\sin\alpha\,X_{\varphi_{s}(p)}+\cos\alpha\,Y_{\varphi_{s}(p)})
+e^{2s}\sin\beta\,T_{\varphi_{s}(p)}$, and so $|\text{Jac}(\varphi_{s})|_{p}=e^{2s}
(\cos^2\beta+e^{2s}\sin^2\beta)^{1/2}$. Hence the relation $(d{\Sigma}_s)_{\varphi_{s}(p)}
=e^{2s}(\cos^2\beta+e^{2s}\sin^2\beta)^{1/2}(d{\Sigma})_{p}$ holds between the area elements of ${\Sigma}_s$ and ${\Sigma}$. For the unit normal $N'$ of ${\Sigma}_s$ at $\varphi_{s}(p)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\pm N'_{\varphi_{s}(p)}&=e^{-s}(\cos^2\beta+e^{2s}\sin^2\beta)^{-1/2}
\\
&\times
[-e^{2s}\sin\beta\,(-\sin\alpha\,X_{\varphi_{s}(p)}+
\cos\alpha\,Y_{\varphi_{s}(p)})+e^s\cos\beta\,T_{\varphi_{s}(p)}], \end{aligned}$$ and so $|N'_{H}|_{\varphi_{s}(p)} =e^s|\sin\beta|\,(\cos^2\beta+e^{2s}\sin^2\beta)^{-1/2}$. Hence $$|N'_{H}|_{\varphi_{s}(p)}\,(d{\Sigma}_s)_{\varphi_{s}(p)}= e^{3s}|N_{H}|\,(d{\Sigma})_{p}.$$ Since $p$ is an arbitrary regular point of ${\Sigma}$, integrating the above displayed formula over ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$ and using the area formula we have $A(s)=e^{3s}A({\Sigma})$, and so $$A'(0)=3\,A({\Sigma}).$$ Finally, as ${\Sigma}$ is volume-preserving area-stationary, we deduce from Corollary \[cor:caract\] that $A'(0)=2HV'(0)$, and equality follows.
\[cor:hpositive\] Let ${\Sigma}\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ be a volume-preserving area-stationary $C^2$ surface enclosing a bounded region ${\Omega}$. Then the constant mean curvature of the regular part of ${\Sigma}$ with respect to the inner normal is positive. In particular, there are no compact area-stationary $C^2$ surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$.
The generalization of to the $(2n+1)$-dimensional Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}^n$ is immediate. By using the first variation formula in [@revolucion Lemma 3.2] and the arguments in this section we get that, for a $C^2$ volume-preserving area-stationary hypersurface ${\Sigma}\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}^n$ enclosing a bounded region ${\Omega}$, we have $$\label{eq:minkowskihn}
(2n+1)\,A({\Sigma})=4n(n+1)H\,V({\Omega}).$$
We finish this section with a characterization of area-stationary surfaces in terms of geometric conditions. For that, we need additional information on the singular set ${\Sigma}_{0}$ of a constant mean curvature surface ${\Sigma}{\subset}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. The set ${\Sigma}_0$ has been recently studied by J.-H. Cheng, J.-F. Hwang, A. Malchiodi and P. Yang [@chmy]. Their results are local and also valid when the mean curvature is bounded on the regular set ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$. By Theorem \[th:ruled\] we can replace “characteristic curves” in their statement by “geodesics of the same curvature”. We summarize their results in the following theorem.
\[th:chmy\] Let ${\Sigma}\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ be a $C^2$ oriented immersed surface with constant mean curvature $H$. Then the singular set ${\Sigma}_{0}$ consists of isolated points and $C^1$ curves with non-vanishing tangent vector. Moreover, we have
- $($[@chmy Theorem 3.10]$)$ If $p\in{\Sigma}_{0}$ is isolated then there is $r>0$ and ${\lambda}\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ with $|{\lambda}|=|H|$ such that the set described as $$D_{r}(p)=\{\gamma_{p,v}^{\lambda}(s);v\in T_p{\Sigma},\,|v|=1,\,s\in [0,r)\},$$ is an open neighborhood of $p$ in ${\Sigma}$.
- $($[@chmy Proposition 3.5 and Corollary 3.6]$)$ If $p$ is contained in a $C^1$ curve ${\Gamma}\subset{\Sigma}_{0}$ then there is a neighborhood $B$ of $p$ in ${\Sigma}$ such that $B-\Gamma$ is the union of two disjoint connected open sets $B^+$ and $B^-$ contained in ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$, and $\nu_H$ extends continuously to ${\Gamma}$ from both sides of $B-\Gamma$, i.e., the limits $$\nu^+_H(q)=\lim_{x\to q,\ x\in B^+}\nu_H(x),
\qquad
\nu^-_H(q)=\lim_{x\to q,\ x\in B^-}\nu_H(x)$$ exist for any $q\in{\Gamma}\cap B$. These extensions satisfy $\nu_H^+(q)=-\nu_H^-(q)$. Moreover, there are exactly two geodesics ${\gamma}_{1} ^{\lambda}{\subset}B^+$ and ${\gamma}_{2}^{\lambda}{\subset}B^-$ starting from $q$ and meeting transversally ${\Gamma}$ at $q$ with initial velocities $$({\gamma}_{1}^{{\lambda}})'(0)=-({\gamma}^{\lambda}_{2})'(0).$$ The curvature ${\lambda}$ does not depend on $q$ and satisfies $|{\lambda}|=|H|$.
\[rem:lambdaorientation\] The relation between $\lambda$ and $H$ depends on the value of the normal $N$ in the singular point $p$. If $N_{p}=T$ then $\lambda=H$, while we have $\lambda=-H$ whenever $N_{p}=-T$. In case ${\lambda}=H$ the geodesics ${\gamma}^{\lambda}$ in Theorem \[th:chmy\] are characteristic curves of ${\Sigma}$.
In Euclidean space it is equivalent for a surface to be area-stationary (resp. volume-preserving area-stationary) and to have zero (resp. constant) mean curvature. For a surface ${\Sigma}$ is ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ this also holds if the singular set ${\Sigma}_{0}$ consists only of isolated points. In the general case, we have the following
\[th:constant\] Let ${\Sigma}\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ be either an oriented area-stationary $C^2$ immersed surface or a volume-preserving area-stationary $C^2$ compact surface enclosing a region ${\Omega}$. Then the mean curvature of ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$ is, respectively, zero or constant and, in both cases, the characteristic curves meet the singular curves, if they exist, orthogonally. The converse is also true.
Suppose first that ${\Sigma}$ is area-stationary. That the mean curvature is zero or constant on ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$ follows from Corollary \[cor:hconstant\]. Assume ${\Gamma}$ is a singular curve and let $p\in{\Gamma}$. By Theorem \[th:chmy\] (ii) the curve ${\Gamma}$ is $C^1$ and we can take a neighborhood $B$ of $p$ in ${\Sigma}$ such that $B-{\Gamma}$ consists of the union of two open connected sets $B^+$ and $B^-$ contained in ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$. Let $\xi$ be the unit normal to ${\Gamma}$ in ${\Sigma}$ pointing into $B^+$. Let $f:{\Gamma}\to{{\mathbb{R}}}$ be any $C^1$ function supported on ${\Gamma}\cap B$. Extend $f$ to a $C^1$ function $u:B\to{{\mathbb{R}}}$ with compact support in $B$ and mean zero. Since ${\Sigma}$ is area-stationary, by and the divergence theorem we have $$\begin{aligned}
0=A'(0)&=-\int_{B}\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}\big(u\,({\nu_{H}})^\top\big)\,d{\Sigma}\\
&=
-\int_{B^+}\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}\big(u\,({\nu_{H}})^\top\big)\,d{\Sigma}-\int_{B^-}\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}\big(u\,({\nu_{H}})^\top\big)\,d{\Sigma}\\
&=\int_{{\Gamma}} f\,{\big<\xi,{\nu_{H}}^+\big>}\,d{\Gamma}-\int_{{\Gamma}}
f\,{\big<\xi,{\nu_{H}}^-\big>}\,d{\Gamma}\\
&=2\int_{{\Gamma}} f\,{\big<\xi,{\nu_{H}}^+\big>}\,d{\Gamma},\end{aligned}$$ since the extensions ${\nu_{H}}^+$, ${\nu_{H}}^-$ of ${\nu_{H}}$ given in Theorem \[th:chmy\] (ii) satisfy ${\nu_{H}}^+=-{\nu_{H}}^-$. As $f$ is an arbitrary function on ${\Gamma}\cap B$ we conclude that ${\big<\xi,{\nu_{H}}^+\big>}\equiv 0$ on ${\Gamma}\cap B$. This means that ${\nu_{H}}^+$ is tangent to ${\Gamma}\cap B$ and so the two characteristic curves approaching $p$ meet the singular curve ${\Gamma}$ in an orthogonal way.
We will see the converse for constant mean curvature. Let $U$ be a $C^1$ vector field inducing a volume-preserving variation of ${\Sigma}$. Let $u={\big<U,N\big>}$. By the first variation of volume we have $\int_{{\Sigma}} u\,d{\Sigma}=0$. By $$A'(0)= -\int_{\Sigma}\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\big(u\,(\nu_H)^\top\big)\,d{\Sigma},$$ since $u$ has mean zero and $\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}{\nu_{H}}$ is a constant. To analyze the above integral, we consider disjoint open balls $B_{{\varepsilon}}(p_{i})$ (for the Riemannian distance on ${\Sigma}$) of small radius ${\varepsilon}>0$, centered at the isolated points $p_{1},\ldots,p_{k}$ of the singular set ${\Sigma}_{0}$. By the divergence theorem in ${\Sigma}$, and the fact that the characteristic curves meet orthogonally the singular curves we have, for ${\Sigma}_{{\varepsilon}}={\Sigma}-\bigcup_{i=1}^k B_{{\varepsilon}}(p_{i})$, $$-\int_{{\Sigma}_{{\varepsilon}}}\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}\big(u\,(\nu_H)^\top\big)\,d{\Sigma}= \sum_{i=1}^k\, \int_{{\partial}B_{{\varepsilon}}(p_{i})} u\,{\big<\xi_{i},{\nu_{H}}\big>}\,dl,$$ where $\xi_{i}$ is the inner unit normal vector to ${\partial}B_{{\varepsilon}}(p_{i})$ in ${\Sigma}$. Note also that $$\bigg|\sum_{i=1}^k\,\int_{{\partial}B_{{\varepsilon}}(p_{i})}u\,{\big<\xi_{i},\nu_{H}\big>}\,dl\bigg|
{\leqslant}\big(\sup_{{\Sigma}}\,|u|\big)\,\sum_{i=1}^kL({\partial}B_{{\varepsilon}}(p_{i})),$$ where $L({\partial}B_{{\varepsilon}}(p_{i}))$ is the Riemannian length of ${\partial}B_{{\varepsilon}}(p_{i})$. Finally, as $|\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}(u\,(\nu_{H}^\top))|{\leqslant}(\sup_{{\Sigma}}\,|u|)\,|\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}\nu_{H}-|N_{H}|\,\operatorname{div}_{{\Sigma}}N|+|\nabla_{{\Sigma}}u|\in L^1({\Sigma})$, we can apply the dominated convergence theorem and the fact that $L({\partial}B_{{\varepsilon}}(p_{i}))\to 0$ when ${\varepsilon}\to 0$ to prove the claim.
Any sphere ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{{\lambda}}$ is a volume-preserving area-stationary surface by Theorem \[th:constant\] since it has constant mean curvature in ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$ and ${\Sigma}_0$ consists of isolated points.
Recently, J.-H. Cheng, J.-F. Hwang and P. Yang [@chy Theorem 6.3 and (7.2)] have obtained Theorem \[th:constant\] when ${\Sigma}$ is a $C^2$ graph over a bounded set $D$ of the $xy$-plane which is a weak solution of the equation $\operatorname{div}_{\Sigma}{\nu_{H}}=-2H$ ([@chy Equation (3.12)]). As it is proved in [@chy Theorem 3.3] such a graph minimizes the functional $A-2HV$ amongst all graphs ${\Sigma}'$ in the Sobolev space $W^{1,1}(D)$ with ${\partial}{\Sigma}'={\partial}{\Sigma}$. In particular, these graphs are area-stationary for variations by graphs leaving invariant ${\partial}{\Sigma}$.
For a $C^2$ area-stationary surface we can use Theorem \[th:constant\] to improve the $C^1$ regularity of the singular curves obtained in [@chmy Theorem 3.3].
\[prop:c2singcurves\] If ${\Sigma}$ is a $C^2$ oriented immersed area-stationary surface $($with or without a volume constraint $)$ then any singular curve of ${\Sigma}$ is a $C^2$ smooth curve.
By Corollary \[cor:hconstant\] we know that ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$ has constant mean curvature $H$. Let ${\Gamma}$ be a connected singular curve of ${\Sigma}$ and $p_{0} \in{\Gamma}$. By taking the opposite unit normal to ${\Sigma}$ if necessary we can assume that $N=-T$ along ${\Gamma}$. By using Theorem \[th:constant\] (ii) and the remark below, we can find a small neighborhood $B$ of $p_{0}$ in ${\Sigma}$ such that $B^+$ is foliated by geodesics of the same curvature ${\lambda}=H$ reaching ${\Gamma}\cap B$ at finite, positive time. These geodesics are characteristic curves of ${\Sigma}$ and meet ${\Gamma}$ orthogonally by Theorem \[th:constant\].
Let $Z$ be the characteristic vector field of ${\Sigma}$ with respect to $N$. Take a point $q\in B^+$ such that ${\gamma}^{\lambda}_{q,Z(q)}(s(q))=p_{0}$ for some $s(q)>0$. We consider a $C^2$ curve $\mathcal{C}{\subset}B^+$ passing through $q$ and meeting transversally the geodesics only at one point. We define the $C^1$ map $F:\mathcal{C}\times
(0,+\infty)\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ given by $F(x,s)=\gamma^{\lambda}_{x,Z(x)}(s)$. For any $x\in\mathcal{C}$ there is a first value $s(x)>0$ such that $F(x,s(x))\in{\Gamma}$. Moreover, by using the orthogonality condition in Theorem \[th:constant\] we can choose the curve $\mathcal{C}$ so that the differential of $F$ has rank two for any $(x,s(x))$ near to $(q,s(q))$. Thus, for some $\delta>0$ we have that ${\Sigma}'=\{F(x,s);x\in [q-\delta,q+\delta], \ s\in [0,s(x)+\delta]\}$ is a $C^1$ extension of ${\Sigma}$ beyond the singular curve ${\Gamma}$. In particular ${\Sigma}$ and ${\Sigma}'$ are tangent along ${\Gamma}$. The horizontal tangent vector to ${\Sigma}'$ given by $Z'=({\partial}F/{\partial}s)(x,s)=({\gamma}^{\lambda}_{x,Z(x)})'(s)$ is a $C^1$ extension of $Z$. Finally the orthogonality condition implies that the restriction of $J(Z')$ is a unit $C^1$ tangent vector to ${\Gamma}$. We conclude that ${\Gamma}$ is a $C^2$ smooth curve around $p_{0}$ and the proof follows.
**Entire area-stationary graphs in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$** {#sec:bernstein}
=======================================================
An *entire graph* over a plane is one defined over the whole plane. A classical theorem by Bernstein shows that the only entire minimal graphs in Euclidean space ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$ are the planes. In [@pauls Theorem D], S. Pauls observed the existence of entire graphs with $H=0$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ different from Euclidean planes. These are obtained by rotations about the $t$-axis of a graph of the form $$\label{eq:bernstein}
t=xy+g(y),\qquad\text{where } \ g\in C^2({{\mathbb{R}}}).$$ In [@chmy Theorem A], J.-H. Cheng, J.-F. Hwang, A. Malchiodi and P. Yang proved that Euclidean planes and vertical rotations of are the unique $C^2$ graphs over the $xy$-plane with $H=0$, see also [@gp Theorem D]. Here we show that according to Theorem \[th:constant\] not all the graphs in are area-stationary. In precise terms, we have
\[th:bernstein\] The unique entire $C^2$ area-stationary graphs over the $xy$-plane in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ are Euclidean planes and vertical rotations of graphs of the form $$t=xy+(ay+b),$$ where $a$ and $b$ are real constants.
Let ${\Sigma}$ be a $C^2$ entire area-stationary graph over the $xy$-plane in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. By Theorem \[th:constant\] we know that the mean curvature of ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_0$ vanishes and the intersection between characteristic lines and singular curves is orthogonal. By the classification in [@chmy Theorem A] for entire graphs with $H=0$ we have that ${\Sigma}$ is a Euclidean plane or a vertical rotation of . That Euclidean planes are area-stationary follows from Theorem \[th:constant\] since they only have isolated singularities. To prove the claim we suppose that ${\Sigma}$ coincides with . The surface ${\Sigma}$ has a connected curve $\Gamma$ of singular points whose projection to the $xy$-plane is given by the equation $x=-g'(y)/2$. We can parameterize ${\Gamma}$ by $${\Gamma}(s)=\left(-\frac{g'(s)}{2},s,g(s)-\frac{g'(s)\,s}{2}\right),\qquad s\in{{\mathbb{R}}},$$ and so, if ${\Gamma}(s_{0})=p_{0}$, then $\dot{{\Gamma}}(s_{0})=(-g''(s_{0})/2)\,X_{p_{0}}+Y_{p_{0}}$. On the other hand, it is not difficult to check that for a fixed $y\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$, the straight line $t=xy+g(y)$ is a characteristic curve of ${\Sigma}$ when removing the contact point with ${\Gamma}$. We parameterize this line as $$S_{y}(s)=(s,y,sy+g(y)),\qquad s\in{{\mathbb{R}}},$$ so that if $S_{y}(s_{1})=p_{0}$ then $\dot{S}_{y}(s_{1})=X_{p_{0}}$. From these computations we see that, for $p_{0}={\Gamma}(s_{0})=S_{y}(s_{1})$ we have $${\big<\dot{{\Gamma}}(s_0),\dot{S_y}(s_1)\big>}=-\frac{g''(y)}{2}.$$ We conclude that the characteristic lines $S_y$ meet orthogonally the singular curve ${\Gamma}$ if and only if $g(y)=ay+b$ for some real constants $a$ and $b$.
While Euclidean planes have only an isolated singular point, the entire area-stationary graphs obtained by rotations of $t=xy+(ay+b)$ have a straight line of singular points. From a geometric point of view, these second surfaces are constructed by taking a horizontal straight line $R$ and attaching at any point of $R$ the unique straight line which is both horizontal and orthogonal to $R$. The remaining surfaces defined by equation have vanishing mean curvature outside the singular set, but they are not area-stationary.
We finish this section showing that the graphs obtained in Theorem \[th:bernstein\] are globally area-minimizing. This is a counterpart in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ of a well-known result for minimal graphs in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$.
We say that a surface ${\Sigma}{\subset}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is *area-minimizing* if any region $M{\subset}{\Sigma}$ has less area than any other $C^1$ compact surface $M'$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with ${\partial}M={\partial}M'$. In [@chmy Proposition 6.2] it was proved by using a calibration argument that any $C^2$ surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with vanishing mean curvature locally minimizes the area around any point in the regular set. Here, we adapt the calibration argument in order to deal with surfaces with singularities, and we obtain
\[th:areaminimizing\] Any entire $C^2$ area-stationary graph ${\Sigma}$ over the $xy$-plane in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is area-minimizing.
After a vertical rotation about the $t$-axis we may assume, by Theorem \[th:bernstein\], that ${\Sigma}$ coincides with a Euclidean plane or with a graph of the form $t=xy+ay+b$, for some $a,b\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$. Let ${\Sigma}_{t}$ be area-stationary graph obtained by applying to ${\Sigma}$ the left translation $L_{t}$ by the vertical vector $tT$. The family $\{{\Sigma}_{t}\}_{t\in{{\mathbb{R}}}}$ is a foliation of ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ by area-stationary surfaces. Moreover, $L_{t}$ preserves the horizontal distribution and hence $p\in{\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$ if and only if $L_{t}(p)\in{\Sigma}_{t}-({\Sigma}_{t})_{0}$. Therefore, the set $P=\bigcup_{t}
({\Sigma}_{t})_{0}$ is either a vertical straight line if ${\Sigma}$ is a plane or a vertical plane if ${\Sigma}$ is a graph $t=xy+ay+b$. Consider a $C^1$ vector field $N$ on ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ so that the restriction $N_{t}$ of $N$ to ${\Sigma}_{t}$ is a unit normal vector to ${\Sigma}_{t}$. We denote $N_{H}/|N_{H}|$ by ${\nu_{H}}$, and $Z=J({\nu_{H}})$, which are $C^1$ vector fields on ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1-P$.
Let us compute $\operatorname{div}{\nu_{H}}$. Take a point $p$ in the regular set of ${\Sigma}_{t}$ for some $t\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$. We have an orthonormal basis of $T_{p}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ given by $\{Z_{p},({\nu_{H}})_{p},T\}$. Denote by $H_{t}$ the mean curvature of ${\Sigma}_{t}$ with respect to $N_{t}$. By using equation and that ${\nu_{H}}$ is a horizontal unit vector field, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{div}{\nu_{H}}&={\big<D_{Z}{\nu_{H}},Z\big>}+{\big<D_{{\nu_{H}}}{\nu_{H}},{\nu_{H}}\big>}+
{\big<D_{T}{\nu_{H}},T\big>}
\\
&=-2H_{t}-{\big<{\nu_{H}},D_{T}T\big>}=0,\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we have used that $H_{t}\equiv 0$ since ${\Sigma}_{t}$ is area-stationary (Corollary \[cor:hconstant\](i)), and that $D_{T}T=0$.
Consider a region $M{\subset}{\Sigma}$ and a compact $C^1$ surface $M'{\subset}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with ${\partial}M={\partial}M'$. We denote by ${\Omega}$ the open set bounded by $M$ and $M'$. The set ${\Omega}$ has finite perimeter in the Riemannian manifold $({{\mathbb{H}}}^1,g)$ since it is bounded and the two-dimensional Riemannian Hausdorff measure of ${\partial}{\Omega}\cap C$ is finite for any compact set $C{\subset}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, see [@evans Theorem 1, p. 222]. For the following arguments we may assume ${\Omega}$ connected, and that ${\partial}{\Omega}=M\cup M'$. We fix the outward normal vector $N$ to ${\Sigma}$, and the unit normal vector $N'$ to $M'$, to point into ${\Omega}$. As a consequence, we can apply the Gauss-Green Theorem for sets of finite perimeter [@evans Theorem 1, p. 209] so that, for any $C^1$ vector field $U$ on ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, we have $$\label{eq:gaussgreen}
\int_{{\Omega}}\operatorname{div}U\,dv=\int_{M}{\big<U,N\big>}\,dM-\int_{M'}{\big<U,N'\big>}\,dM'.$$
In order to prove $A(M){\leqslant}A(M')$ we distinguish two cases.
Case 1. If ${\Sigma}$ is a Euclidean plane, then ${\nu_{H}}$ is defined in the closure of ${\Omega}$ outside a set contained in a straight line. Thus, we can apply to deduce $$\begin{aligned}
0=\int_{{\Omega}}\operatorname{div}{\nu_{H}}\,dv&=\int_{M}{\big<{\nu_{H}},N\big>}\,dM
-\int_{M'}{\big<{\nu_{H}},N'\big>}\,dM'
\\
&=\int_{M}|N_{H}|\,dM-\int_{M'}{\big<{\nu_{H}},N'_{H}\big>}\,dM'
\\
&{\geqslant}A(M)-A(M').\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the last inequality we have used the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and that $|{\nu_{H}}|=1$. This proves the claim.
Case 2. If ${\Sigma}$ is a graph of the form $t=xy+ay+b$, then ${\nu_{H}}$ is defined on ${\Omega}-P$, where $P$ is a vertical Euclidean plane. Denote by $P^+$ and $P^-$ the open half-planes determined by $P$. For any set $E{\subset}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, we let $E^+=E\cap P^+$ and $E^-=E\cap P^-$. The sets ${\Omega}^+$ and ${\Omega}^-$ has finite perimeter in $({{\mathbb{H}}}^1,g)$. Moreover, by Theorem \[th:chmy\] (ii) the vector field ${\nu_{H}}$ extends continuously to $P$ from ${\Omega}^+$ and ${\Omega}^-$ . Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
0&=\int_{{\Omega}^+}\operatorname{div}{\nu_{H}}\,dv=\int_{M^+}{\big<{\nu_{H}},N\big>}\,dM
-\int_{(M')^+}{\big<{\nu_{H}},N'\big>}\,dM'-\int_{{\Omega}\cap P}{\big<{\nu_{H}}^+,\xi\big>}\,dP
\\
0&=\int_{{\Omega}^-}\operatorname{div}{\nu_{H}}\,dv=\int_{M^-}{\big<{\nu_{H}},N\big>}\,dM
-\int_{(M')^-}{\big<{\nu_{H}},N'\big>}\,dM'+\int_{{\Omega}\cap P}{\big<{\nu_{H}}^-,\xi\big>}\,dP,\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi$ is the unit normal vector to $P$ pointing into ${\Omega}^+$. As ${\nu_{H}}^+=-{\nu_{H}}^-$, by summing the previous equalities we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
0&=\int_{M}{\big<{\nu_{H}},N\big>}\,dM-\int_{M'}{\big<{\nu_{H}},N'\big>}\,dM' -2\int_{{\Omega}\cap
P}{\big<{\nu_{H}}^+,\xi\big>}\,dP
\\
&{\geqslant}A(M)-A(M')-2\int_{{\Omega}\cap P}{\big<{\nu_{H}}^+,\xi\big>}\,dP.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the orthogonality condition between characteristic lines and singular curves in Theorem \[th:constant\] implies that ${\big<{\nu_{H}}^+,\xi\big>}=0$ on ${\Omega}\cap P$. Thus, we get $A(M){\leqslant}~A(M')$.
If ${\Sigma}$ is an area-stationary surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, and there is a left invariant vector field $V$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ transverse to ${\Sigma}$, then we can produce a local foliation by area-stationary surfaces around ${\Sigma}$ by using the flow associated to $V$. The arguments in the proof of Theorem \[th:areaminimizing\] show that ${\Sigma}$ is locally area-minimizing, i.e., bounded portions of ${\Sigma}$ minimize area amongst surfaces with boundary on ${\Sigma}$ and contained in the foliated neighborhood of ${\Sigma}$.
1\. It follows from [@chy Proposition 6.2 and Theorem 3.3] that a $C^2$ area-stationary graph over a bounded domain $D$ of the $xy$-plane minimizes the area amongst all graphs ${\Sigma}'$ in the Sobolev space $W^{1,1}(D)$ with ${\partial}{\Sigma}'={\partial}{\Sigma}$. This has been recently improved in [@bscv Example 2.7] where it is shown that such a graph is area-minimizing.
2\. Theorem \[th:areaminimizing\] does not hold for a graph over the $xt$-plane, see an example in [@dgn3]. In [@bscv Theorem 5.3] it is proved that the unique $C^2$ entire, area-minimizing *intrinsic graphs* over the $xt$-plane are vertical planes.
**Complete volume-preserving area-stationary surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$** {#sec:mainresult}
=============================================================================
An immersed surface ${\Sigma}\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is *complete* if it is complete in the Riemannian manifold $({{\mathbb{H}}}^1,g)$. Completeness for a constant mean curvature surface is equivalent to that the singular curves in ${\Sigma}_{0}$ are closed in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ and that characteristic curves in ${\Sigma}-{\Sigma}_{0}$ extend up to singular points of ${\Sigma}$.
In this section we obtain classification results for complete area-stationary surfaces under a volume constraint in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. We say that a complete noncompact oriented $C^2$ surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is volume-preserving area-stationary if it has constant mean curvature off of the singular set and the characteristic curves meet orthogonally the singular curves. By Theorem \[th:constant\] this implies that the surface is area-stationary for any variation with compact support of the surface such that the volume of the perturbed region remains constant.
We begin with the description of constant mean curvature surfaces with isolated singularities. It was shown in [@chmy Proof of Theorem A] (see also [@ch Proposition 2.1]) and [@gp Lemma 8.2] that any $C^2$ surface with vanishing mean curvature and an isolated singular point must coincide with a Euclidean plane. By using the local behavior of a constant mean curvature surface around a singular point (Theorem \[th:chmy\]) we can prove the following
\[th:spheres\] Let ${\Sigma}$ be a complete, connected, $C^2$ oriented immersed surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with non-vanishing constant mean curvature. If ${\Sigma}$ contains an isolated singular point then ${\Sigma}$ is congruent with a sphere $\mathbb{S}_{H}$.
We choose the unit normal $N$ to ${\Sigma}$ such that the mean curvature $H$ is positive. Let $p$ be an isolated singular point of ${\Sigma}$. By applying to ${\Sigma}$ the left translation $(L_{p})^{-1}$ we can assume that $p=0$ and the tangent plane $T_{p}{\Sigma}$ coincides with the $xy$-plane. Suppose that $N_p=T$. For any $r>0$ we consider the set $$D_{r}=\{{\gamma}^H_{0,v}(s);\,|v|=1, \ s\in [0,r)\}.$$ It is clear that the union of $D_{r}$, for $r\in (0,\pi/H)$, coincides with the sphere ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{H}$ removing the north pole (see Example \[ex:spheres\]). By Theorem \[th:chmy\] (i) and Remark \[rem:lambdaorientation\], we can find $r>0$ such that $D_{r}{\subset}{\Sigma}$. Let $R=\sup\,\{r>0\ ;\ D_{r}{\subset}{\Sigma}\}$. As ${\Sigma}$ is complete and connected, and ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{H}$ is compact, to prove the claim it suffices to see that $R=\pi/H$.
Suppose that $R<\pi/H$. In this case we would have $\overline{D}_R{\subset}{\Sigma}$ and so, ${\Sigma}$ and ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{H}$ would be tangent along the curve ${\partial}D_{R}$. In particular, this curve is contained in the regular set of ${\Sigma}$. By Theorem \[th:ruled\] the characteristic curve of ${\Sigma}$ passing through any $q\in{\partial}D_{R}$ is an open arc of a geodesic of curvature $H$. By the uniqueness of the geodesics this would imply that we may extend any ${\gamma}^H_{0,v}$ inside ${\Sigma}$ beyond ${\partial}D_{R}$, a contradiction with the definition of $R$. This proves $R{\geqslant}\pi/H$. On the other hand, $R>\pi/H$ would imply that ${\Sigma}$ contains a neighborhood of a tangent point between two different spheres of the same curvature which is not possible since ${\Sigma}$ is immersed.
Finally, if $N_p=-T$ we repeat the previous arguments by using geodesics of curvature $-H$ and we conclude that ${\Sigma}$ coincides with a vertical translation of ${{\mathbb{S}}}_H$.
Theorem \[th:spheres\] does not provide information about non-vanishing constant mean curvature surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with at least one singular curve. We will treat this situation in the particular case of volume-preserving area-stationary surfaces, where we have by Theorem \[th:constant\] the additional condition that the characteristic curves meet orthogonally the singular curves. We first study in more detail the behavior of the characteristic curves far away from a singular curve.
Let ${\Gamma}$ be a $C^2$ horizontal curve in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. We parameterize ${\Gamma}=(x,y,t)$ by arc-length ${\varepsilon}\in I$, where $I$ is an open interval. The projection $\alpha=(x,y)$ is a plane curve with $|\dot{\alpha}|=1$. We denote by $h$ the planar geodesic curvature of $\alpha$ with respect to the unit normal vector $(-\dot{y},\dot{x})$, that is $h=\dot{x}\,\ddot{y}-\ddot{x}\,\dot{y}$. As ${\gamma}$ is horizontal, we have $\dot{t}=\dot{x}y-x\dot{y}$. Fix ${\lambda}\neq 0$. For any ${\varepsilon}\in I$ let ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$ be the unique geodesic of curvature ${\lambda}$ with initial conditions ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}(0)={\Gamma}({\varepsilon})$ and $\dot{{\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}}(0)=J(\dot{{\Gamma}}({\varepsilon}))$. We consider the family of all these geodesics orthogonal to ${\Gamma}$ parameterized by $F({\varepsilon},s)={\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}(s)=(x({\varepsilon},s),y({\varepsilon},s),t({\varepsilon},s))$, for ${\varepsilon}\in I$ and $s\in[0,\pi/|{\lambda}|]$. By equation we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
x({\varepsilon},s)&=x({\varepsilon})-\dot{y}({\varepsilon})\,
\bigg(\frac{\sin(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg)
+\dot{x}({\varepsilon})\,
\bigg(\frac{1-\cos(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg),
\\
\label{eq:geocoor2}
y({\varepsilon},s)&=y({\varepsilon})+\dot{y}({\varepsilon})\,
\bigg(\frac{1-\cos(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg)+\dot{x}({\varepsilon})\,
\bigg(\frac{\sin(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg),
\\
\nonumber
t({\varepsilon},s)&=t({\varepsilon})+\frac{1}{2\lambda}\,
\bigg(s-\frac{\sin(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg)-
(x({\varepsilon})\,\dot{x}({\varepsilon})+y({\varepsilon})\,\dot{y}({\varepsilon}))\,\left(\frac{\sin(2\lambda
s)}{2{\lambda}}\right)
\\
\nonumber &\quad +(\dot{x}({\varepsilon})\,y({\varepsilon})-x({\varepsilon})\,\dot{y}({\varepsilon}))\,\left(\frac{1-\cos(2\lambda
s)}{2{\lambda}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ From the equations above we see that $F$ is a $C^1$ map. Clearly $({\partial}F/{\partial}s)({\varepsilon},s)=\dot{{\gamma}}_{{\varepsilon}}(s)$. We denote $V_{{\varepsilon}}(s):=({\partial}F/{\partial}{\varepsilon})({\varepsilon},s)$. In the next result we show some properties of $V_{{\varepsilon}}$.
\[lem:jacobi3\] In the situation above, $V_{{\varepsilon}}$ is a Jacobi vector field along ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$ with $V_{{\varepsilon}}(0)=\dot{{\Gamma}}({\varepsilon})$. For any ${\varepsilon}\in I$ there is a unique $s_{{\varepsilon}}\in (0,\pi/|{\lambda}|)$ such that ${\big<V_{{\varepsilon}}(s_{{\varepsilon}}),T\big>}=0$. We have ${\big<V_{{\varepsilon}},T\big>}<0$ on $(0,s_{{\varepsilon}})$ and ${\big<V_{{\varepsilon}},T\big>}>0$ on $(s_{{\varepsilon}} ,\pi/|{\lambda}|)$. Moreover $V_{{\varepsilon}}(s_{{\varepsilon}})= J(\dot{{\gamma}}_{{\varepsilon}}(s_{{\varepsilon}}))$.
By the definition of $V_{{\varepsilon}}$ we have $V_{{\varepsilon}}(0)=\dot{{\Gamma}}({\varepsilon})$ and $$V_{{\varepsilon}}(s)=
\frac{{\partial}x}{{\partial}{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon},s)\,\,X
+\frac{{\partial}y}{{\partial}{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon},s)\,\,Y+ \left(\frac{{\partial}t}{{\partial}{\varepsilon}}-y\,\,\frac{{\partial}x}{{\partial}{\varepsilon}}+x\,\,\frac{{\partial}y}{{\partial}{\varepsilon}}\right)({\varepsilon},s)\,\,T.$$ The Euclidean components of $V_{{\varepsilon}}(s)$ are easily computed from , so that we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\frac{{\partial}x}{{\partial}{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon},s)&=\dot{x}({\varepsilon})-\ddot{y}({\varepsilon})\,
\bigg(\frac{\sin(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg)
+\ddot{x}({\varepsilon})\,
\bigg(\frac{1-\cos(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg),
\\
\frac{{\partial}y}{{\partial}{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon},s)&=\dot{y}({\varepsilon})+\ddot{y}({\varepsilon})\,
\bigg(\frac{1-\cos(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg)+\ddot{x}({\varepsilon})\,
\bigg(\frac{\sin(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg),
\\
\nonumber
\frac{{\partial}t}{{\partial}{\varepsilon}}({\varepsilon},s)&=\dot{t}({\varepsilon})+\frac{1}{2\lambda}\,
\bigg(s-\frac{\sin(2\lambda\,s)}{2\lambda}\bigg)-
(1+x({\varepsilon})\,\ddot{x}({\varepsilon})+y({\varepsilon})\,\ddot{y}({\varepsilon}))\,\left(\frac{\sin(2\lambda
s)}{2{\lambda}}\right)
\\
\nonumber &\quad +(\ddot{x}({\varepsilon})\,y({\varepsilon})-x({\varepsilon})\,\ddot{y}({\varepsilon}))\,\left(\frac{1-\cos(2\lambda
s)}{2{\lambda}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We deduce that $V_{{\varepsilon}}$ is $C^\infty$ vector field along ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$ and $${\big<V_{{\varepsilon}}(s),T\big>}=\frac{1}{{\lambda}}\,\left(\frac{1-\cos(2{\lambda}\, s)}{2{\lambda}}\,\,
h({\varepsilon})-\sin(2{\lambda}s)\right),\qquad s\in [0,\pi/|{\lambda}|].$$ That $V_{{\varepsilon}}$ is a Jacobi vector field along ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$ follows from Lemma \[lem:jacobi2\] since $V_{{\varepsilon}}$ is associated to a variation of ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$ by geodesics of the same curvature. On the other hand, the equation above implies that ${\big<V_{{\varepsilon}}(s_{{\varepsilon}}),T\big>}=0$ for some $s_{{\varepsilon}}\in (0,\pi/|{\lambda}|)$ if and only if $$\label{eq:despeje}
h({\varepsilon})=\frac{2{\lambda}\,\sin(2{\lambda}\,s_{{\varepsilon}})}{1-\cos(2{\lambda}\,s_{{\varepsilon}})}.$$ The existence and uniqueness of $s_{{\varepsilon}}$, and the sign of ${\big<V_{{\varepsilon}},T\big>}$ are consequences of the fact that the function $f(x)=\sin(x)\,(1-\cos(x))^{-1}$ is periodic, decreasing on $(0,2\pi)$ and satisfies $\lim_{x\to0^+}f(x)=+\infty$ and $\lim_{x\to
(2\pi)^-}f(x)=-\infty$.
Now we use Lemma \[lem:jacobi1\] and the fact that $V_{{\varepsilon}}(0)=\dot{{\Gamma}}({\varepsilon})$ to deduce that the function ${\lambda}\,{\big<V_{{\varepsilon}},T\big>}+{\big<V_{{\varepsilon}},\dot{{\gamma}}_{{\varepsilon}}\big>}$ vanishes along ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$. In particular, $V_{{\varepsilon}}(s_{{\varepsilon}})$ is a horizontal vector orthogonal to $\dot{{\gamma}}_{{\varepsilon}}(s_{{\varepsilon}})$. Finally, we have, for $s\in[0,\pi/|{\lambda}|]$, $${\big<V_{{\varepsilon}}(s),J(\dot{{\gamma}}_{{\varepsilon}}(s))\big>}=
\bigg(
-\frac{{\partial}x}{{\partial}{\varepsilon}}\,\frac{{\partial}y}{{\partial}s}
+\frac{{\partial}y}{{\partial}{\varepsilon}}\,\frac{{\partial}x}{{\partial}s}
\bigg)({\varepsilon},s)=
\frac{\sin(2{\lambda}\,s)}{2{\lambda}}
\,h({\varepsilon})-\cos(2{\lambda}\,s),$$ which is equal to $1$ for $s=s_{{\varepsilon}}$ by .
The following proposition provides a method to construct immersed surfaces with constant mean curvature in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ bounded by two singular curves. Geometrically we only have to leave from a given horizontal curve by segments of orthogonal geodesics of the same curvature. The length of these segments depends on the *cut function* $s_{{\varepsilon}}$ introduced in Lemma \[lem:jacobi3\]. We also characterize when the resulting surface is volume-preserving area-stationary.
\[prop:sigmala\] Let ${\Gamma}$ be a $C^{k+1}$ $(k{\geqslant}1)$ horizontal curve in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ parameterized by arc-length ${\varepsilon}\in I$. Consider the map $F({\varepsilon},s)={\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}(s)$, where ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}:[0,\pi/|{\lambda}|]\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is the geodesic of curvature ${\lambda}\neq 0$ with initial conditions ${\Gamma}({\varepsilon})$ and $J(\dot{{\Gamma}}({\varepsilon}))$. Let $s_{{\varepsilon}}$ be the function introduced in Lemma \[lem:jacobi3\], and let ${\Sigma}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})=\{F({\varepsilon},s);\,{\varepsilon}\in I, \,s\in [0,s_{{\varepsilon}}]\}$. Then we have
- ${\Sigma}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ is an immersed surface of class $C^k$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$.
- The singular set of ${\Sigma}_{\lambda}({\Gamma})$ consists of two curves ${\Gamma}({\varepsilon})$ and ${\Gamma}_{1} ({\varepsilon})=F({\varepsilon},s_{{\varepsilon}})$.
- There is a $C^{k-1}$ unit normal vector $N$ to ${\Sigma}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ such that $N=T$ on ${\Gamma}$ and $N=-T$ on ${\Gamma}_{1}$.
- Any ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}:(0,s_{{\varepsilon}})\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is a characteristic curve of ${\Sigma}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$. In particular, if $k{\geqslant}2$ then ${\Sigma}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ has constant mean curvature ${\lambda}$ with respect to $N$.
- If ${\Gamma}_{1}$ is a $C^2$ smooth curve then the geodesics ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$ meet orthogonally ${\Gamma}_{1}$ if and only if $s_{{\varepsilon}}$ is constant along ${\Gamma}$. This is equivalent to that the $xy$-projection of ${\Gamma}$ is either a line segment or a piece of a planar circle.
As ${\Gamma}$ is $C^{k+1}$ and the geodesics ${\gamma}_{\varepsilon}$ depend $C^1$ smoothly on the initial conditions we get that $F$ is a map of class $C^k$. Let us consider the vector fields $({\partial}F/{\partial}{\varepsilon})({\varepsilon},s)=V_{{\varepsilon}}(s)$ and $({\partial}F/{\partial}s)({\varepsilon},s)=\dot{{\gamma}}_{{\varepsilon}}(s)$. By using Lemma \[lem:jacobi3\] we deduce that the differential of $F$ has rank two for any $(s,{\varepsilon})\in
I\times [0,\pi/|{\lambda}|)$, and that the tangent plane to ${\Sigma}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ is horizontal only for the points in ${\Gamma}$ and ${\Gamma}_{1}$. This proves (i) and (ii).
Now define the $C^{k-1}$ unit normal vector to the immersion $F:I\times [0,\pi/|{\lambda}|)\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ given by $N({\varepsilon},s)=|V_{{\varepsilon}}(s)\wedge\dot{{\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}}(s)|^{-1}\,
(V_{{\varepsilon}}(s)\wedge\dot{{\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}}(s))$. To compute $N$ along ${\Gamma}$ and ${\Gamma}_{1}$ it suffices to use $v\wedge J(v)=T$ for any unit horizontal vector $v$ together with the fact that $V_{{\varepsilon}}(0)=\dot{{\Gamma}}({\varepsilon})$ and $V_{{\varepsilon}}(s_{{\varepsilon}})=J(\dot{{\gamma}}_{{\varepsilon}}(s_{{\varepsilon}}))$. It is easy to see that the characteristic vector field $Z$ to the immersion is given by $$Z({\varepsilon},s)=-\frac{{\big<V_{{\varepsilon}}(s),T\big>}}{|{\big<V_{{\varepsilon}}(s),T\big>}|}\,\,
\dot{{\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}}(s),\qquad{\varepsilon}\in I, \ \ s\neq 0, s_{{\varepsilon}}.$$ By using Lemma \[lem:jacobi3\] it follows that $Z({\varepsilon},s)=
\dot{{\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}}(s)$ whenever $s\in (0,s_{{\varepsilon}})$. This fact and Theorem \[th:ruled\] prove (iv).
Finally, suppose that ${\Gamma}_{1}$ is a $C^2$ smooth curve (which is immediate is $k{\geqslant}3$). The cut function $s({\varepsilon})=s_{{\varepsilon}}$ is $C^1$ since the graph $({\varepsilon},s({\varepsilon}))$ coincides, up to the $C^1$ immersion $F$, with ${\Gamma}_1$. The tangent vector to ${\Gamma}_{1}$ is given by $$\dot{{\Gamma}}_{1}({\varepsilon})=V_{{\varepsilon}}(s_{{\varepsilon}})+\dot{s}({\varepsilon})\,
\dot{{\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}}(s_{{\varepsilon}}).$$ As $V_{\varepsilon}(s_{{\varepsilon}})=J(\dot{{\gamma}}_{{\varepsilon}}(s_{{\varepsilon}}))$, we conclude that the geodesics ${\gamma}_{\varepsilon}$ meet ${\Gamma}_1$ orthogonally if and only if $s({\varepsilon})$ is a constant function. As a consequence, we deduce from that the planar geodesic curvature of the $xy$-projection of ${\Gamma}$ is constant and so, this plane curve must coincide with a line segment or a piece of a Euclidean circle.
\[re:reverse\] 1. In the proof above it is shown that if we extend ${\Sigma}_{\lambda}({\Gamma})$ by the geodesics ${\gamma}_{\varepsilon}$ beyond the singular curve ${\Gamma}_1$ then the resulting surface has mean curvature $-{\lambda}$ beyond ${\Gamma}_{1}$. As indicated in Theorem \[th:chmy\] (ii), in order to get an extension of ${\Sigma}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ with constant mean curvature ${\lambda}$ we must leave from ${\Gamma}_{1}$ by geodesics of curvature $-\lambda$ (we must arrive at ${\Gamma}_{1}$ by geodesics of curvature ${\lambda}$).
2\. The singular curves ${\Gamma}$ and ${\Gamma}_{1}$ of the surface ${\Sigma}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ could coincide. We will illustrate this situation in Example \[ex:helices\].
\[re:reverse2\] Let ${\Gamma}$ be a $C^{k+1}$ $(k{\geqslant}1)$ horizontal curve in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ parameterized by arc-length ${\varepsilon}\in I$. We consider the family of geodesics $\widetilde{{\gamma}}_{{\varepsilon}}:[0,\pi/|{\lambda}|]\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with curvature ${\lambda}\neq 0$ and initial conditions ${\Gamma}({\varepsilon})$ and $-J(\dot{{\Gamma}}({\varepsilon}))$. By following the arguments in Lemma \[lem:jacobi3\] and Proposition \[prop:sigmala\] we can construct the surface $$\widetilde{{\Sigma}}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma}):=\{\widetilde{{\gamma}}_{{\varepsilon}}(s)\ ;\
{\varepsilon}\in I,\, s\in [0,s_{{\varepsilon}}]\},$$ which is bounded by two singular curves ${\Gamma}$ and ${\Gamma}_2$. The cut function $\widetilde{s}_{{\varepsilon}}$ associated to ${\Gamma}_{2}$ is defined by the equality ${\big<\widetilde{V}_{{\varepsilon}}(\widetilde{s}_{{\varepsilon}}),
T\big>}=0$, where $\widetilde{V}_{{\varepsilon}}$ is the Jacobi vector field associated to $\{\widetilde{{\gamma}}_{{\varepsilon}}\}$. It is easy to see that $\widetilde{s}_{{\varepsilon}}$ satisfies $$h({\varepsilon})=\frac{-2{\lambda}\sin(2{\lambda}\widetilde{s}_{{\varepsilon}})}{1-\cos(2{\lambda}\widetilde{s}_{{\varepsilon}})}.$$ From it follows that $s_{{\varepsilon}}+\widetilde{s}_{{\varepsilon}}
=\pi/|{\lambda}|$. The vector field $\widetilde{V}_{{\varepsilon}}$ coincides with $-J(\dot{\widetilde{{\gamma}}}_{{\varepsilon}})$ for $s=\widetilde{s}_{{\varepsilon}}$. The unit normal $\widetilde{N}$ to $\widetilde{{\Sigma}}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ equals $T$ on ${\Gamma}$ and $-T$ on ${\Gamma}_2$. When $k{\geqslant}2$, we deduce that the union of ${\Sigma}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ and $\widetilde{{\Sigma}}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ is an oriented immersed surface with constant mean curvature ${\lambda}$ and at most three singular curves.
Now we shall use Proposition \[prop:sigmala\] and Remark \[re:reverse2\] to obtain new examples of complete volume-preserving area-stationary surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with singular curves. We know by Proposition \[prop:sigmala\] (iv) that the $xy$-projection of the initial curve ${\Gamma}$ must be either a straight line or a planar circle. We shall consider the two cases.
\[ex:cilindros\] Consider the $x$-axis in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$ parameterized by ${\Gamma}({\varepsilon})=({\varepsilon},0,0)$. For any ${\lambda}\neq 0$ we denote by $\mathcal{S}_{{\lambda}}$ the union of the surfaces ${\Sigma}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ and $\widetilde{{\Sigma}}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ constructed in Proposition \[prop:sigmala\] and Remark \[re:reverse2\]. The surface $\mathcal{S}_{{\lambda}} $ is $C^\infty$ outside the singular curves and has constant mean curvature ${\lambda}$. The cut functions $s_{\varepsilon}$ and $\widetilde{s}_{\varepsilon}$ can be computed from and the relation $s_{\varepsilon}+\widetilde{s}_{\varepsilon}=\pi/|{\lambda}|$, so that, by using $h_{{\varepsilon}}\equiv 0$, we get $s_{\varepsilon}=\widetilde{s}_{\varepsilon}=\pi/|2{\lambda}|$. From we see that the singular curves ${\Gamma}_{1}$ and ${\Gamma}_{2}$ are different parameterizations of the same curve, namely, the $x$-axis translated by the vertical vector $(\text{sgn}({\lambda})\,\pi/(4{\lambda}^2))\,T$, where $\text{sgn}(x)$ is the sign of $x\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$. A straightforward computation from shows that $\mathcal{S}_{{\lambda}}$ is the union of the graphs of the functions $f$ and $g$ defined on the $xy$-strip $-1/|2{\lambda}|{\leqslant}y{\leqslant}1/|2{\lambda}|$ by $$\begin{aligned}
f(x,y)&=\frac{\text{sgn}(y)}{2{\lambda}}\,\left (\displaystyle\frac{\arcsin
(2{\lambda}\,y)}{2{\lambda}}-y\,\sqrt{1-4{\lambda}\,y^2}\right)-xy,
\\
g(x,y)&=\frac{1}{2{\lambda}}\,\left(\frac{\text{sgn}({\lambda})\,\pi-\text{sgn}(y)\,
\arcsin(2{\lambda}\,y)}{2{\lambda}}+\text{sgn}(y)\,y\,\sqrt{1-4{\lambda}^2\,y^2}\right)-xy.\end{aligned}$$ Both functions coincide on the boundary of the strip. Moreover, it is easy to see that $\mathcal{S}_{{\lambda}}$ is $C^2$ smooth around ${\Gamma}$ and ${\Gamma}_1={\Gamma}_2$ but not $C^3$ since $$\frac{{\partial}^3 f}{{\partial}y^3}\,(x,y)=-\frac{{\partial}^3 g}{{\partial}y^3}\,(x,y)=\text{sgn}(y)\,\,
\frac{8{\lambda}\,(1+2{\lambda}^2\,y^2)}{(1-4{\lambda}^2\,y^2)^{5/2}}.$$ Finally, an easy argument proves that $\text{sgn}({\lambda})\,f(x,y)<\text{sgn}({\lambda})\,g(x,y)$ for any $(x,y)$ such that $-1/|2{\lambda}|<y<1/|2{\lambda}|$. We conclude that $\mathcal{S}_{\lambda}$ is a complete volume-preserving area-stationary embedded cylinder in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with two singular curves given by parallel straight lines, see Figures \[fig:cylinder1\] and \[fig:cylinder2\].
\[ex:helices\] Let ${\Gamma}$ be the helix of radius $r>0$ and pitch $\pi/(2r^2)$ in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$ given by $${\Gamma}({\varepsilon})=\left(\frac{\sin(2r{\varepsilon})}{2
r},\frac{\cos(2r{\varepsilon})-1}{2r},\frac{1}{2r}\,
\left({\varepsilon}-\frac{\sin(2r{\varepsilon})}{2r}\right)\right).$$ The planar geodesic curvature of the $xy$-projection of ${\Gamma}$ is $h({\varepsilon})=-2r$. For any ${\lambda}\neq 0$ we consider the union of the surfaces ${\Sigma}_{\lambda}({\Gamma})$ and $\widetilde{{\Sigma}}_{\lambda}({\Gamma})$ given in Proposition \[prop:sigmala\] and Remark \[re:reverse2\], respectively. Easy computations from show that the singular curves ${\Gamma}_1$ and ${\Gamma}_2$ are vertical translations of ${\Gamma}$ by $c_1({\lambda})\,T$ and $c_2({\lambda})\,T$, where $$\begin{aligned}
c_1({\lambda})&=\frac{s_{\varepsilon}}{2{\lambda}}+
\frac{\text{sgn}({\lambda})\,\pi-2{\lambda}\,s_{\varepsilon}}{4r^2}-\frac{(r^2+{\lambda}^2)\,
\sin(2{\lambda}\,s_{\varepsilon})}{4{\lambda}^2r^2},
\\
c_2({\lambda})&=\frac{\text{sgn}({\lambda})\,\pi}{2{\lambda}^2}-c_1({\lambda}).\end{aligned}$$ In the first equation above $s_{{\varepsilon}}$ is the cut function associated to ${\Gamma}_1$. In general ${\Gamma}_1\neq {\Gamma}_2$ so that we can extend the surface by geodesics of the same curvature orthogonal to ${\Gamma}_i$. As indicated in Remark \[re:reverse\] and according with the value of $\dot{{\Gamma}}_i$, in order to preserve the constant mean curvature ${\lambda}$ we must consider the surfaces $\widetilde{{\Sigma}}_{-{\lambda}}({\Gamma}_1)$ and ${\Sigma}_{-{\lambda}}({\Gamma}_2)$. Two new singular curves ${\Gamma}_{12}$ and ${\Gamma}_{22}$ are obtained. We repeat this process by induction so that at any step $k+1$ we leave from the singular curves ${\Gamma}_{1k}$ and ${\Gamma}_{2k}$ by the corresponding orthogonal geodesics of curvature $(-1)^k{\lambda}$. We denote by $\mathcal{L}_{\lambda}$ the union of all these surfaces. This is a $C^2$ immersed surface (in fact, it is $C^\infty$ outside the singular curves) and, by construction, it is volume-preserving area-stationary with constant mean curvature ${\lambda}$. Any singular curve ${\Gamma}_{ik}$ of $\mathcal{L}_{\lambda}$ is a vertical translation of the helix ${\Gamma}$ by the vector $c_{ik}({\lambda})\,T$, where $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1k}({\lambda})&=k\,c_1({\lambda})-\text{sgn}({\lambda})\,\left[\frac{k}{2}\right]\,\frac{\pi}{2{\lambda}^2},
\\
c_{2k}({\lambda})&=\frac{\text{sgn}({\lambda})\,\pi}{2{\lambda}^2}-c_{1k}({\lambda}),\end{aligned}$$ where $[x]$ denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to $x\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$.
The singular curves ${\Gamma}_{ik}$ could coincide depending on the values of ${\lambda}$. For example, an easy analytical argument shows that there is a discrete set of values of ${\lambda}\in (0,r)$ for which ${\Gamma}_1$ coincides with ${\Gamma}$ (those for which $c_1({\lambda})$ is an integer multiple of $\pi/(2r^2)$). This situation is not possible when ${\lambda}^2{\geqslant}r^2$. In fact, for the case $r={\lambda}=1$ explicit computations from the equations above show that all the curves ${\Gamma}_{ik}$ are different. So the resulting surface contains infinitely many singular helices. Also, it is not difficult to see that for a discrete set of values of ${\lambda}\in (0,r)$, we have ${\Gamma}_{1i}={\Gamma}_{2i}$, so that we can obtain complete surfaces $\mathcal{L}_{\lambda}$ with any given even number of singular curves. In general, the surfaces $\mathcal{L}_{\lambda}$ are not embedded.
In Theorem \[th:classification\] we will prove that any complete volume-preserving area-stationary surface ${\Sigma}$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with singular curves and non-vanishing mean curvature is congruent with one of the surfaces $\mathcal{S}_{\lambda}$ or $\mathcal{L}_{\lambda}$ introduced above. We need the following strong restriction on the singular curves of ${\Sigma}$ obtained as a consequence of Propositions \[prop:c2singcurves\] and \[prop:sigmala\] (iv).
\[th:curve\] Let ${\Sigma}$ be a complete, oriented, $C^2$ immersed volume-preserving area-stationary surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with non-vanishing mean curvature. Then any connected singular curve of ${\Sigma}$ is a complete geodesic of ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$.
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a connected singular curve of ${\Sigma}$. By Proposition \[prop:c2singcurves\] we know that $\mathcal{C}$ is a $C^2$ smooth horizontal curve. We consider the unit normal $N$ to ${\Sigma}$ such that $N=T$ along $\mathcal{C}$. Let $H$ be the mean curvature of ${\Sigma}$ with respect to $N$. By using Theorem \[th:chmy\] (ii) and Remark \[rem:lambdaorientation\], for any $p\in\mathcal{C}$ there is a small neighborhood of $p$ in ${\Sigma}$ foliated by geodesics of curvature $H$ leaving from $\mathcal{C}$. By Theorem \[th:constant\] these geodesics are characteristic curves of ${\Sigma}$ and meet $\mathcal{C}$ orthogonally.
Let ${\Gamma}$ be any closed arc of $\mathcal{C}$. We parameterize ${\Gamma}$ by arc-length ${\varepsilon}\in [a,b]$. By compactness we can find a small $r>0$ such that, for any ${\varepsilon}\in [a,b]$, the geodesic ${\gamma}_{\varepsilon}:[0,r)\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ of curvature $H$ with initial conditions ${\Gamma}({\varepsilon})$ and $J(\dot{{\Gamma}}({\varepsilon}))$ is entirely contained in ${\Sigma}$. This implies that ${\Sigma}$ and the surface ${\Sigma}_{H}({\Gamma})$ in Proposition \[prop:sigmala\] locally coincides at one side of ${\Gamma}$. Moreover, as ${\Sigma}$ is complete we deduce that ${\Sigma}_H({\Gamma}){\subset}{\Sigma}$. In particular, ${\Gamma}_1$ is a piece of a singular curve of ${\Sigma}$ and so it is $C^2$ smooth by Proposition \[prop:c2singcurves\]. As ${\Sigma}$ is volume-preserving area-stationary we deduce by Theorem \[th:constant\] that the geodesics ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$ meet ${\Gamma}_1$ orthogonally. This implies by Proposition \[prop:sigmala\] (iv) that the cut function $s_{{\varepsilon}}$ is constant along ${\Gamma}$. As ${\Gamma}$ is an arbitrary closed arc of $\mathcal{C}$, we have proved that the $xy$-projection of $\mathcal{C}=(x,y,t)$ is a straight line or a planar circle. Finally, by integrating the “horizontal” equation $\dot{t}=\dot{x}y-x\dot{y}$ (as was done in Section \[sec:geodesics\]) we conclude that $\mathcal{C}$ is a complete geodesic of ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$.
Now, we will see how to apply our previous results to describe all compact volume-preserving area-stationary surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$.
The first relevant results about compact surfaces with constant mean curvature in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ were given in [@chmy Theorem E], where it was obtained an interesting restriction on the topology of an immersed surface inside a spherical $3$-dimensional pseudo-hermitian manifold under the weaker assumption that the mean curvature is bounded outside the singular set. The arguments in the proof use the local behavior of the singular set studied in Theorem \[th:chmy\] and Hopf Index Theorem for line fields. They also apply to ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ so that we get
\[prop:genus\] Any compact, connected, $C^2$ immersed surface ${\Sigma}$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with constant mean curvature is homeomorphic either to a sphere or to a torus.
Moreover, in [@chmy §7, Examples 1 and 2] we can find examples of constant mean curvature surfaces of spherical and toroidal type inside the standard pseudo-hermitian $3$-sphere. In ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ we may expect, by analogy with the Euclidean space, the existence of immersed tori with constant mean curvature [@wente]. However, this is not possible as a consequence of our following result, that could be interpreted as a counterpart in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ to Alexandrov uniqueness theorem for embedded surfaces in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^3$.
\[th:alexandrov\] Let ${\Sigma}$ be a compact, connected, $C^2$ immersed volume-preserving area-stationary surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. Then ${\Sigma}$ is congruent with a sphere ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{H}$ of the same constant mean curvature.
From the Minkowski formula we have that the constant mean curvature $H$ of ${\Sigma}$ with respect to the inner normal must be positive. Observe that ${\Sigma}$ must contain a singular point. Otherwise Theorem \[th:ruled\] would imply that ${\Sigma}$ is foliated by complete geodesics, a contradiction since any geodesic of ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ leaves a compact set in finite time (Remark \[re:propertiesgeo\]). On the other hand ${\Sigma}$ cannot contain a singular curve since this curve would be a complete geodesic by Theorem \[th:curve\] and ${\Sigma}$ is compact. We conclude that ${\Sigma}$ has an isolated singularity. We finally invoke Theorem \[th:spheres\] to deduce that ${\Sigma}$ is congruent with a sphere ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{H}$ of the same mean curvature.
Now, we shall prove the following classification theorem
\[th:classification\] Let ${\Sigma}$ be a complete, oriented, connected, $C^2$ immersed volume-preserving area-stationary surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with non-vanishing mean curvature. If ${\Sigma}$ contains a singular curve then ${\Sigma}$ is congruent either with the surface $\mathcal{S}_{H}$ in Example \[ex:cilindros\] or with the surface $\mathcal{L}_{H}$ in Example \[ex:helices\] of the same mean curvature as ${\Sigma}$.
Let ${\Gamma}$ be a connected horizontal curve of ${\Sigma}$. By Theorem \[th:curve\] we know that ${\Gamma}$ is a complete geodesic of ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. After applying a left translation and a vertical rotation we can suppose that ${\Gamma}$ coincides either with the $x$-axis or with a helix passing through the origin. We can choose the unit normal $N$ to ${\Sigma}$ so that $N=T$ along ${\Gamma}$. By Theorem \[th:chmy\] (ii) and Remark \[rem:lambdaorientation\] there is $r>0$ such that the geodesics ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}:[0,r]\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ and $\widetilde{{\gamma}}_{{\varepsilon}}:[0,r]\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ of curvature $H$ with initial conditions ${\Gamma}({\varepsilon})$ and $J(\dot{{\Gamma}}({\varepsilon}))$ (resp. ${\Gamma}({\varepsilon})$ and $-J(\dot{{\Gamma}}({\varepsilon}))$) are contained in ${\Sigma}$. As ${\Sigma}$ is complete and connected we can prolong these geodesics until they meet a singular curve. This implies that the union of the surfaces ${\Sigma}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ and $\widetilde{{\Sigma}}_{{\lambda}}({\Gamma})$ constructed in Proposition \[prop:sigmala\] and Remark \[re:reverse2\] is included in ${\Sigma}$. The proof then follows by using the description of the surfaces $\mathcal{S}_{{\lambda}}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{{\lambda}}$ in Examples \[ex:cilindros\] and \[ex:helices\] together with the completeness and the connectedness of ${\Sigma}$.
The previous result and Theorem \[th:spheres\] provide the description of complete $C^2$ immersed area-stationary surfaces under a volume constraint in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with non-empty singular set and non-vanishing mean curvature. Unduloids, cylinders and nodoids in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ are examples of complete volume-preserving area-stationary surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with non-vanishing mean curvature and empty singular set, see [@revolucion].
The arguments in this section can also be used to construct examples and obtain restrictions on complete area-stationary surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with singular curves.
Let ${\Gamma}=(x,y,t)$ be a $C^{k+1}$ ($k{\geqslant}1$) horizontal curve in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ parameterized by arc-length ${\varepsilon}\in I$. We denote by ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}:{{\mathbb{R}}}\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ the geodesic of curvature zero and initial conditions ${\gamma}_{\varepsilon}(0)={\Gamma}({\varepsilon})$ and $\dot{{\gamma}}_{\varepsilon}(0)=J(\dot{{\Gamma}}({\varepsilon}))$. We know from Section \[sec:geodesics\] that ${\gamma}_{\varepsilon}$ is a horizontal straight line. We consider the map $F({\varepsilon},s)={\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}(s)=(x({\varepsilon},s),y({\varepsilon},s),t({\varepsilon},s))$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
x({\varepsilon},s)&=x({\varepsilon})-s\,\dot{y}({\varepsilon}),
\\
\label{eq:geocoor3}
y({\varepsilon},s)&=y({\varepsilon})+s\,\dot{x}({\varepsilon}),
\\
\nonumber
t({\varepsilon},s)&=t({\varepsilon})-s\,(x({\varepsilon})\,\dot{x}({\varepsilon})+y({\varepsilon})\,\dot{y}({\varepsilon})).\end{aligned}$$ The Jacobi vector field $V_{{\varepsilon}}(s):=({\partial}F/{\partial}{\varepsilon})({\varepsilon},s)$ along ${\gamma}_{{\varepsilon}}$ can be computed from so that we get $$V_{{\varepsilon}}(s)=(\dot{x}({\varepsilon})-s\,\ddot{y}({\varepsilon}))\,X+(\dot{y}({\varepsilon})+
s\,\ddot{x}({\varepsilon}))\,Y-s\,T.$$ It follows that ${\big<V_{{\varepsilon}},T\big>}<0$ on $(0,+\infty)$ and ${\big<V_{\varepsilon},T\big>}>0$ on $(-\infty,0)$. As a consequence the map $F:I\times{{\mathbb{R}}}\to{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ defines a complete immersed surface ${\Sigma}_{0}({\Gamma})$. By using Theorem \[th:constant\] we obtain that ${\Sigma}_0({\Gamma})$ is a $C^k$ area-stationary surface whenever $k{\geqslant}2$. By following the proof of Theorem \[th:classification\] we deduce the following geometric description of area-stationary surfaces with singular curves.
\[prop:onesingu\] Let ${\Sigma}$ be a complete, oriented, connected, $C^2$ immersed area-stationary surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. Then ${\Sigma}$ contains at most one singular curve ${\Gamma}$. In that case ${\Sigma}$ consists of the union of all the horizontal lines in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ orthogonal to ${\Gamma}$.
The result above shows that the strong condition obtained in Theorem \[th:curve\] does not hold for area-stationary surfaces. We can construct examples of such surfaces just by leaving from an arbitrary horizontal curve by horizontal straight lines. For example, area-stationary helicoidal surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ are obtained when the initial curve is a geodesic of non-zero curvature [@pauls Theorem D]. Note that Proposition \[prop:onesingu\] together with the already mentioned result in [@chmy] that any complete minimal surface with an isolated singularity must coincide with a Euclidean plane provides the complete description of complete area-stationary surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with non-empty singular set.
It is difficult to get a complete classification of minimal or constant mean curvature surfaces without singular points in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, see [@ch].
We will say that a $C^1$ surface ${\Sigma}$ is *vertical* if the vertical vector $T$ is contained in $T_{p}{\Sigma}$ for any $p\in{\Sigma}$. A complete vertical surface ${\Sigma}$ is foliated by vertical straight lines. Since a $C^2$ vertical surface has no singular points, to have constant mean curvature $H$ implies that ${\Sigma}$ is either area-stationary in case $H=0$, or volume-preserving area-stationary in case $H\neq 0$. From Theorem \[th:ruled\] is easy to get the following, compare with [@gp Lemma 4.9],
Let ${\Sigma}$ be a $C^2$ complete, connected, immersed, oriented, constant mean curvature surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. If ${\Sigma}$ is vertical then ${\Sigma}$ is either a vertical plane, or a right circular cylinder.
**The isoperimetric problem in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$** {#sec:iso}
===================================================
The isoperimetric problem in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ consists of finding global minimizers of the sub-Riemannian perimeter under a volume constraint. For any Borel set ${\Omega}{\subseteq}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ the *perimeter* of ${\Omega}$ is defined by $${\mathcal{P}}({\Omega}):=\sup\,\left\{\int_{\Omega}\operatorname{div}(U)\,dv;\, |U|{\leqslant}1\right\},$$ where the supremum is taken over $C^1$ *horizontal vector fields* with compact support on ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. In the definition above, $dv$ and $\operatorname{div}(\cdot)$ are the Riemannian volume and divergence of the left invariant metric $g$, respectively. This notion of perimeter coincides with the ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$-perimeter introduced in [@cng] and [@fsc]. For a set ${\Omega}$ bounded by a surface ${\Sigma}$ of class $C^2$ we have ${\mathcal{P}}({\Omega})=A({\Sigma})$ by virtue of the Riemannian divergence theorem.
It is not difficult to prove that the perimeter is $3$-homogeneous with respect to the family of dilations in , see for instance [@msc Lemma 4.5]. Precisely, for any Borel set ${\Omega}{\subseteq}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ and any $s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ we have $$V(\varphi_s({\Omega}))=e^{4s}\,V({\Omega}),\qquad
{\mathcal{P}}(\varphi_s({\Omega}))=e^{3s}\,{\mathcal{P}}({\Omega}).$$ This property leads us to the isoperimetric inequality $$\label{eq:isoineq}
{\mathcal{P}}({\Omega})^4{\geqslant}\alpha\,V({\Omega})^3,$$ that holds for any Borel set ${\Omega}{\subseteq}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. Inequality was first obtained by P. Pansu [@pansu2] for regular sets. Many other generalizations have been established but always without the sharp constant $\alpha$, see [@garonhieu] and [@dgn2].
An *isoperimetric region* in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is a set ${\Omega}{\subset}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ such that $${\mathcal{P}}({\Omega}){\leqslant}{\mathcal{P}}({\Omega}')$$ amongst all sets ${\Omega}'{\subset}{{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with $V({\Omega})=V({\Omega}')$.
The existence of isoperimetric regions was proved by G. P. Leonardi and S. Rigot [@lr Theorem 2.5] in the more general context of Carnot groups, see also [@dgn Theorem 13.7]. We summarize their results in the following theorem.
\[th:leorig\] For any $V>0$ there is an isoperimetric region ${\Omega}$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ with $V({\Omega})=V$. The set ${\Omega}$ is, up to a set of measure zero, a bounded connected open set. Moreover, the boundary ${\partial}{\Omega}$ is Alhfors regular and verifies condition $B$.
The condition B in the theorem above is a certain separation property. It means that there is a constant $\beta>0$ such that for any Carnot-Carathéodory ball $B$ centered on ${\partial}{\Omega}$ with radius $r{\leqslant}1$ there exist two balls $B_1$ and $B_2$ with radius $\beta r$ such that $B_1{\subset}B\cap{\Omega}$ and $B_2{\subset}B-\overline{{\Omega}}$.
The properties in Theorem \[th:leorig\] are not sufficient to describe the isoperimetric regions in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. In 1983 P. Pansu made the following
**Conjecture** ([@pansu3 p. 172]). In the Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ any isoperimetric region bounded by a smooth surface is congruent with a sphere ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$.
In the last years many authors have tried to adapt to the Heisenberg setting different proofs of the classical isoperimetric inequality in Euclidean space. In [@monti2], [@monti] and [@leomas] it was shown that there is no a direct counterpart in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ to the Brunn-Minkowski inequality in Euclidean space, with the consequence that the Carnot-Carathédory metric balls in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, cannot be the solutions. Recently, expecting that symmetrization could work in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, interest has focused on solving the isoperimetric problem restricted to certain sets with additional symmetries. It has been recently proved by D. Danielli, N. Garofalo and D.-M. Nhieu that the sets ${\Omega}_{\lambda}$ bounded by the spherical surfaces ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$ are the unique solutions in the class of sets bounded by two $C^1$ graphs over the $xy$-plane [@dgn2 Theorem 1.1]. An intrinsic description of the solutions was given by G. P. Leonardi and S. Masnou [@leomas Theorem 3.3], where it was proved that any sphere ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$ is the union of all the geodesics of curvature ${\lambda}$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ connecting the poles. In [@revolucion] we pointed out that assuming $C^2$ smoothness and rotationally symmetry of isoperimetric regions, these must be congruent with the spheres ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$. We also mention the interesting recent work [@bc] in which it is proved that the flow by mean curvature of a $C^2$ convex surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ described as the union of the radial graphs $t=\pm f(|z|)$, with $f'> 0$, converges to the spheres ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{{\lambda}}$.
The regularity of isoperimetric regions in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ is still an open question. The regularity of the spheres ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$ and of the examples of complete volume-preserving area-stationary surfaces in Section \[sec:mainresult\] may suggest that the isoperimetric solutions in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ are $C^\infty$ away from the singular set and only $C^2$ around the singularities.
By assuming $C^2$ regularity of the solutions we can use the uniqueness of spheres in Theorem \[th:alexandrov\] to solve the isoperimetric problem in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$.
\[th:iso\] If ${\Omega}$ is an isoperimetric region in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ bounded by a $C^2$ smooth surface ${\Sigma}$, then ${\Omega}$ is congruent with a set bounded by a sphere ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$.
Let ${\Omega}$ be an isoperimetric region of class $C^2$ in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$. By using Theorem \[th:leorig\] we can assume that ${\Omega}$ is bounded and connected. The boundary ${\Sigma}={\partial}{\Omega}$ is a $C^2$ compact surface with finitely many connected components. Let us see that ${\Sigma}$ is connected. Otherwise we may find a bounded component ${\Omega}_{0}$ of ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1-\overline{{\Omega}}$. Consider the set ${\Omega}_{1}={\Omega}\cup{\Omega}_0$. It is clear that $V({\Omega}_1)>V({\Omega})$ and ${\mathcal{P}}({\Omega}_1)<{\mathcal{P}}({\Omega})$. Thus by applying an appropriated dilation to ${\Omega}_{1}$ we would obtain a new set ${\Omega}'$ so that $V({\Omega}')=V({\Omega})$ and ${\mathcal{P}}({\Omega}')<{\mathcal{P}}({\Omega})$, a contradiction since ${\Omega}$ is isoperimetric. As ${\Sigma}$ is a $C^2$ compact, connected, volume-preserving area-stationary surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$, we conclude by Alexandrov (Theorem \[th:alexandrov\]) that ${\Sigma}$ is congruent with a sphere ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$.
The area of the sphere ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$ can be easily computed from . Using polar coordinates and Fubini’s theorem we get $$A({{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda})=\frac{\pi^2}{{\lambda}^3}.$$ On the other hand, we can use Minkowski formula to compute the volume of the set ${\Omega}_{\lambda}$ enclosed by ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda}$. We obtain $$V({\Omega}_{\lambda})=\frac{3\pi^2}{8{\lambda}^4}.$$ In case the $C^2$ regularity of isoperimetric sets in ${{\mathbb{H}}}^1$ was established, we would deduce from Theorem \[th:iso\] that the optimal isoperimetric constant in would be given by $$\alpha=\frac{A({{\mathbb{S}}}_{\lambda})^4}{V({\Omega}_{\lambda})^3}=\bigg(\frac{8}{3}\bigg)^3\pi^2.$$
[[CHMY]{}]{}
Zoltán M. Balogh, *Size of characteristic sets and functions with prescribed gradient*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **564** (2003), 63–83. [MR ]{}[2021034]{}
J. Lucas Barbosa, Manfredo do Carmo and Jost Eschenburg, *Stability of hypersurfaces of constant mean curvature in [R]{}iemannian manifolds*, Math. Z. **197** (1988), no. 1, 123–138. [MR ]{}[88m:53109]{}
Vittorio Barone, Francesco Serra Cassano and Davide Vittone, *The Bernstein problem for intrinsic graphs in Heisenberg groups and calibrations*, available at CVGMT Preprint Server-http://cvgmt.sns.it/papers/barservit06/
André Bellaïche, *The tangent space in sub-Riemannian geometry*, Sub-riemannian geometry, Prog. Math., vol 144, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1996, 1–78. [MR ]{}[1421822]{}.
Mario Bonk and Luca Capogna, *Horizontal mean curvature flow in the Heisenberg group*, in preparation.
Luca Capogna, Donatella Danielli and Nicola Garofalo, *An isoperimetric inequality and the geometric Sobolev embedding for vector fields*, Math. Res. Lett. **1** (1994), no. 2, 203–215. [MR ]{}[95a:46048]{}
Luca Capogna, Donatella Danielli, Scott Pauls and Jeremy Tyson *An introduction to the Heisenberg group and the sub-Riemannian isoperimetric problem*, in preparation.
Jeff Cheeger and David G. Ebin, *Comparison theorems in [R]{}iemannian geometry*, North Holland Publising Co., volume 9, Amsterdam, 1975. [MR ]{}[0458335]{}
Jih-Hsin Cheng, Jenn-Fang Hwang, *Properly embedded and immersed minimal surfaces in the Heisenberg group*, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. **70** (2004), no 3, 507–520, [MR ]{}[2103983]{}
Jih-Hsin Cheng, Jenn-Fang Hwang, Andrea Malchiodi and Paul Yang *Minimal surfaces in pseudohermitian geometry*, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) **4** (2005), no. 1, 129–177. [MR ]{}[2165405]{}
Jih-Hsin Cheng, Jenn-Fang Hwang and Paul Yang, *Existence and uniqueness for p-area minimizers in the Heisenberg group*, arXiv:math.DG/0601208.
Donatella Danielli, Nicola Garofalo and Duy-Minh Nhieu, *Minimal surfaces, surfaces of constant mean curvature and isoperimetry in Sub-riemannian groups*, preprint 2004.
[to3em]{}, *A partial solution of the isoperimetric problem for the Heisenberg group*, arXiv:math.DG/0601412.
[to3em]{}, *A notable family of entire intrinsic minimal graphs in the Heisenberg group which are not perimeter minimizing*, arXiv:math.DG/0601259.
M. Derridj, *Sur un thórème de traces*, Ann. Inst. Fourier, Grenoble, 22, **2** (1972), 73–83.
L. C. Evans and R. F. Gariepy, *Measure theory and fine properties of functions*, CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 1992; MR1158660 (93f:28001)
Bruno Franchi, Raul Serapioni and Francesco Serra Cassano, *Rectifiability and perimeter in the Heisenberg group*, Math. Ann. **321** (2001), no. 3, 479–531. [MR ]{}[2003g:49062]{}
Nicola Garofalo and Duy-Minh Nhieu, *Isoperimetric and [S]{}obolev inequalities for [C]{}arnot-[C]{}arathéodory spaces and the existence of minimal surfaces*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. **49** (1996), no. 10, 1081–1144. [MR ]{}[1404326]{}
Nicola Garofalo and Scott Pauls, *The Bernstein problem in the Heisenberg group*, arXiv:math.DG/0209065.
Michael Gromov, *Structures métriques pour les variétés riemanniennes*, volume 1 of Textes Mathématiques, CEDIC, Paris (1981). [MR ]{}[2000d:53065]{}
[to3em]{}, *Carnot-Carathéodory spaces seen from within*, Sub-riemannian geometry, Prog. Math., vol 144, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1996, 79–323. [MR ]{}[2000f:53034]{}
Robert K. Hladky and Scott Pauls, *Constant mean curvature surfaces in sub-Riemannian geometry*, arXiv:math.DG/059636.
Gian Paolo Leonardi and Simon Masnou, *On the isoperimetric problem in the Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}^n$*, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) **184** (2005), no. 4, 533–553. [MR ]{}[2177813]{}
Gian Paolo Leonardi and Séverine Rigot, *Isoperimetric sets on [C]{}arnot groups*. Houston J. Math. **29** (2003), no. 3, pp. 609–637 (electronic). [MR ]{}[2004d:28008]{}
Richard Montgomery, *A tour of subriemannian geometries, their geodesics and applications*, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 91. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002. [MR ]{}[2002m:53045]{}
Roberto Monti, *Some properties of Carnot-Carathéodory balls in the Heisenberg group*, Rend. Mat. Acc. Lincei, **11** (2000), no. 3, 155–167. [MR ]{}[1841689]{}
[to3em]{}, *Brunn-Minkowski and isoperimetric inequality in the Heisenberg group*, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. **28** (2003), no. 1, 99–109. [MR ]{}[2004c:28021]{}
Roberto Monti and Francesco Serra Cassano, *Surface measures in Carnot-Carathéodory spaces*, Calc. Var. **13** (2001), 339–376. [MR ]{}[2002j:49052]{}
Yilong Ni, *Sub-Riemannian constant mean curvature surfaces in the Heisenberg group as limits*, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) **183** (2004), no. 4, 555–570. [MR ]{}[2140530]{}
Pierre Pansu, *Une inégalité isopérimétrique sur le groupe de [H]{}eisenberg*, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. **295** (1982), no. 2, 127–130. [MR ]{}[676380]{}.
[to3em]{}, *An isoperimetric inequality on the [H]{}eisenberg group*, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Politec. Torino, Special Issue (1983), 159–174 (1984). Conference on differential geometry on homogeneous spaces (Turin, 1983).
[to3em]{}, *Métriques de [C]{}arnot-[C]{}arathéodory et quasiisométries des espaces symétriques de rang un*, Ann. of Math. (2) **129** (1989), no. 1, 1–60. [MR ]{}[90e:53058]{}
Scott D. Pauls, *Minimal surfaces in the Heisenberg group*, Geom. Dedicata **104** (2004), 201–231. [MR ]{}[2043961]{}
[to3em]{}, *$H$-minimal graphs of low regularity in the Heisenberg group*, arXiv:math.DG/0505287.
Manuel Ritoré and César Rosales, *Rotationally invariant hypersurfaces with constant mean curvature in the Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}^n$*, arXiv:math.DG/0504439.
Leon Simon, *Lectures on geometric measure theory*, Proceedings of the Centre for Mathematical Analysis, Australian National University, vol. 3, Australian National University Centre for Mathematical Analysis, Canberra, 1983. [MR ]{}[MR756417]{}
Henry C. Wente, *A note on the stability theorem of [J]{}. [L]{}. [B]{}arbosa and [M]{}. [D]{}o [C]{}armo for closed surfaces of constant mean curvature*, Pacific J. Math. **147** (1991), no. 2, 375–379. [MR ]{}[92g:53010]{}
[^1]: Both authors have been supported by MCyT-Feder research project MTM2004-01387
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We investigated the properties of the stellar populations in the discs of a sample of ten spiral galaxies. Our analysis focused on the galaxy region where the disc contributes more than 95 per cent of total surface brightness in order to minimise the contamination of the bulge and bar.
The luminosity-weighted age and metallicity were obtained by fitting the galaxy spectra with a linear combination of stellar population synthesis models, while the total overabundance of $\alpha$-elements over iron was derived by measuring the line-strength indices.
Most of the sample discs display a bimodal age distribution and they are characterised by a total enhancement ranging from solar and supersolar. We interpreted the age bimodality as due to the simultaneous presence of both a young (Age$\,\leq\,4$ Gyr) and an old (Age$\,>\,$4 Gyr) stellar population. The old stellar component usually dominates the disc surface brightness and its light contribution is almost constant within the observed radial range. For this reason, no age gradient is observed in half of the sample galaxies. The old component is slightly more metal poor than the young one. The metallicity gradient is negative and slightly positive in the old and young components, respectively.
These results are in agreement with an inside-out scenario of disc formation and suggest a reduced impact of the radial migration on the stellar populations of the disc. The young component could be the result of a second burst of star formation in gas captured from the environment.
author:
- 'L. Morelli$^{1,2}$[^1], E. M. Corsini$^{1,2}$, A. Pizzella$^{1,2}$, E. Dalla Bontà$^{1,2}$, L. Coccato$^{3}$ and'
- |
J. Méndez-Abreu$^{4}$\
$^1$ Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia “G. Galilei”, Università di Padova, vicolo dell’Osservatorio 3, I-35122 Padova, Italy\
$^2$ INAF–Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, vicolo dell’Osservatorio 5, I-35122 Padova, Italy\
$^3$ European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild-Stra$\beta$e 2, D-85748 Garching bei München, Germany\
$^4$ School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St. Andrews, SUPA, North Haugh, KY16 9SS St. Andrews, UK
date: '[*Draft version on* ]{}'
title: Study of the stellar population properties in the discs of ten spiral galaxies
---
galaxies: abundances – galaxies: evolution – galaxies: formation – galaxies: kinematics and dynamics – galaxies: spirals – galaxies: stellar content
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Studying the properties of the stellar populations of galaxies is essential to give a comprehensive picture of their formation and evolution. Indeed, all the processes driving the assembly history of galaxies leave a fingerprint in the radial profiles of the luminosity weighted age, metallicity, and enhancement of the stellar component. Thus, the observed properties of the stellar populations can be used against the predictions of theoretical models and numerical simulations.
Many studies focus on the colours of galaxies and their structural components. The mean colours of the stellar populations change smoothly from red to blue along the Hubble sequence. Moreover, the galactic discs tend to be bluer than spheroids, with them being either elliptical galaxies or bulges of lenticular and spiral galaxies [@dejong96; @taylor05; @Driver2006]. However, photometric data alone is not enough to distinguish whether these systematic differences are an effect of age or metallicity then making impossible to drive conclusive results about the stellar populations in galaxies beyond the Local Group [@worthey94].
[lcr cr cccccc]{} & & & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & & &\
ESO-LV 1890070 & SABb &$3.8$ & $3.0\times2.0$ &12.31 & 2981 & 37.5 & $-20.56$& 31.1 & 91 & 2,4\
ESO-LV 2060140 & SABc &$5.0$ & $1.6\times0.8$ &14.89 & 4672 & 60.5 & $-19.01$& 17.8 & 54.3 & 3\
ESO-LV 4000370 & SBc &$5.9$ & $1.8\times0.9$ &14.47 & 2876 & 37.5 & $-18.40$& 22.4 & 42.0 & 3\
ESO-LV 4500200 & SBbc & $4.1$ & $1.9\times1.6$ &13.03 & 2118 & 31.6 & $-19.47$& 17.3 & 112 & 2,4\
ESO-LV 5140100 & SABc &$5.1$ & $2.5\times1.9$ &12.88 & 2888 & 40.4 & $-20.13$& 27.1 & 60 & 2,4\
ESO-LV 5480440 & S0/a &$-0.9$ & $1.2\times0.5$ &14.26 & 1696 & 22.6 & $-17.51$& 10.1 & 63.8 & 1\
IC 1993 & SABb &$3.0$ & $1.4\times0.8$ &12.52 & 1065 & 17.0 & $-18.63$& 21.9 & 182.8 & 1\
NGC 1366 & S0 &$-2.2$ & $2.1\times0.9$ &12.80 & 1308 & 17.0 & $-18.63$& 12.9 & 175.8 & 1\
NGC 7643 & Sab &$2.0$ & $1.4\times0.8$ &14.12 & 3837 & 50.2 & $-19.38$& 11.1 & 116.9 & 1\
PGC 37759 & Sc &$6.0$ & $0.6\times0.4$ &15.89 & 14495 & 193.2 & $-20.54$& 7.20 & 64.4 & 3\
\[tab:sample\]
Spectroscopic data allow us to highly reduce the age-metallicity degeneracy by studying the absorption features which are connected to the properties of the stellar populations. Coupling the measurements of both the line-strength indices of the Lick system [@faberetal85] and other systems with higher spectral resolution [@johaetal10; @vazdekisetal2010] with the predictions of single stellar population (SSPs) models [@thmabe03; @thomasetal2011; @vazdekisetal2010] is the most widely used method to derive the age, metallicity, and enhancement of unresolved stellar populations in galaxies. However, most of targets are elliptical galaxies [@mehletal03; @sancetal06p; @annietal07] and bulges of disc galaxies [@mooretal06; @jabletal07; @moreetal08; @morelli2012; @seidel15] for which the assumption of SSP is a good approximation. To date, only a few papers focused on the stellar populations of galactic discs have been published because of their low surface brightness and the presence of intense nebular emission lines which make the spectroscopic analysis quite difficult. In addition, the discs of galaxies are a reservoir of molecular gas [@davis12] feeding more than one single episode of star formation. Therefore, the SSP approach can not be used in discs and multiple stellar populations are required to correctly recover the star formation history and the stellar population properties in galaxy discs [@morelli13; @gonzalezdelgado2014; @mcdermid15].
@yoacdalc08 and @macaetal09 detected the presence of an old stellar population (8-10 Gyrs) in the disc-dominated region of 9 edge-on and 8 low inclined spirals, respectively. This result was confirmed by @sancetal11 and @sancetal14 who studied 62 nearly face-on spirals without finding any significant difference between the discs of unbarred and barred galaxies. Discs are characterised by a large spread in metallicity spanning values between =0 and =-0.2 [@yoacdalc08]. The age and metallicity radial profiles derived by @macaetal09, @sancetal11, and @sancetal14 display shallow or negative metallicity gradients. The enhancement was only measured by @yoacdalc08. They found that the stars of both the thick and thin disc have a solar abundance ratio.
Tracing the radial profiles of the age, metallicity, and enhancement in the discs in several nearby galaxies will allow to extract statistically significant conclusions and perform a comparison with the Milky Way [@freeman02; @yong06], and the other disc galaxies of the Local Group, [@worthey05; @davidge07; @cioni09; @gogarten10], in order to understand the mechanisms driving the disc formation.
Galactic discs are believed to form immediately after a major merging of gas dominated systems [@robertson2006], through an inside-out process with the inner parts forming first due to their lower angular momentum and the outer parts with higher angular momentum forming later [@brook2004; @munoetal07]. The inside-out scenario was confirmed by @trujillo06 studying the disc truncations at high $z$. Within this framework, age and metallicity gradients are expected to be measured across galactic discs with the older [@matteucci89; @boissier99] and more metal rich stars [@munoetal07; @roskar08; @prochaska11] confined in the inner regions. Nevertheless, this prediction is correct under the assumption that stars remain in the same region of the disc where they formed. Recently it has been shown the possibility that the stellar orbits change in time and stars might move inward or outward across the disc. This effect is referred as stellar migration and it has been investigated both with a theoretical approach [@jenkins90; @sellwood02] and using numerical simulations [@roskar08; @dimatteo13; @kubryk13; @minchev14]. The process of radial migration is expected to mix the stellar populations and flatten the metallicity gradient with time.
The paucity of data to address such a relevant topic makes worthwhile any effort to measure the properties of the stellar populations in galactic discs. Therefore, we decided to study the stellar populations in the discs of a sample of 10 spiral galaxies for which the structural and kinematical properties of the bulge and disc were already known [@moreetal08; @pizzetal08; @morelli2012; @morelli15]. The paper is organized as follows. We present the sample of galaxies in §\[sec:sample\] and investigate the properties of the stellar populations of their discs in § \[sec:populations\]. Finally, we discuss our conclusions in § \[sec:conclusions\].
Sample selection {#sec:sample}
================
The sample comprises 10 disc galaxies with morphological types ranging from S0 to Sc whose properties, including size, magnitude, and distance, are listed in Table \[tab:sample\]. The galaxies belong to the sample of nearby lenticulars and spirals studied by @pizzetal08 and @moreetal08 [@morelli2012; @morelli15] who measured the surface-brightness distribution from broad-band photometry and the stellar and ionized-gas kinematics from long-slit spectra. We refer to these aforementioned papers for the details about the selection criteria, photometric decomposition, and measurements of the stellar kinematics and Lick indices of the sample galaxies.
The properties of the stellar populations of the bulges of the sample galaxies were already investigated [@moreetal08; @morelli2012; @morelli15], and here we extend the analysis deriving the stellar populations in the discs.
{width="99.10000%"}
Stellar populations of the discs {#sec:populations}
================================
Measuring the stellar populations of the different galaxy components from integrated spectra suffers from contamination. The properties inferred for one component are indeed affected by those of the others depending on their relative contribution to the galaxy surface brightness. This issue is critical for bulges and bars, which are always embedded in discs and overlap one to each other at small radii, nonetheless it can be easily overcome for discs which dominate the surface brightness distribution at large radii.
Since we were interested in investigating the stellar populations of the disc component, we focused our analysis on the disc-dominated region between , which is the radius where the disc contributes more than $95\%$ of the galaxy surface brightness, and , which is the farthest radius where the signal-to-noise ratio is sufficient to measure the properties of the stellar populations in the available spectra ($S/N>20$ per resolution element).
For each galaxy, we adopted the photometric decomposition performed by @pizzetal08 and @moreetal08 [@morelli2012; @morelli15] to define . The structural parameters of the galaxies were derived with Galaxy Surface Photometry Two-Dimensional Decomposition [[GASP2D]{}, @mendetal08] by assuming the observed surface-brightness distribution to be the sum of a Sérsic bulge, an exponential disc, and, if necessary, a Ferrers bar [@mendetal14]. The values of and for all the sample galaxies are listed in Table \[tab:results\_1burst\].
Age and metallicity {#sec:age_metallicity}
-------------------
The age and metallicity of the galactic components are crucial in reconstructing the assembly history of galaxies, since the past events of merging and star formation are imprinted in the stellar populations.
### Fitting synthetic population models {#sec:msp}
We analysed the galaxy spectra of @pizzetal08 and @moreetal08 [@morelli2012; @morelli15] to derive at and the relative contribution of the stellar populations with different age and metallicity to the observed surface-brightness distribution. As done by @onodera12 and @morelli13, we applied the Penalized Pixel Fitting code [[ pPXF]{}, @capems04], including the Gas and Absorption Line Fitting algorithm [[GANDALF]{}, @sarzetal06] and a linear regularization of the weights [@press92], which were adjusted for the sample spectra to deal with emission lines and derive both the distribution of the luminosity fraction in different age and metallicity bins, respectively.
We adopted 115 synthetic population models with Salpeter initial mass function [@salp55], age from 1 to 15 Gyr, and metallicity from $-1.5$ to $0.22$ dex. They were built from the stellar spectra available in the Medium Resolution Isaac Netwon Telescope Library of Empirical Spectra [MILES, @sancetal06lib] with a spectral resolution of ${\rm FWHM} = 2.54$ Å [@beifiori11]. The spectral resolution of the galaxy spectra was degraded to match that of the synthetic population models. Then they were convolved with the line-of-sight velocity distribution (LOSVD) obtained from the available stellar kinematics and fitted to the galaxy spectrum using a $\chi^2$ minimisation in pixel space. We simultaneously fitted the galaxy spectra using emission lines in addition to the synthetic population models. Only emission lines detected with a $S/N > 3$ were taken into account. To make the fit result more sensitive to the absorption lines of the galaxy spectrum than to its continuum shape, we adopted a low order multiplicative Legendre polynomial to account for both reddening and possible artifacts due to the flat fielding or or flux calibration. Finally, we derived the stellar light fraction within each bin of age and metallicity from the best-fitting synthetic population models.
An example of the fitting procedure is shown in Fig. \[fig:eso548\] for the spectrum at of ESO-LV 5480440. The age, metallicity, and light fraction of the stellar populations at and of all the sample galaxies are plotted in Fig. \[fig:age\_metallicity\].
{width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"} {width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"}\
{width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"} {width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"}\
{width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"} {width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"}\
{width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"} {width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"}\
{width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"} {width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"}\
{width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"} {width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"}\
{width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"} {width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"}\
{width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"} {width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"}\
{width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"} {width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"}\
{width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"} {width="43.10000%" height="0.24\textheight"}\
### Luminosity-weighted age and metallicity {#sec:1burst}
For all the sample galaxies we calculated the luminosity-weighted age and metallicity of the stellar population of their discs at and . The uncertainties for ages and metallicities were estimated by Monte Carlo simulations. For each galaxy, we built 100 simulated spectra by adding to the best-fitting synthetic population model a noise spectrum with the same standard deviation of the difference between the observed and model spectrum. The simulated spectra were measured as if they were real. The standard deviations of the distributions of the simulated ages and metallicities were adopted as errors on the measured age and metallicity, respectively. The values are listed in Table \[tab:results\_1burst\] and their number distributions are plotted in Fig. \[fig:pops\_histo\_1burst\].
No significant difference was found between the distributions of the luminosity-weighted ages at and , both of them spanning a large range ($1\,\leq\,$$\,\leq12\,$ Gyr). On the contrary, the distribution of the luminosity-weighted metallicity at is characterised by lower values and it peaks at $\,\simeq-0.5$ dex, while the luminosity-weighted metallicities at are slightly shifted to higher values with a peak at $\,\simeq-0.4$ dex.
The bulge-to-disc ratio is one of the key ingredients for the morphological classification of galaxies. Our sample covers the Hubble sequence from S0s to Sc spirals, but there is no evidence for a clear cut correlation between the galaxy type and stellar population properties of the disc-dominated region (Fig. \[fig:pops\_type\_1burst\]).
[l ccc cccc rr]{} & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & &\
ESO-LV 1890070 & $12.2$ & $59.7$ &1.52 & $11.7\pm0.9$ & $-0.45\pm0.03$ & $ 3.1\pm0.3$ & $-0.15\pm0.04$ & $-5.66\pm0.78$ & $ 0.20\pm0.04$\
ESO-LV 2060140 & $9.1$ & $37.5$ &1.57 & $ 3.9\pm0.8$ & $-0.36\pm0.04$ & $ 5.3\pm1.5$ & $-0.92\pm0.07$ & $ 0.92\pm1.46$ & $-0.36\pm0.07$\
ESO-LV 4000370 & $5.7$ & $23.7$ &0.80 & $ 5.3\pm1.2$ & $-0.89\pm0.06$ & $ 4.0\pm2.0$ & $-1.15\pm0.08$ & $-1.61\pm3.97$ & $-0.33\pm0.17$\
ESO-LV 4500200 & $17.1$ & $54.0$ &2.13 & $ 2.4\pm0.8$ & $-0.54\pm0.03$ & $ 3.8\pm1.0$ & $-0.56\pm0.05$ & $ 0.65\pm0.84$ & $-0.01\pm0.03$\
ESO-LV 5140100 & $6.1$ & $58.2$ &1.91 & $ 8.1\pm0.9$ & $-0.33\pm0.03$ & $ 5.5\pm1.5$ & $-0.63\pm0.04$ & $-1.38\pm1.25$ & $-0.16\pm0.03$\
ESO-LV 5480440 & $5.0$ & $21.4$ &1.63 & $ 7.3\pm0.7$ & $-0.17\pm0.04$ & $ 7.1\pm1.4$ & $-0.30\pm0.08$ & $-0.16\pm1.29$ & $-0.01\pm0.07$\
IC 1993 & $7.2$ & $27.5$ &0.93 & $11.9\pm1.4$ & $-0.64\pm0.06$ & $ 4.2\pm0.6$ & $-0.35\pm0.08$ & $-8.39\pm2.15$ & $ 0.31\pm0.15$\
NGC 1366 & $12.5$ & $26.2$ &1.06 & $ 7.6\pm0.8$ & $-0.26\pm0.03$ & $11.6\pm1.6$ & $-0.56\pm0.06$ & $ 3.72\pm2.26$ & $-0.28\pm0.08$\
NGC 7643 & $4.5$ & $15.8$ &1.02 & $ 8.2\pm0.7$ & $-0.12\pm0.05$ & $ 6.6\pm0.8$ & $-0.31\pm0.05$ & $-1.55\pm1.46$ & $-0.18\pm0.09$\
PGC 37759 & $1.5$ & $11.1$ &1.34 & $ 4.9\pm0.4$ & $-0.28\pm0.01$ & $ 1.1\pm0.1$ & $-0.54\pm0.02$ & $-2.91\pm0.37$ & $-0.19\pm0.02$\
![Distribution of the luminosity-weighted age (left-hand panels) and metallicity (right-hand panels) calculated at (green histograms, upper panels) and (blue histograms, lower panels) for the stellar populations in the discs of the sample galaxies.[]{data-label="fig:pops_histo_1burst"}](fig_3.ps){width="50.00000%"}
![Luminosity-weighted age (upper panels) and luminosity-weighted metallicity (lower panels) measured at (green circles, left-hand panels) and (blue circles, right-hand panels) for the stellar populations in the discs of the sample galaxies as a function of their morphological type. []{data-label="fig:pops_type_1burst"}](fig_4.ps){width="50.00000%"}
We calculated the gradients of the luminosity-weighted age and metallicity over the disc scalelength from the values measured at and . The gradients and corresponding errors are given in Table \[tab:results\_1burst\] and their number distributions are plotted in Fig. \[fig:grad\_histo\_1burst\].
The age gradient is negligible within the errors in most of the discs. ESO-LV 1890070, IC 1993, and PGC 377759 display a negative gradient, whereas NGC 1366 has a remarkably strong positive gradient. The metallicity gradient of all the discs is negative or null, except ESO-LV 1890070 and IC 1993. This is expected if the disc components assembled through an inside-out or outside-in process [@brook2004; @munoetal07]. The distribution of the age and metallicity gradients is consistent with that of the unbarred disc galaxies studied by @sancetal14 once their gradients are rescaled to the disc scalelength.
We note that the age and metallicity gradients do not show any trend with the galaxy morphological type (Fig. \[fig:grad\_type\_1burst\]) or central velocity dispersion (Fig. \[fig:grad\_sigma\_1burst\]) supporting earlier findings of @sancetal14. However, the wide range of masses of the sample galaxies could, in principle, blur the effect of the morphological type on the correlations with the stellar population properties. For this reason, these results need to be tested with a larger sample of galaxies where the effects of the morphology could be tested for galaxies in a similar mass range.
![Distribution of the gradients of the luminosity-weighted age (left-hand panel) and metallicity (right-hand panel) of the stellar populations in the discs of the sample galaxies.[]{data-label="fig:grad_histo_1burst"}](fig_5.ps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}\
![Gradients of the luminosity-weighted age (upper panel) and metallicity (lower panel) of the stellar populations in the discs of the sample galaxies as a function of their morphological type.[]{data-label="fig:grad_type_1burst"}](fig_6.ps){width="50.00000%"}
![Gradients of the luminosity-weighted age (left-hand panel) and metallicity (right-hand panel) of the stellar populations in the discs of the sample galaxies as a function of their central velocity dispersion. []{data-label="fig:grad_sigma_1burst"}](fig_7.ps){width="50.00000%"}
### Young and old stellar populations {#sec:2burst}
The age distribution obtained by fitting the observed spectra with synthetic population models is bimodal in most of the sample galaxies. Some galaxies are also characterised by a bimodal metallicity distribution (Fig. \[fig:age\_metallicity\]).
We interpreted such a bimodality being due to the presence of two stellar populations with a different age. In this paper we assumed the young stellar population having $\rm Age \leq 4$ Gyr and the old one to have $\rm Age > 4$ Gyr. We derived their luminosity-weighted age and metallicity at and . The errors on age and metallicity were obtained from photon statistics and CCD readout noise, and they were calibrated through a series of Monte Carlo simulations. The values are plotted in Fig. \[fig:age\_metallicity\] and listed in Table \[tab:results\_2burst\].
The number distributions of the luminosity-weighted age and metallicity of the two stellar populations are shown in Fig. \[fig:age\_histo\_2burst\] and \[fig:met\_histo\_2burst\], respectively. The old component covers a large range of metallicities ($-1.3\ltsim\,$$\,\ltsim0.1$ dex) at both and , whereas the metallicity range of the young stellar population is slightly smaller and shifted towards positive values ($-0.6\ltsim\,$$\,\ltsim0.2$ dex).
[l rrrr c rrrr c]{} & &\
& & & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & & &\
ESO-LV 1890070 & $...$ & $11.7\pm0.9$ & $...$ & $-0.45\pm0.03$ & 1.00 & $1.0\pm0.1$ & $13.6\pm1.9$ & $-0.20\pm0.06$ & $ 0.16\pm0.08$ & $0.16$\
ESO-LV 2060140 & $1.1\pm0.4$ & $11.7\pm2.1$ & $-0.01\pm0.08$ & $-1.19\pm0.17$ & 0.29 & $1.1\pm0.2$ & $11.1\pm2.8$ & $-0.64\pm0.16$ & $-1.31\pm0.21$ & $0.42$\
ESO-LV 4000370 & $1.1\pm0.1$ & $12.1\pm2.2$ & $-0.63\pm0.10$ & $-1.30\pm0.05$ & 0.38 & $1.1\pm0.2$ & $ 4.3\pm3.5$ & $ 0.22\pm0.46$ & $-1.28\pm0.07$ & $0.90$\
ESO-LV 4500200 & $1.3\pm0.2$ & $ 8.0\pm3.1$ & $-0.39\pm0.07$ & $-1.30\pm0.18$ & 0.16 & $1.0\pm0.1$ & $10.3\pm2.9$ & $-0.25\pm0.09$ & $-1.31\pm0.08$ & $0.29$\
ESO-LV 5140100 & $1.1\pm0.2$ & $11.0\pm1.5$ & $ 0.14\pm0.12$ & $-0.53\pm0.13$ & 0.70 & $1.2\pm0.1$ & $11.3\pm1.5$ & $-0.42\pm0.11$ & $-0.90\pm0.16$ & $0.42$\
ESO-LV 5480440 & $1.4\pm0.1$ & $11.5\pm1.3$ & $ 0.18\pm0.06$ & $-0.41\pm0.05$ & 0.58 & $3.6\pm0.9$ & $10.9\pm1.5$ & $ 0.22\pm0.24$ & $-1.10\pm0.25$ & $0.46$\
IC 1993 & $...$ & $11.9\pm1.4$ & $...$ & $-0.64\pm0.06$ & 1.00 & $1.3\pm0.2$ & $ 7.7\pm0.5$ & $ 0.08\pm0.09$ & $-0.89\pm0.11$ & $0.46$\
NGC 1366 & $1.1\pm0.3$ & $12.5\pm1.1$ & $-0.57\pm0.10$ & $-0.05\pm0.04$ & 0.56 & $...$ & $11.6\pm1.6$ & $...$ & $-0.56\pm0.06$ & $1.00$\
NGC 7643 & $1.0\pm0.2$ & $13.4\pm1.4$ & $-0.15\pm0.14$ & $-0.10\pm0.07$ & 0.57 & $1.1\pm0.3$ & $11.8\pm1.2$ & $-0.02\pm0.15$ & $-0.59\pm0.11$ & $0.51$\
PGC 37759 & $1.6\pm0.1$ & $11.3\pm1.1$ & $ 0.15\pm0.02$ & $-1.09\pm0.07$ & 0.34 & $1.1\pm0.1$ & $...$ & $-0.54\pm0.02$ & $...$ & $0.00$\
![Distribution of the luminosity-weighted age calculated at (green histograms, upper panels) and (blue histograms, lower panels) for the young (left-hand panels) and old (right-hand panels) stellar populations in the discs of the sample galaxies. The vertical dotted line marks Age$\,=\,4$ Gyr. []{data-label="fig:age_histo_2burst"}](fig_8.ps){width="49.00000%"}
![Distribution of the luminosity-weighted metallicity calculated at (green histograms, upper panels) and (blue histograms, lower panels) for the young (left-hand panels) and old (right-hand panels) stellar populations in the discs of the sample galaxies. []{data-label="fig:met_histo_2burst"}](fig9.ps){width="49.00000%"}
The fraction of total luminosity contributed by the old stellar population at and is given in Table \[tab:results\_2burst\] and plotted in Fig. \[fig:frac\_old\_2burst\]. The galaxy luminosity in the disc-dominated region of about half of the sample galaxies is mostly contributed by the old stellar population. Its luminosity fraction is almost constant within the radial range between and in ESO-LV 2060140, ESO-LV 4500200, ESO-LV 5140100, ESO-LV 5480440, and NGC 7643, whereas it displays a significant change in the remaining galaxies. The fraction of old stars strongly decreases in the outer regions of the disc of ESO-LV 1890070, IC 1993, and PGC 37759 and sharply increases in ESO-LV 400037 and NGC 1366. Therefore no age gradient is observed in the discs of half of the sample galaxies.
![Luminosity fraction of the old stellar population at (green open circles) and (blue circles) in the discs of the sample galaxies. The dotted lines connect the values obtained for the same galaxy.[]{data-label="fig:frac_old_2burst"}](fig10.ps){width="50.00000%"}
The luminosity-weighted metallicity measured at and for the young and old stellar populations are plotted in Fig. \[fig:met\_trend\_2burst\].
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
The metallicity gradients over the disc scalelength were derived separately for the young and old stellar populations. They are listed in Table \[tab:grad\_met\_2burst\] and their number distributions are shown in Fig. \[fig:grad\_histo\_2burst\].
The distribution of the metallicity gradients of the old stellar population is similar to that of the mean stellar population with a prevalence towards negative gradients ($\Delta$$\,\simeq-0.22$ dex) indicating that the inner disc regions are more metal rich than the outer ones. For the young stellar population we found that about half of the galaxies have slightly positive gradients ($\Delta$$\,\simeq0.03$ dex). These results are consistent with those found by @sancetal14 for the old and young stellar components of the discs of their galaxies when rescaled to the disc effective radius.
[lrr]{} & &\
& &\
& &\
ESO-LV 1890070 & $ ... $ & $ 0.40\pm0.07$\
ESO-LV 2060140 & $-0.40 \pm0.15$ & $-0.08\pm0.24$\
ESO-LV 4000370 & $ 1.04 \pm0.69$ & $ 0.02\pm0.14$\
ESO-LV 4500200 & $ 0.07 \pm0.07$ & $-0.01\pm0.12$\
ESO-LV 5140100 & $-0.29 \pm0.12$ & $-0.19\pm0.15$\
ESO-LV 5480440 & $ 0.03 \pm0.18$ & $-0.42\pm0.18$\
IC 1993 & $ ... $ & $-0.27\pm0.18$\
NGC 1366 & $ ... $ & $-0.48\pm0.09$\
NGC 7643 & $ 0.13 \pm0.28$ & $-0.48\pm0.17$\
PGC 37759 & $-0.51 \pm0.02$ & $... $\
\[tab:grad\_met\_2burst\]
![Distribution of the gradients of the luminosity-weighted metallicity of the young (left-hand panels) and old (right-hand panels) stellar populations in the discs of the sample galaxies.[]{data-label="fig:grad_histo_2burst"}](fig_12.ps){width="49.00000%"}
Overabundance of $\alpha$-elements {#sec:ssp}
----------------------------------
The overabundance of the $\alpha$-elements over iron is important to understand the processes driving the formation and evolution of the galaxies. Indeed it is a proxy of the delay between the supernovae type II and type I and it gives indication of the timescale of the last major burst of star formation. We derived the enhancement by comparing the measurements of line-strength indices with the predictions of SSP models.
### Measuring the line-strength indices {#sec:indices}
@pizzetal08 and @moreetal08 [@morelli2012; @morelli15] measured the radial profiles of the Lick , Mg, and Fe line-strength indices out to $2-3\,h$ from the centre for all the sample galaxies. The values of the line-strength index were corrected for the possible contamination of the emission line due to the ionized-gas component [see @morelli2012 for details].
We derived the line-strength indices at and by linearly interpolating the measured line-strength indices along the radius. The resulting values and their corresponding errors are reported in Table \[tab:indices\].
----------------- --------------- --------------- ----------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------ --------------- ---------------
ESO-LV 1890070 $2.37\pm0.13$ $2.81\pm0.09$ $0.191\pm0.004$ $3.17\pm0.09$ $ 1.53\pm0.09$ $2.05\pm0.09$ $2.30\pm0.10$ $ 0.124\pm0.004$ $2.47\pm0.04$ $3.61\pm0.05$
ESO-LV 2060140 $1.68\pm0.19$ $1.82\pm0.13$ $0.088\pm0.006$ $1.91\pm0.11$ $ 3.51\pm0.11$ $0.92\pm0.28$ $1.27\pm0.17$ $ 0.070\pm0.006$ $1.47\pm0.13$ $3.55\pm0.16$
ESO-LV 4000370 $1.26\pm0.19$ $1.27\pm0.13$ $0.061\pm0.006$ $1.30\pm0.12$ $ 3.45\pm0.11$ $1.26\pm0.28$ $1.17\pm0.18$ $ 0.031\pm0.006$ $1.14\pm0.17$ $3.32\pm0.17$
ESO-LV 4500200 $1.63\pm0.10$ $1.65\pm0.06$ $0.097\pm0.005$ $1.66\pm0.06$ $ 3.30\pm0.05$ $1.59\pm0.15$ $1.61\pm0.12$ $ 0.103\pm0.005$ $1.60\pm0.08$ $3.50\pm0.09$
ESO-LV 5140100 $2.10\pm0.10$ $2.22\pm0.07$ $0.141\pm0.003$ $2.25\pm0.06$ $ 1.94\pm0.06$ $1.29\pm0.15$ $1.57\pm0.08$ $ 0.102\pm0.003$ $1.89\pm0.09$ $3.09\pm0.08$
ESO-LV 5480440 $2.26\pm0.12$ $2.38\pm0.09$ $0.147\pm0.010$ $2.55\pm0.08$ $ 1.88\pm0.07$ $2.16\pm0.11$ $2.27\pm0.07$ $ 0.139\pm0.006$ $2.30\pm0.07$ $2.48\pm0.07$
IC 1993 $2.09\pm0.13$ $2.34\pm0.08$ $0.148\pm0.008$ $2.56\pm0.07$ $ 1.85\pm0.06$ $2.19\pm0.13$ $2.48\pm0.09$ $ 0.148\pm0.012$ $2.80\pm0.07$ $2.74\pm0.06$
NGC 1366 $2.35\pm0.22$ $2.66\pm0.14$ $0.187\pm0.015$ $3.05\pm0.13$ $ 1.73\pm0.10$ $1.99\pm0.14$ $2.44\pm0.08$ $ 0.171\pm0.012$ $2.96\pm0.08$ $1.50\pm0.06$
NGC 7643 $2.51\pm0.20$ $2.80\pm0.13$ $0.179\pm0.017$ $2.98\pm0.12$ $ 2.24\pm0.12$ $2.12\pm0.16$ $2.35\pm0.11$ $ 0.143\pm0.006$ $2.58\pm0.11$ $3.08\pm0.09$
PGC 37759 $2.18\pm0.23$ $2.56\pm0.14$ $0.057\pm0.002$ $2.93\pm0.11$ $ 2.97\pm0.11$ $1.51\pm0.22$ $1.80\pm0.14$ $-0.013\pm0.007$ $1.99\pm0.11$ $4.53\pm0.10$
\[tab:indices\]
----------------- --------------- --------------- ----------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------ --------------- ---------------
### Total \[$\alpha/$Fe\] enhancement {#sec:alfe}
In Fig. \[fig:models\_ssp\] the values of and derived at and for each sample galaxy are compared with the model predictions by @thmabe03 for two stellar populations with an intermediate (2 Gyr) and old age (12 Gyr), respectively.
The total $\alpha/$Fe enhancement of the disc stellar population at and was derived from the values of line-strength indices of Table \[tab:indices\], using a linear interpolation between the model points with the iterative procedure described in @moreetal08 and adopting the age given in Table \[tab:results\_1burst\]. The uncertainties on the $\alpha/$Fe enhancements were estimated by Monte Carlo simulations as done in [@moreetal08; @morelli15]. We randomly generated 100 simulated sets of line-strength indices from the measured indices and their errors assuming Gaussian distributions. The standard deviations of the distributions of simulated $\alpha/$Fe enhancements were adopted as the errors on their measured values, which are reported in Table \[tab:results\_1burst\]. The histograms of the number distribution of the enhancement at and are plotted in Fig. \[fig:alfe\_histo\]. Most of the galaxies display a solar and super-solar enhancement in the inner and outer regions of the disc, respectively.
![Distribution of the and line-strength indices measured at (green open circles) and (blue triangles) for the sample galaxies. The dotted lines connect the values referred to the same galaxy. The light grey lines indicate the models by @thmabe03 for a young (4 Gyr, continuous lines) and an old (10 Gyr, dashed lines) stellar population. []{data-label="fig:models_ssp"}](fig_13.ps){width="49.50000%"}
![Distribution of the total $\alpha$/Fe enhancement calculated at (green histogram, upper panel) and (blue histogram, lower panel) for the stellar populations in the discs of the sample galaxies.[]{data-label="fig:alfe_histo"}](fig_14.ps "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}\
The difference in the distributions of total enhancement measured at and suggests the presence of a radial gradient in the stellar populations properties of some of the galaxies, as also shown by the trends of Fig. \[fig:models\_ssp\]. The gradients of total enhancement over the disc scalelength were derived for all the sample galaxies from the values measured at and . The errors on the gradients were calculated through Monte Carlo simulations as done in @morelli2012. The gradients and corresponding errors are listed in Table \[tab:alfe\] and their number distribution is shown in Fig. \[fig:grad\_alfe\_histo\]. Only the discs of ESO-LV 5140100 and IC 1993 are characterised by a shallow positive gradient of enhancement, whereas the discs of all the other galaxies show a gradient consistent with zero within the errors. It is worth noticing that all the gradients are systematically positive with a weighted mean value of $\overline{[\alpha/{\rm Fe}]}=0.10\pm0.09$ dex.
[lrrr]{} & & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
ESO-LV 1890070 & $ 0.11\pm0.07$ & $ 0.17\pm0.04$& $ 0.06\pm0.09$\
ESO-LV 2060140 & $ 0.09\pm0.05$ & $ 0.00\pm0.12$& $ 0.16\pm0.19$\
ESO-LV 4000370 & $ 0.09\pm0.09$ & $ 0.25\pm0.16$& $-0.14\pm0.20$\
ESO-LV 4500200 & $-0.02\pm0.06$ & $-0.02\pm0.06$& $ 0.00\pm0.09$\
ESO-LV 5140100 & $-0.08\pm0.05$ & $ 0.23\pm0.10$& $ 0.31\pm0.12$\
ESO-LV 5480440 & $-0.03\pm0.05$ & $-0.02\pm0.06$& $ 0.01\pm0.08$\
IC 1993 & $ 0.05\pm0.06$ & $ 0.16\pm0.06$& $ 0.11\pm0.09$\
NGC 1366 & $ 0.07\pm0.10$ & $ 0.08\pm0.07$& $ 0.01\pm0.12$\
NGC 7643 & $ 0.04\pm0.07$ & $ 0.13\pm0.08$& $ 0.09\pm0.11$\
PGC 37759 & $ 0.21\pm0.10$ & $ 0.25\pm0.11$& $ 0.04\pm0.15$\
\[tab:alfe\]
![Distribution of the gradients of the total enhancement of the stellar populations in the discs of the sample galaxies.[]{data-label="fig:grad_alfe_histo"}](fig_15.ps "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}\
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We derived the stellar population properties in the discs of 10 spiral galaxies to investigate their assembly history by testing the predictions of theoretical models and numerical simulations. To this aim we analysed the galaxy spectra obtained in the radial range between and , which are the radii where the disc contributes more than $95\%$ of the galaxy surface brightness and the farthest measured radius, respectively. On average such a radial range extends out to $\sim2$ times the disc scalelength $h$ and it is $\sim1.5h$ wide.
The luminosity-weighted age and luminosity-weighted metallicity of the stellar populations were measured at and by fitting the galaxy spectra with a linear combination of stellar population synthesis models.
The disc stellar population of the sample galaxies has a flat distribution of ranging from $\sim1$ Gyr to $\sim12$ Gyr at both and , however we note that at only one galaxy has an age greater than $\sim8$ Gyr while at they are four. The luminosity-weighted metallicities span a wide range of values from solar to sub-solar ($-1.2\,\leq\,$$\,\leq0\,$ dex) but the number distribution at is slightly shifted towards lower metallicities and the peak moves from $\,\simeq-0.4$ dex at at about $\,\simeq-0.5$ dex at . The disc stellar populations of the majority of the sample galaxies are characterised by a negligible gradient over the disc scalelength and negative gradient, giving observational support to the inside-out formation scenario [@matteucci89; @roskar08]. No correlation was found between the galaxy morphological type and either or and between the morphological type and gradients of and . Even though the small number statistics does not allow us to trace a firm conclusion, this might suggest that the star formation in discs is not strongly connected with the galaxy type, as already pointed out for bulges. Indeed @thda06 and @morelli2012 found that the evolution of bulges and discs do not have a strong interplay and they follow independent paths of star formation.
Most of the discs display a bimodal age distribution hosting a young ($\rm Age \leq 4$ Gyr) and an old ($\rm Age > 4$ Gyr) stellar population, for which we derived the value and gradient of both the luminosity-weighted age and metallicity. The old stellar component usually dominates the disc luminosity and it is slightly more metal poor than the young stellar component. The luminosity fraction of the old stellar component is almost constant within the observed radial range in half of the sample galaxies and therefore no age gradient is observed in their discs. The old and young stellar populations are characterised by negative ($\Delta$$\,\simeq-0.22$ dex) and slightly positive ($\Delta$$\,\simeq0.03$ dex) gradients of metallicity, respectively. This is in agreement with the findings by @sancetal14 when rescaled to the disc effective radius. These results suggest that the discs formed out with a shallow gradient of age and metallicity, and this is consistent with the predictions of the inside-out assembly scenario [@Pilkington2012]. The young stellar population could be the result of a second burst of star formation due to the acquisition of gas from the environment. This give rise to the homogeneously-mixed stellar population we observe all over the disc. On the other hand, it is hard to explain the metallicity gradients of the old stellar populations in the framework of radial migration, which is expected to erase the gradients of the stellar population properties by moving stars from the inner to the outer regions of the disc [@roskar08]. These results suggest a reduced impact of radial migration on the stellar populations properties.
The overabundance of the $\alpha$-elements over iron were derived at and by comparing the measurements of line-strength indices with the predictions of SSP models.
The gradients of total enhancement calculated over the disc scalelength are systematically positive ($\overline{[\alpha/{\rm
Fe}]}=0.10\pm0.09$ dex). This is a hint that the star-formation timescale is shorter in the outer regions of discs. This result is promising but it should be tested against a larger sample of galaxy discs and when the new $\alpha$-enhanced synthetic population models [@vazdekis15] will be released.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This investigation was based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the La Silla Paranal Observatory under programmes 76.B-0375, and 80.B-00754. This work was supported by Padua University through grants 60A02-4807/12, 60A02-5857/13, 60A02-5833/14 and CPDA133894. LM acknowledges financial support from Padua University grant CPS0204. JMA acknowledges support from the European Research Council Starting Grant (SEDmorph, P.I. V. Wild)
F., [Bressan]{} A., [Rampazzo]{} R., [Zeilinger]{} W. W., [Danese]{} L., 2007, , 463, 455
M., [Rix]{} H.-W., [Somerville]{} R. S., [Bell]{} E. F., [H[ä]{}u[ß]{}ler]{} B., [Peng]{} C. Y., [Borch]{} A., [Beckwith]{} S. V. W., [Caldwell]{} J. A. R., [Heymans]{} C., [Jahnke]{} K., [Jogee]{} S., [McIntosh]{} D. H., [Meisenheimer]{} K., [S[á]{}nchez]{} S. F., [Wisotzki]{} L., [Wolf]{} C., 2005, , 635, 959
A., [Maraston]{} C., [Thomas]{} D., [Johansson]{} J., 2011, , 531, A109
S., [Prantzos]{} N., 1999, , 307, 857
C. B., [Kawata]{} D., [Gibson]{} B. K., [Freeman]{} K. C., 2004, , 612, 894
M., [Emsellem]{} E., 2004, , 116, 138
M.-R. L., 2009, , 506, 1137
T. J., 2007, , 664, 820
Davis, T. A., Krajnovi[ć]{}, D., McDermid, R. M., et al. 2012, , 426, 1574
Driver, S. P., Allen, P. D., Graham, A. W., et al. 2006, , 368, 414
McDermid, R. M., Alatalo, K., Blitz, L., et al. 2015, , 448, 3484
R. S., 1996, , 313, 377
P., [Haywood]{} M., [Combes]{} F., [Semelin]{} B., [Snaith]{} O. N., 2013, , 553, A102
S. M., [Friel]{} E. D., [Burstein]{} D., [Gaskell]{} C. M., 1985, , 57, 711
K., [Bland-Hawthorn]{} J., 2002, , 40, 487
M., [Koeppen]{} J., 1992, , 262, 455
S. M., [Dalcanton]{} J. J., [Williams]{} B. F., [Ro[š]{}kar]{} R., [Holtzman]{} J., [Seth]{} A. C., [Dolphin]{} A., [Weisz]{} D., [Cole]{} A., [Debattista]{} V. P., [Gilbert]{} K. M., [Olsen]{} K., [Skillman]{} E., [de Jong]{} R. S., [Karachentsev]{} I. D., [Quinn]{} T. R., 2010, , 712, 858
R. M., [P[é]{}rez]{} E., [Cid Fernandes]{} R., [et al]{} ., 2014, , 562, A47
Jablonka, P., Gorgas, J., & Goudfrooij, P. 2007, , 474, 763
A., [Binney]{} J., 1990, , 245, 305
J., [Thomas]{} D., [Maraston]{} C., 2010, , 406, 165
M., [Prantzos]{} N., [Athanassoula]{} E., 2013, , 436, 1479
L. A., [Gonz[á]{}lez]{} J. J., [Courteau]{} S., 2009, , 395, 28
F., [Francois]{} P., 1989, , 239, 885
D., [Thomas]{} D., [Saglia]{} R. P., [Bender]{} R., [Wegner]{} G., 2003, , 407, 423
J., [Aguerri]{} J. A. L., [Corsini]{} E. M., [Simonneau]{} E., 2008, , 478, 353
M[é]{}ndez-Abreu, J., Debattista, V. P., Corsini, E. M., & Aguerri, J. A. L. 2014, , 572, A25
I., [Chiappini]{} C., [Martig]{} M., 2014, , 572, A92
B. K., [Holtzman]{} J. A., 2006, , 371, 583
L., [Calvi]{} V., [Masetti]{} N., [Parisi]{} P., [Landi]{} R., [Maiorano]{} E., [Minniti]{} D., [Galaz]{} G., 2013, , 556, A135
L., [Corsini]{} E. M., [Pizzella]{} A., [Dalla Bont[à]{}]{} E., [Coccato]{} L., [M[é]{}ndez-Abreu]{} J., [Cesetti]{} M., 2012, , 423, 962
Morelli, L., Pizzella, A., Corsini, E. M., et al. 2015, Astronomische Nachrichten, 336, 208
L., [Pompei]{} E., [Pizzella]{} A., [M[é]{}ndez-Abreu]{} J., [Corsini]{} E. M., [Coccato]{} L., [Saglia]{} R. P., [Sarzi]{} M., [Bertola]{} F., 2008, , 389, 341
J. C., [Gil de Paz]{} A., [Boissier]{} S., [Zamorano]{} J., [Jarrett]{} T., [Gallego]{} J., [Madore]{} B. F., 2007, , 658, 1006
Onodera, M., Renzini, A., Carollo, M., et al. 2012, , 755, 26
Pilkington, K., Few, C. G., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2012, , 540, A56
A., [Corsini]{} E. M., [Sarzi]{} M., [Magorrian]{} J., [M[é]{}ndez-Abreu]{} J., [Coccato]{} L., [Morelli]{} L., [Bertola]{} F., 2008, , 387, 1099
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1992, Cambridge: University Press, |c1992, 2nd ed.,
L. C., [Courteau]{} S., [McDonald]{} M., [Rose]{} J. A., 2011, , 412, 423
B., [Bullock]{} J. S., [Cox]{} T. J., [Di Matteo]{} T., [Hernquist]{} L., [Springel]{} V., [Yoshida]{} N., 2006, , 645, 986
R., [Debattista]{} V. P., [Quinn]{} T. R., [Stinson]{} G. S., [Wadsley]{} J., 2008, , 684, L79
E. E., 1955, , 121, 161
P., [Gorgas]{} J., [Cardiel]{} N., [Gonz[á]{}lez]{} J. J., 2006, , 457, 809
P., [Ocvirk]{} P., [Gibson]{} B. K., [P[é]{}rez]{} I., [Peletier]{} R. F., 2011, , 415, 709
P., [Peletier]{} R. F., [Jim[é]{}nez-Vicente]{} J., [Cardiel]{} N., [Cenarro]{} A. J., [Falc[ó]{}n-Barroso]{} J., [Gorgas]{} J., [Selam]{} S., [Vazdekis]{} A., 2006, , 371, 703
P., [Rosales-Ortega]{} F. F., [M[é]{}ndez-Abreu]{} J., [P[é]{}rez]{} I., [S[á]{}nchez]{} S. F., [Zibetti]{} S., [Aguerri]{} J. A. L., [Bland-Hawthorn]{} J., [Catal[á]{}n-Torrecilla]{} C., [Cid Fernandes]{} R., 2014, , 570, A6
M., [Falc[ó]{}n-Barroso]{} J., [Davies]{} R. L., [Bacon]{} R., [Bureau]{} M., [Cappellari]{} M., [de Zeeuw]{} P. T., [Emsellem]{} E., [Fathi]{} K., [Krajnovi[ć]{}]{} D., [Kuntschner]{} H., [McDermid]{} R. M., [Peletier]{} R. F., 2006, , 366, 1151
J. A., [Binney]{} J. J., 2002, , 336, 785
V. A., [Jansen]{} R. A., [Windhorst]{} R. A., [Odewahn]{} S. C., [Hibbard]{} J. E., 2005, , 630, 784
Thomas, D., Maraston, C., Bender, R., & Mendes de Oliveira, C. 2005, , 621, 673
D., [Davies]{} R. L., 2006, , 366, 510
D., [Maraston]{} C., [Bender]{} R., 2003, , 339, 897
D., [Maraston]{} C., [Johansson]{} J., 2011, , 412, 2183
Trujillo, I., & Pohlen, M. 2005, , 630, L17
Seidel, M. K., Cacho, R., Ruiz-Lara, T., et al. 2015, , 446, 2837
A., [S[á]{}nchez-Bl[á]{}zquez]{} P., [Falc[ó]{}n-Barroso]{} J., [Cenarro]{} A. J., [Beasley]{} M. A., [Cardiel]{} N., [Gorgas]{} J., [Peletier]{} R. F., 2010, , 404, 1639
Worthey, G. 1994, , 95, 107
G., [Espa[ñ]{}a]{} A., [MacArthur]{} L. A., [Courteau]{} S., 2005, , 631, 820
P., [Dalcanton]{} J. J., 2008, , 683, 707
D., [Carney]{} B. W., [Teixera de Almeida]{} M. L., [Pohl]{} B. L., 2006, , 131, 2256
Vazdekis, A., Coelho, P., Cassisi, S., et al. 2015, , 449, 1177
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the last few years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has achieved a notable momentum that, if harnessed appropriately, may deliver the best of expectations over many application sectors across the field. For this to occur shortly in Machine Learning, the entire community stands in front of the barrier of explainability, an inherent problem of the latest techniques brought by sub-symbolism (e.g. ensembles or Deep Neural Networks) that were not present in the last hype of AI (namely, expert systems and rule based models). Paradigms underlying this problem fall within the so-called *eXplainable* AI (XAI) field, which is widely acknowledged as a crucial feature for the practical deployment of AI models. The overview presented in this article examines the existing literature and contributions already done in the field of XAI, including a prospect toward what is yet to be reached. For this purpose we summarize previous efforts made to define explainability in Machine Learning, establishing a novel definition of explainable Machine Learning that covers such prior conceptual propositions with a major focus on the audience for which the explainability is sought. Departing from this definition, we propose and discuss about a taxonomy of recent contributions related to the explainability of different Machine Learning models, including those aimed at explaining Deep Learning methods for which a second dedicated taxonomy is built and examined in detail. This critical literature analysis serves as the motivating background for a series of challenges faced by XAI, such as the interesting crossroads of data fusion and explainability. Our prospects lead toward the concept of *Responsible Artificial Intelligence*, namely, a methodology for the large-scale implementation of AI methods in real organizations with fairness, model explainability and accountability at its core. Our ultimate goal is to provide newcomers to the field of XAI with a thorough taxonomy that can serve as reference material in order to stimulate future research advances, but also to encourage experts and professionals from other disciplines to embrace the benefits of AI in their activity sectors, without any prior bias for its lack of interpretability.'
address:
- 'TECNALIA, 48160 Derio, Spain'
- 'ENSTA, Institute Polytechnique Paris and INRIA Flowers Team, Palaiseau, France'
- 'University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), 48013 Bilbao, Spain'
- 'Basque Center for Applied Mathematics (BCAM), 48009 Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain'
- 'Segula Technologies, Parc d’activité de Pissaloup, Trappes, France'
- 'Institut des Systèmes Intelligents et de Robotique, Sorbonne Universitè, France'
- 'DaSCI Andalusian Institute of Data Science and Computational Intelligence, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain'
- 'Telefonica, 28050 Madrid, Spain'
author:
- Alejandro Barredo Arrieta
- 'Natalia Díaz-Rodríguez'
- Javier Del Ser
- Adrien Bennetot
- |
\
Siham Tabik
- Alberto Barbado
- Salvador Garcia
- 'Sergio Gil-Lopez'
- Daniel Molina
- |
\
Richard Benjamins
- Raja Chatila
- and Francisco Herrera
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
nocite: '[@TGDSfischer2006predicting; @TGDScurtarolo2013high; @TGDSwong2009active; @TGDSxu2015robust; @Lesort:17; @TGDSleibo2017view]'
title: 'Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AI'
---
Explainable Artificial Intelligence ,Machine Learning ,Deep Learning ,Data Fusion ,Interpretability ,Comprehensibility ,Transparency ,Privacy ,Fairness ,Accountability ,Responsible Artificial Intelligence.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Artificial Intelligence (AI) lies at the core of many activity sectors that have embraced new information technologies [@russell2016artificial]. While the roots of AI trace back to several decades ago, there is a clear consensus on the paramount importance featured nowadays by intelligent machines endowed with learning, reasoning and adaptation capabilities. It is by virtue of these capabilities that AI methods are achieving unprecedented levels of performance when learning to solve increasingly complex computational tasks, making them pivotal for the future development of the human society [@west2018future]. The sophistication of AI-powered systems has lately increased to such an extent that almost no human intervention is required for their design and deployment. When decisions derived from such systems ultimately affect humans’ lives (as in e.g. medicine, law or defense), there is an emerging need for understanding how such decisions are furnished by AI methods [@goodman2017Fair].
While the very first AI systems were easily interpretable, the last years have witnessed the rise of opaque decision systems such as Deep Neural Networks (DNNs). The empirical success of Deep Learning (DL) models such as DNNs stems from a combination of efficient learning algorithms and their huge parametric space. The latter space comprises hundreds of layers and millions of parameters, which makes DNNs be considered as complex *black-box* models [@Castelvecchi16]. The opposite of *black-box-ness* is *transparency*, i.e., the search for a direct understanding of the mechanism by which a model works [@Lipton18].
As black-box Machine Learning (ML) models are increasingly being employed to make important predictions in critical contexts, the demand for transparency is increasing from the various stakeholders in AI [@Preece18Stakeholders]. The danger is on creating and using decisions that are not justifiable, legitimate, or that simply do not allow obtaining detailed explanations of their behaviour [@gunning2017explainable]. Explanations supporting the output of a model are crucial, e.g., in precision medicine, where experts require far more information from the model than a simple binary prediction for supporting their diagnosis [@1907.07374]. Other examples include autonomous vehicles in transportation, security, and finance, among others.
In general, humans are reticent to adopt techniques that are not directly interpretable, tractable and trustworthy [@Zhu18], given the increasing demand for ethical AI [@goodman2017Fair]. It is customary to think that by focusing solely on performance, the systems will be increasingly opaque. This is true in the sense that there is a trade-off between the performance of a model and its transparency [@Dosilovic18]. However, an improvement in the understanding of a system can lead to the correction of its deficiencies. When developing a ML model, the consideration of interpretability as an additional design driver can improve its implementability for 3 reasons:
- Interpretability helps ensure impartiality in decision-making, i.e. to detect, and consequently, correct from bias in the training dataset.
- Interpretability facilitates the provision of robustness by highlighting potential adversarial perturbations that could change the prediction.
- Interpretability can act as an insurance that only meaningful variables infer the output, i.e., guaranteeing that an underlying truthful causality exists in the model reasoning.
All these means that the interpretation of the system should, in order to be considered practical, provide either an understanding of the model mechanisms and predictions, a visualization of the model’s discrimination rules, or hints on what could perturb the model [@Hall2018].
In order to avoid limiting the effectiveness of the current generation of AI systems, *eXplainable AI* (XAI) [@gunning2017explainable] proposes creating a suite of ML techniques that 1) produce more explainable models while maintaining a high level of learning performance (e.g., prediction accuracy), and 2) enable humans to understand, appropriately trust, and effectively manage the emerging generation of artificially intelligent partners. XAI draws as well insights from the Social Sciences [@Miller19] and considers the psychology of explanation.
Figure \[fig:xAITrend\] displays the rising trend of contributions on XAI and related concepts. This literature outbreak shares its rationale with the research agendas of national governments and agencies. Although some recent surveys [@1907.07374; @Gilpin18; @Dosilovic18; @adadi2018peeking; @biran2017explanation; @Darpa2019; @Guidotti19] summarize the upsurge of activity in XAI across sectors and disciplines, this overview aims to cover the creation of a complete unified framework of categories and concepts that allow for scrutiny and understanding of the field of XAI methods. Furthermore, we pose intriguing thoughts around the explainability of AI models in data fusion contexts with regards to data privacy and model confidentiality. This, along with other research opportunities and challenges identified throughout our study, serve as the pull factor toward [Responsible Artificial Intelligence]{}, term by which we refer to a series of AI principles to be necessarily met when deploying AI in real applications. As we will later show in detail, model explainability is among the most crucial aspects to be ensured within this methodological framework. All in all, the novel contributions of this overview can be summarized as follows:
1. Grounded on a first elaboration of concepts and terms used in XAI-related research, we propose a novel definition of explainability that places *audience* (Figure \[fig:audiences\]) as a key aspect to be considered when explaining a ML model. We also elaborate on the diverse purposes sought when using XAI techniques, from trustworthiness to privacy awareness, which round up the claimed importance of purpose and targeted audience in model explainability.
2. We define and examine the different levels of transparency that a ML model can feature by itself, as well as the diverse approaches to post-hoc explainability, namely, the explanation of ML models that are not transparent by design.
3. We thoroughly analyze the literature on XAI and related concepts published to date, covering approximately 400 contributions arranged into two different taxonomies. The first taxonomy addresses the explainability of ML models using the previously made distinction between transparency and post-hoc explainability, including models that are transparent by themselves, Deep and non-Deep (i.e., *shallow*) learning models. The second taxonomy deals with XAI methods suited for the explanation of Deep Learning models, using classification criteria closely linked to this family of ML methods (e.g. layerwise explanations, representation vectors, attention).
4. We enumerate a series of challenges of XAI that still remain insufficiently addressed to date. Specifically, we identify research needs around the concepts and metrics to evaluate the explainability of ML models, and outline research directions toward making Deep Learning models more understandable. We further augment the scope of our prospects toward the implications of XAI techniques in regards to confidentiality, robustness in adversarial settings, data diversity, and other areas intersecting with explainability.
5. After the previous prospective discussion, we arrive at the concept of Responsible Artificial Intelligence, a manifold concept that imposes the systematic adoption of several AI principles for AI models to be of practical use. In addition to explainability, the guidelines behind Responsible AI establish that fairness, accountability and privacy should also be considered when implementing AI models in real environments.
6. Since Responsible AI blends together model explainability and privacy/security by design, we call for a profound reflection around the benefits and risks of XAI techniques in scenarios dealing with sensitive information and/or confidential ML models. As we will later show, the regulatory push toward data privacy, quality, integrity and governance demands more efforts to assess the role of XAI in this arena. In this regard, we provide an insight on the implications of XAI in terms of privacy and security under different data fusion paradigms.
The remainder of this overview is structured as follows: first, Section \[sec:xaiwwwh\] and subsections therein open a discussion on the terminology and concepts revolving around explainability and interpretability in AI, ending up with the aforementioned novel definition of interpretability (Subsections \[sec:terminology\] and \[sec:what\]), and a general criterion to categorize and analyze ML models from the XAI perspective. Sections \[sec:transparent\] and \[sec:posthoc\] proceed by reviewing recent findings on XAI for ML models (on transparent models and post-hoc techniques respectively) that comprise the main division in the aforementioned taxonomy. We also include a review on hybrid approaches among the two, to attain XAI. Benefits and caveats of the synergies among the families of methods are discussed in Section \[sec:challenges\], where we present a prospect of general challenges and some consequences to be cautious about. Finally, Section \[sec:responsibleAI\] elaborates on the concept of Responsible Artificial Intelligence. Section \[sec:conc\] concludes the survey with an outlook aimed at engaging the community around this vibrant research area, which has the potential to impact society, in particular those sectors that have progressively embraced ML as a core technology of their activity.
Explainability: What, Why, What For and How? {#sec:xaiwwwh}
============================================
Before proceeding with our literature study, it is convenient to first establish a common point of understanding on what the term *explainability* stands for in the context of AI and, more specifically, ML. This is indeed the purpose of this section, namely, to pause at the numerous definitions that have been done in regards to this concept (what?), to argue why explainability is an important issue in AI and ML (why? what for?) and to introduce the general classification of XAI approaches that will drive the literature study thereafter (how?).
Terminology Clarification {#sec:terminology}
-------------------------
One of the issues that hinders the establishment of common grounds is the interchangeable misuse of interpretability and explainability in the literature. There are notable differences among these concepts. To begin with, interpretability refers to a passive characteristic of a model referring to the level at which a given model makes sense for a human observer. This feature is also expressed as transparency. By contrast, explainability can be viewed as an active characteristic of a model, denoting any action or procedure taken by a model with the intent of clarifying or detailing its internal functions.
To summarize the most commonly used nomenclature, in this section we clarify the distinction and similarities among terms often used in the ethical AI and XAI communities.
- **Understandability** (or equivalently, **intelligibility**) denotes the characteristic of a model to make a human understand its function – how the model works – without any need for explaining its internal structure or the algorithmic means by which the model processes data internally [@Montavon18].
- **Comprehensibility**: when conceived for ML models, comprehensibility refers to the ability of a learning algorithm to represent its learned knowledge in a human understandable fashion [@Fernandez19; @gleicher2016framework; @craven1996extracting]. This notion of model comprehensibility stems from the postulates of Michalski [@michalski1983theory], which stated that *“the results of computer induction should be symbolic descriptions of given entities, semantically and structurally similar to those a human expert might produce observing the same entities. Components of these descriptions should be comprehensible as single ‘chunks’ of information, directly interpretable in natural language, and should relate quantitative and qualitative concepts in an integrated fashion”*. Given its difficult quantification, comprehensibility is normally tied to the evaluation of the model complexity [@Guidotti19].
- **Interpretability**: it is defined as the ability to explain or to provide the meaning in understandable terms to a human.
- **Explainability**: explainability is associated with the notion of explanation as an interface between humans and a decision maker that is, at the same time, both an accurate proxy of the decision maker and comprehensible to humans [@Guidotti19].
- **Transparency**: a model is considered to be transparent if by itself it is understandable. Since a model can feature different degrees of understandability, transparent models in Section \[sec:transparent\] are divided into three categories: simulatable models, decomposable models and algorithmically transparent models [@Lipton18].
What? {#sec:what}
-----
Although it might be considered to be beyond the scope of this paper, it is worth noting the discussion held around general theories of explanation in the realm of philosophy [@diez2013Explanations]. Many proposals have been done in this regard, suggesting the need for a general, unified theory that approximates the structure and intent of an explanation. However, nobody has stood the critique when presenting such a general theory. For the time being, the most agreed-upon thought blends together different approaches to explanation drawn from diverse knowledge disciplines. A similar problem is found when addressing interpretability in AI. It appears from the literature that there is not yet a common point of understanding on what interpretability or explainability are. However, many contributions claim the achievement of interpretable models and techniques that empower explainability.
To shed some light on this lack of consensus, it might be interesting to place the reference starting point at the definition of the term Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) given by D. Gunning in [@gunning2017explainable]:
This definition brings together two concepts (understanding and trust) that need to be addressed in advance. However, it misses to consider other purposes motivating the need for interpretable AI models, such as causality, transferability, informativeness, fairness and confidence [@Lipton18; @WhatDoesExplainableAImean; @TowardsInterpretability; @MakingInterpretable]. We will later delve into these topics, mentioning them here as a supporting example of the incompleteness of the above definition.
As exemplified by the definition above, a thorough, complete definition of explainability in AI still slips from our fingers. A broader reformulation of this definition (e.g. *“An explainable Artificial Intelligence is one that produces explanations about its functioning”*) would fail to fully characterize the term in question, leaving aside important aspects such as its purpose. To build upon the completeness, a definition of explanation is first required.
As extracted from the Cambridge Dictionary of English Language, an explanation is *“the details or reasons that someone gives to make something clear or easy to understand”* [@walter2008cambridge]. In the context of an ML model, this can be rephrased as: *“the details or reasons a model gives to make its functioning clear or easy to understand”*. It is at this point where opinions start to diverge. Inherently stemming from the previous definitions, two ambiguities can be pointed out. First, the details or the reasons used to explain, are completely dependent of the audience to which they are presented. Second, whether the explanation has left the concept clear or easy to understand also depends completely on the audience. Therefore, the definition must be rephrased to reflect explicitly the dependence of the explainability of the model on the audience. To this end, a reworked definition could read as:
Since explaining, as argumenting, may involve weighting, comparing or convincing an audience with logic-based formalizations of (counter) arguments [@Besnard08], explainability might convey us into the realm of cognitive psychology and the *psychology of explanations* [@gunning2017explainable], since measuring whether something has been understood or put clearly is a hard task to be gauged objectively. However, measuring to which extent the internals of a model can be explained could be tackled objectively. Any means to reduce the complexity of the model or to simplify its outputs should be considered as an XAI approach. How big this leap is in terms of complexity or simplicity will correspond to how explainable the resulting model is. An underlying problem that remains unsolved is that the interpretability gain provided by such XAI approaches may not be straightforward to quantify: for instance, a model simplification can be evaluated based on the reduction of the number of architectural elements or number of parameters of the model itself (as often made, for instance, for DNNs). On the contrary, the use of visualization methods or natural language for the same purpose does not favor a clear quantification of the improvements gained in terms of interpretability. The derivation of general metrics to assess the quality of XAI approaches remain as an open challenge that should be under the spotlight of the field in forthcoming years. We will further discuss on this research direction in Section \[sec:challenges\].
Explainability is linked to post-hoc explainability since it covers the techniques used to convert a non-interpretable model into a explainable one. In the remaining of this manuscript, explainability will be considered as the main design objective, since it represents a broader concept. A model can be explained, but the interpretability of the model is something that comes from the design of the model itself. Bearing these observations in mind, explainable AI can be defined as follows:
This definition is posed here as a first contribution of the present overview, implicitly assumes that the ease of understanding and clarity targeted by XAI techniques for the model at hand reverts on different application purposes, such as a better trustworthiness of the model’s output by the audience.
Why?
----
As stated in the introduction, explainability is one of the main barriers AI is facing nowadays in regards to its practical implementation. The inability to explain or to fully understand the reasons by which state-of-the-art ML algorithms perform as well as they do, is a problem that find its roots in two different causes, which are conceptually illustrated in Figure \[fig:audiences\].
Without a doubt, the first cause is the gap between the research community and business sectors, impeding the full penetration of the newest ML models in sectors that have traditionally lagged behind in the digital transformation of their processes, such as banking, finances, security and health, among many others. In general this issue occurs in strictly regulated sectors with some reluctance to implement techniques that may put at risk their assets.
The second axis is that of knowledge. AI has helped research across the world with the task of inferring relations that were far beyond the human cognitive reach. Every field dealing with huge amounts of reliable data has largely benefited from the adoption of AI and ML techniques. However, we are entering an era in which results and performance metrics are the only interest shown up in research studies. Although for certain disciplines this might be the fair case, science and society are far from being concerned just by performance. The search for understanding is what opens the door for further model improvement and its practical utility.
The following section develops these ideas further by analyzing the goals motivating the search for explainable AI models.
What for?
---------
The research activity around XAI has so far exposed different goals to draw from the achievement of an explainable model. Almost none of the papers reviewed completely agrees in the goals required to describe what an explainable model should compel. However, all these different goals might help discriminate the purpose for which a given exercise of ML explainability is performed. Unfortunately, scarce contributions have attempted to define such goals from a conceptual perspective [@Lipton18; @Gilpin18; @WhatDoesExplainableAImean; @WhatDoWeNeed]. We now synthesize and enumerate definitions for these XAI goals, so as to settle a first classification criteria for the full suit of papers covered in this review:
- *Trustworthiness:* several authors agree upon the search for trustworthiness as the primary aim of an explainable AI model [@kim2015Trust; @ribeiro2016trust]. However, declaring a model as explainable as per its capabilities of inducing trust might not be fully compliant with the requirement of model explainability. Trustworthiness might be considered as the confidence of whether a model will act as intended when facing a given problem. Although it should most certainly be a property of any explainable model, it does not imply that every trustworthy model can be considered explainable on its own, nor is trustworthiness a property easy to quantify. Trust might be far from being the only purpose of an explainable model since the relation among the two, if agreed upon, is not reciprocal. Part of the reviewed papers mention the concept of trust when stating their purpose for achieving explainability. However, as seen in Table \[tab:ExplainabilityGoals\], they do not amount to a large share of the recent contributions related to XAI.
- *Causality:* another common goal for explainability is that of finding causality among data variables. Several authors argue that explainable models might ease the task of finding relationships that, should they occur, could be tested further for a stronger causal link between the involved variables [@wang1999Causality; @rani2006Causality]. The inference of causal relationships from observational data is a field that has been broadly studied over time [@pearl2009causality]. As widely acknowledged by the community working on this topic, causality requires a wide frame of prior knowledge to prove that observed effects are causal. A ML model only discovers correlations among the data it learns from, and therefore might not suffice for unveiling a cause-effect relationship. However, causation involves correlation, so an explainable ML model could validate the results provided by causality inference techniques, or provide a first intuition of possible causal relationships within the available data. Again, Table \[tab:ExplainabilityGoals\] reveals that causality is not among the most important goals if we attend to the amount of papers that state it explicitly as their goal.
- *Transferability:* models are always bounded by constraints that should allow for their seamless transferability. This is the main reason why a training-testing approach is used when dealing with ML problems [@kuhn2013appliedTransferability; @james2013Transferability]. Explainability is also an advocate for transferability, since it may ease the task of elucidating the boundaries that might affect a model, allowing for a better understanding and implementation. Similarly, the mere understanding of the inner relations taking place within a model facilitates the ability of a user to reuse this knowledge in another problem. There are cases in which the lack of a proper understanding of the model might drive the user toward incorrect assumptions and fatal consequences [@caruana2015Transferability; @szegedy2013Transferability]. Transferability should also fall between the resulting properties of an explainable model, but again, not every transferable model should be considered as explainable. As observed in Table \[tab:ExplainabilityGoals\], the amount of papers stating that the ability of rendering a model explainable is to better understand the concepts needed to reuse it or to improve its performance is the second most used reason for pursuing model explainability.
- *Informativeness:* ML models are used with the ultimate intention of supporting decision making [@huysmans2011Informativeness]. However, it should not be forgotten that the problem being solved by the model is not equal to that being faced by its human counterpart. Hence, a great deal of information is needed in order to be able to relate the user’s decision to the solution given by the model, and to avoid falling in misconception pitfalls. For this purpose, explainable ML models should give information about the problem being tackled. Most of the reasons found among the papers reviewed is that of extracting information about the inner relations of a model. Almost all rule extraction techniques substantiate their approach on the search for a simpler understanding of what the model internally does, stating that the knowledge (information) can be expressed in these simpler proxies that they consider explaining the antecedent. This is the most used argument found among the reviewed papers to back up what they expect from reaching explainable models.
- *Confidence:* as a generalization of robustness and stability, confidence should always be assessed on a model in which reliability is expected. The methods to maintain confidence under control are different depending on the model. As stated in [@ruppert1987Stability; @basu2018Stability; @yu2013stability], stability is a must-have when drawing interpretations from a certain model. Trustworthy interpretations should not be produced by models that are not stable. Hence, an explainable model should contain information about the confidence of its working regime.
- *Fairness:* from a social standpoint, explainability can be considered as the capacity to reach and guarantee fairness in ML models. In a certain literature strand, an explainable ML model suggests a clear visualization of the relations affecting a result, allowing for a fairness or ethical analysis of the model at hand [@goodman2017Fair; @chouldechova2017fair]. Likewise, a related objective of XAI is highlighting bias in the data a model was exposed to [@Burns18; @Bennetot19]. The support of algorithms and models is growing fast in fields that involve human lives, hence explainability should be considered as a bridge to avoid the unfair or unethical use of algorithm’s outputs.
- *Accessibility:* a minor subset of the reviewed contributions argues for explainability as the property that allows end users to get more involved in the process of improving and developing a certain ML model [@chander2018working; @UsersAtChargeOfDesing] . It seems clear that explainable models will ease the burden felt by non-technical or non-expert users when having to deal with algorithms that seem incomprehensible at first sight. This concept is expressed as the third most considered goal among the surveyed literature.
- *Interactivity:* some contributions [@harbers2010design; @ExplainableAgencyAgents] include the ability of a model to be interactive with the user as one of the goals targeted by an explainable ML model. Once again, this goal is related to fields in which the end users are of great importance, and their ability to tweak and interact with the models is what ensures success.
- *Privacy awareness:* almost forgotten in the reviewed literature, one of the byproducts enabled by explainability in ML models is its ability to assess privacy. ML models may have complex representations of their learned patterns. Not being able to understand what has been captured by the model [@Castelvecchi16] and stored in its internal representation may entail a privacy breach. Contrarily, the ability to explain the inner relations of a trained model by non-authorized third parties may also compromise the differential privacy of the data origin. Due to its criticality in sectors where XAI is foreseen to play a crucial role, confidentiality and privacy issues will be covered further in Subsections \[ssec:robust\_adv\] and \[ssec:privacydatafusion\], respectively.
This subsection has reviewed the goals encountered among the broad scope of the reviewed papers. All these goals are clearly under the surface of the concept of explainability introduced before in this section. To round up this prior analysis on the concept of explainability, the last subsection deals with different strategies followed by the community to address explainability in ML models.
How?
----
The literature makes a clear distinction among models that are interpretable by design, and those that can be explained by means of external XAI techniques. This duality could also be regarded as the difference between interpretable models and model interpretability techniques; a more widely accepted classification is that of *transparent* models and post-hoc explainability. This same duality also appears in the paper presented in [@Guidotti19] in which the distinction its authors make refers to the methods to solve the transparent box design problem against the problem of explaining the black-box problem. This work, further extends the distinction made among transparent models including the different levels of transparency considered.
Within transparency, three levels are contemplated: algorithmic transparency, decomposability and simulatability[^1]. Among post-hoc techniques we may distinguish among *text explanations*, *visualizations*, *local explanations*, *explanations by example*, *explanations by simplification* and *feature relevance*. In this context, there is a broader distinction proposed by [@WhatDoesExplainableAImean] discerning between 1) opaque systems, where the mappings from input to output are invisible to the user; 2) interpretable systems, in which users can mathematically analyze the mappings; and 3) comprehensible systems, in which the models should output symbols or rules along with their specific output to aid in the understanding process of the rationale behind the mappings being made. This last classification criterion could be considered included within the one proposed earlier, hence this paper will attempt at following the more specific one.
### Levels of Transparency in Machine Learning Models {#sec:transparent-models}
Transparent models convey some degree of interpretability by themselves. Models belonging to this category can be also approached in terms of the domain in which they are interpretable, namely, algorithmic transparency, decomposability and simulatability. As we elaborate next in connection to Figure \[fig:transparentML\], each of these classes contains its predecessors, e.g. a *simulatable* model is at the same time a model that is decomposable and algorithmically transparent:
- *Simulatability* denotes the ability of a model of being simulated or thought about strictly by a human, hence complexity takes a dominant place in this class. This being said, simple but extensive (i.e., with *too large* amount of rules) rule based systems fall out of this characteristic, whereas a single perceptron neural network falls within. This aspect aligns with the claim that sparse linear models are more interpretable than dense ones [@tibshirani1996Simulatability], and that an interpretable model is one that can be easily presented to a human by means of text and *visualizations* [@ribeiro2016trust]. Again, endowing a decomposable model with simulatability requires that the model has to be self-contained enough for a human to think and reason about it as a whole.
- *Decomposability* stands for the ability to explain each of the parts of a model (input, parameter and calculation). It can be considered as intelligibility as stated in [@lou2012Decomposability]. This characteristic might empower the ability to understand, interpret or explain the behavior of a model. However, as occurs with algorithmic transparency, not every model can fulfill this property. Decomposability requires every input to be readily interpretable (e.g. cumbersome features will not fit the premise). The added constraint for an algorithmically transparent model to become decomposable is that every part of the model must be understandable by a human without the need for additional tools.
- *Algorithmic Transparency* can be seen in different ways. It deals with the ability of the user to understand the process followed by the model to produce any given output from its input data. Put it differently, a linear model is deemed transparent because its error surface can be understood and reasoned about, allowing the user to understand how the model will act in every situation it may face [@james2013Transferability]. Contrarily, it is not possible to understand it in deep architectures as the loss landscape might be opaque [@kawaguchi2016Transparency; @AlgorithmicTransparency] since it cannot be fully observed and the solution has to be approximated through heuristic optimization (e.g. through stochastic gradient descent). The main constrain for algorithmically transparent models is that the model has to be fully explorable by means of mathematical analysis and methods.
### Post-hoc Explainability techniques for Machine Learning Models
Post-hoc explainability targets models that are not readily interpretable by design by resorting to diverse means to enhance their interpretability, such as *text explanations*, *visual explanations*, *local explanations*, *explanations by example*, *explanations by simplification* and *feature relevance explanations* techniques. Each of these techniques covers one of the most common ways humans explain systems and processes by themselves.
Further along this river, actual techniques, or better put, actual group of techniques are specified to ease the future work of any researcher that intends to look up for an specific technique that suits its knowledge. Not ending there, the classification also includes the type of data in which the techniques has been applied. Note that many techniques might be suitable for many different types of data, although the categorization only considers the type used by the authors that proposed such technique. Overall, post-hoc explainability techniques are divided first by the intention of the author (explanation technique e.g. Explanation by simplification), then, by the method utilized (actual technique e.g. sensitivity analysis) and finally by the type of data in which it was applied (e.g. images).
- *Text explanations* deal with the problem of bringing explainability for a model by means of learning to generate *text explanations* that help explaining the results from the model [@Bennetot19]. *Text explanations* also include every method generating symbols that represent the functioning of the model. These symbols may portrait the rationale of the algorithm by means of a semantic mapping from model to symbols.
- *Visual explanation* techniques for post-hoc explainability aim at visualizing the model’s behavior. Many of the visualization methods existing in the literature come along with dimensionality reduction techniques that allow for a human interpretable simple visualization. Visualizations may be coupled with other techniques to improve their understanding, and are considered as the most suitable way to introduce complex interactions within the variables involved in the model to users not acquainted to ML modeling.
- *Local explanations* tackle explainability by segmenting the solution space and giving explanations to less complex solution subspaces that are relevant for the whole model. These explanations can be formed by means of techniques with the differentiating property that these only explain part of the whole system’s functioning.
- *Explanations by example* consider the extraction of data examples that relate to the result generated by a certain model, enabling to get a better understanding of the model itself. Similarly to how humans behave when attempting to explain a given process, *explanations by example* are mainly centered in extracting representative examples that grasp the inner relationships and correlations found by the model being analyzed.
- *Explanations by simplification* collectively denote those techniques in which a whole new system is rebuilt based on the trained model to be explained. This new, simplified model usually attempts at optimizing its resemblance to its antecedent functioning, while reducing its complexity, and keeping a similar performance score. An interesting byproduct of this family of post-hoc techniques is that the simplified model is, in general, easier to be implemented due to its reduced complexity with respect to the model it represents.
- Finally, *feature relevance explanation* methods for post-hoc explainability clarify the inner functioning of a model by computing a relevance score for its managed variables. These scores quantify the affection (sensitivity) a feature has upon the output of the model. A comparison of the scores among different variables unveils the importance granted by the model to each of such variables when producing its output. *Feature relevance* methods can be thought to be an indirect method to explain a model.
The above classification (portrayed graphically in Figure \[fig:post-hoc\]) will be used when reviewing specific/agnostic XAI techniques for ML models in the following sections (Table \[tab:ModelTaxonomy\]). For each ML model, a distinction of the propositions to each of these categories is presented in order to pose an overall image of the field’s trends.
Transparent Machine Learning Models {#sec:transparent}
===================================
The previous section introduced the concept of *transparent* models. A model is considered to be transparent if by itself it is understandable. The models surveyed in this section are a suit of transparent models that can fall in one or all of the levels of model transparency described previously (namely, simulatability, decomposability and algorithmic transparency). In what follows we provide reasons for this statement, with graphical support given in Figure \[fig:transparentShow\].
Linear/Logistic Regression
--------------------------
Logistic Regression (LR) is a classification model to predict a dependent variable (category) that is dichotomous (binary). However, when the dependent variable is continuous, linear regression would be its homonym. This model takes the assumption of linear dependence between the predictors and the predicted variables, impeding a flexible fit to the data. This specific reason (stiffness of the model) is the one that maintains the model under the umbrella of transparent methods. However, as stated in Section 2, explainability is linked to a certain audience, which makes a model fall under both categories depending who is to interpret it. This way, logistic and linear regression, although clearly meeting the characteristics of transparent models (algorithmic transparency, decomposability and simulatability), may also demand post-hoc explainability techniques (mainly, visualization), particularly when the model is to be explained to non-expert audiences.
The usage of this model has been largely applied within Social Sciences for quite a long time, which has pushed researchers to create ways of explaining the results of the models to non-expert users. Most authors agree on the different techniques used to analyze and express the soundness of LR [@PurposeLR; @InteractionLR; @AppliedLR; @IntroLR], including the overall model evaluation, statistical tests of individual predictors, goodness-of-fit statistics and validation of the predicted probabilities. The overall model evaluation shows the improvement of the applied model over a baseline, showing if it is in fact improving the model without predictions. The statistical significance of single predictors is shown by calculating the Wald chi-square statistic. The goodness-of-fit statistics show the quality of fitness of the model to the data and how significant this is. This can be achieved by resorting to different techniques e.g. the so-called Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) statistic. The validation of predicted probabilities involves testing whether the output of the model corresponds to what is shown by the data. These techniques show mathematical ways of representing the fitness of the model and its behavior.
Other techniques from other disciplines besides Statistics can be adopted for explaining these regression models. Visualization techniques are very powerful when presenting statistical conclusions to users not well-versed in statistics. For instance, the work in [@NaturalFrecuencies] shows that the usage of probabilities to communicate the results, implied that the users where able to estimate the outcomes correctly in 10% of the cases, as opposed to 46% of the cases when using natural frequencies. Although logistic regression is among the simplest classification models in supervised learning, there are concepts that must be taken care of.
In this line of reasoning, the authors of [@CannotDo] unveil some concerns with the interpretations derived from LR. They first mention how dangerous it might be to interpret log odds ratios and odd ratios as substantive effects, since they also represent unobserved heterogeneity. Linked to this first concern, [@CannotDo] also states that a comparison between these ratios across models with different variables might be problematic, since the unobserved heterogeneity is likely to vary, thereby invalidating the comparison. Finally they also mention that the comparison of these odds across different samples, groups and time is also risky, since the variation of the heterogeneity is not known across samples, groups and time points. This last paper serves the purpose of visualizing the problems a model’s interpretation might entail, even when its construction is as simple as that of LR.
Also interesting is to note that, for a model such as logistic or linear regression to maintain decomposability and simulatability, its size must be limited, and the variables used must be understandable by their users. As stated in Section 2, if inputs to the model are highly engineered features that are complex or difficult to understand, the model at hand will be far from being *decomposable*. Similarly, if the model is so large that a human cannot think of the model as a whole, its simulatability will be put to question.
Decision Trees
--------------
Decision trees are another example of a model that can easily fulfill every constraint for transparency. Decision trees are hierarchical structures for decision making used to support regression and classification problems [@quinlan1987simplifying; @laurent1976constructing]. In the simplest of their flavors, decision trees are *simulatable* models. However, their properties can render them *decomposable* or *algorithmically transparent*.
Decision trees have always lingered in between the different categories of transparent models. Their utilization has been closely linked to decision making contexts, being the reason why their complexity and understandability have always been considered a paramount matter. A proof of this relevance can be found in the upsurge of contributions to the literature dealing with decision tree simplification and generation [@quinlan1987simplifying; @laurent1976constructing; @utgoff1989incremental; @quinlan1986induction]. As noted above, although being capable of fitting every category within transparent models, the individual characteristics of decision trees can push them toward the category of algorithmically transparent models. A *simulatable* decision tree is one that is manageable by a human user. This means its size is somewhat small and the amount of features and their meaning are easily understandable. An increment in size transforms the model into a *decomposable* one since its size impedes its full evaluation (simulation) by a human. Finally, further increasing its size and using complex feature relations will make the model *algorithmically transparent* loosing the previous characteristics.
Decision trees have long been used in decision support contexts due to their off-the-shelf transparency. Many applications of these models fall out of the fields of computation and AI (even information technologies), meaning that experts from other fields usually feel comfortable interpreting the outputs of these models [@rokach2008data; @rovnyak1994decision; @nefeslioglu2010assessment]. However, their poor generalization properties in comparison with other models make this model family less interesting for their application to scenarios where a balance between predictive performance is a design driver of utmost importance. Tree ensembles aim at overcoming such a poor performance by aggregating the predictions performed by trees learned on different subsets of training data. Unfortunately, the combination of decision trees looses every transparent property, calling for the adoption of post-hoc explainability techniques as the ones reviewed later in the manuscript.
K-Nearest Neighbors
-------------------
Another method that falls within transparent models is that of K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), which deals with classification problems in a methodologically simple way: it predicts the class of a test sample by voting the classes of its K nearest neighbors (where the neighborhood relation is induced by a measure of distance between samples). When used in the context of regression problems, the voting is replaced by an aggregation (e.g. average) of the target values associated with the nearest neighbors.
In terms of model explainability, it is important to observe that predictions generated by KNN models rely on the notion of distance and similarity between examples, which can be tailored depending on the specific problem being tackled. Interestingly, this prediction approach resembles that of experience-based human decision making, which decides upon the result of past similar cases. There lies the rationale of why KNN has also been adopted widely in contexts in which model interpretability is a requirement [@KNNimandoust2013application; @KNNli2004application; @KNNguo2004knn; @KNNjiang2012improved]. Furthermore, aside from being simple to explain, the ability to inspect the reasons by which a new sample has been classified inside a group and to examine how these predictions evolve when the number of neighbors K is increased or decreased empowers the interaction between the users and the model.
One must keep in mind that as mentioned before, KNN’s class of transparency depends on the features, the number of neighbors and the distance function used to measure the similarity between data instances. A very high K impedes a full simulation of the model performance by a human user. Similarly, the usage of complex features and/or distance functions would hinder the decomposability of the model, restricting its interpretability solely to the transparency of its algorithmic operations.
Rule-based Learning {#ref:rbl}
-------------------
Rule-based learning refers to every model that generates rules to characterize the data it is intended to learn from. Rules can take the form of simple conditional *if-then* rules or more complex combinations of simple rules to form their knowledge. Also connected to this general family of models, fuzzy rule based systems are designed for a broader scope of action, allowing for the definition of verbally formulated rules over imprecise domains. Fuzzy systems improve two main axis relevant for this paper. First, they empower more understandable models since they operate in linguistic terms. Second, they perform better that classic rule systems in contexts with certain degrees of uncertainty. Rule based learners are clearly transparent models that have been often used to explain complex models by generating rules that explain their predictions [@nunez2002rule; @nunez2006rule; @RuleExtractionInThere; @ProductionRulesFromTrees].
Rule learning approaches have been extensively used for knowledge representation in expert systems [@RULElangley1995applications]. However, a central problem with rule generation approaches is the coverage (amount) and the specificity (length) of the rules generated. This problem relates directly to the intention for their use in the first place. When building a rule database, a typical design goal sought by the user is to be able to analyze and understand the model. The amount of rules in a model will clearly improve the performance of the model at the stake of compromising its intepretability. Similarly, the specificity of the rules plays also against interpretability, since a rule with a high number of antecedents an/or consequences might become difficult to interpret. In this same line of reasoning, these two features of a rule based learner play along with the classes of transparent models presented in Section 2. The greater the coverage or the specificity is, the closer the model will be to being just *algorithmically transparent*. Sometimes, the reason to transition from classical rules to fuzzy rules is to relax the constraints of rule sizes, since a greater range can be covered with less stress on interpretability.
Rule based learners are great models in terms of interpretability across fields. Their natural and seamless relation to human behaviour makes them very suitable to understand and explain other models. If a certain threshold of coverage is acquired, a rule wrapper can be thought to contain enough information about a model to explain its behavior to a non-expert user, without forfeiting the possibility of using the generated rules as an standalone prediction model.
General Additive Models
-----------------------
In statistics, a Generalized Additive Model (GAM) is a linear model in which the value of the variable to be predicted is given by the aggregation of a number of unknown smooth functions defined for the predictor variables. The purpose of such model is to infer the smooth functions whose aggregate composition approximates the predicted variable. This structure is easily interpretable, since it allows the user to verify the importance of each variable, namely, how it affects (through its corresponding function) the predicted output.
Similarly to every other transparent model, the literature is replete with case studies where GAMs are in use, specially in fields related to risk assessment. When compared to other models, these are understandable enough to make users feel confident on using them for practical applications in finance [@Bankruptcy; @BankLoanLoss; @FianceScienceTechnology], environmental studies [@RelationshipsEnviromental], geology [@GeositeAssesment], healthcare [@caruana2015Transferability], biology [@SpeciesDistribution; @ButterflyTranscent] and energy [@ElectricityLoad]. Most of these contributions use visualization methods to further ease the interpretation of the model. GAMs might be also considered as *simulatable* and *decomposable* models if the properties mentioned in its definitions are fulfilled, but to an extent that depends roughly on eventual modifications to the baseline GAM model, such as the introduction of link functions to relate the aggregation with the predicted output, or the consideration of interactions between predictors.
All in all, applications of GAMs like the ones exemplified above share one common factor: understandability. The main driver for conducting these studies with GAMs is to understand the underlying relationships that build up the cases for scrutiny. In those cases the research goal is not accuracy for its own sake, but rather the need for understanding the problem behind and the relationship underneath the variables involved in data. This is why GAMs have been accepted in certain communities as their *de facto* modeling choice, despite their acknowledged misperforming behavior when compared to more complex counterparts.
Bayesian Models
---------------
A Bayesian model usually takes the form of a probabilistic directed acyclic graphical model whose links represent the conditional dependencies between a set of variables. For example, a Bayesian network could represent the probabilistic relationships between diseases and symptoms. Given symptoms, the network can be used to compute the probabilities of the presence of various diseases. Similar to GAMs, these models also convey a clear representation of the relationships between features and the target, which in this case are given explicitly by the connections linking variables to each other.
Once again, Bayesian models fall below the ceiling of Transparent models. Its categorization leaves it under *simulatable*, *decomposable* and *algorithmically transparent*. However, it is worth noting that under certain circumstances (overly complex or cumbersome variables), a model may loose these first two properties. Bayesian models have been shown to lead to great insights in assorted applications such as cognitive modeling [@BayesianCognitive; @BayesianPsychiatric], fishery [@RelationshipsEnviromental; @BayesianStock], gaming [@BayesianRTS], climate [@BayesianClimate], econometrics [@BayesianEconometrics] or robotics [@BayesianRobot]. Furthermore, they have also been utilized to explain other models, such as averaging tree ensembles [@BayesianTree].
Post-hoc Explainability Techniques for Machile Learning Models: Taxonomy, Shallow Models and Deep Learning {#sec:posthoc}
==========================================================================================================
When ML models do not meet any of the criteria imposed to declare them transparent, a separate method must be devised and applied to the model to explain its decisions. This is the purpose of post-hoc explainability techniques (also referred to as post-modeling explainability), which aim at communicating understandable information about how an already developed model produces its predictions for any given input. In this section we categorize and review different algorithmic approaches for post-hoc explainability, discriminating among 1) those that are designed for their application to ML models of any kind; and 2) those that are designed for a specific ML model and thus, can not be directly extrapolated to any other learner. We now elaborate on the trends identified around post-hoc explainability for different ML models, which are illustrated in Figure \[fig:treeCat\] in the form of hierarchical bibliographic categories and summarized next:
- Model-agnostic techniques for post-hoc explainability (Subsection \[sec:model-agnostic\]), which can be applied seamlessly to any ML model disregarding its inner processing or internal representations.
- Post-hoc explainability that are tailored or specifically designed to explain certain ML models. We divide our literature analysis into two main branches: contributions dealing with post-hoc explainability of *shallow* ML models, which collectively refers to all ML models that do not hinge on layered structures of neural processing units (Subsection \[ssec:shallow-posthoc\]); and techniques devised for *deep* learning models, which correspondingly denote the family of neural networks and related variants, such as convolutional neural networks, recurrent neural networks (Subsection \[ssec:deep-posthoc\]) and hybrid schemes encompassing deep neural networks and transparent models. For each model we perform a thorough review of the latest post-hoc methods proposed by the research community, along with a identification of trends followed by such contributions.
- We end our literature analysis with Subsection \[ssec:second\_tax\], where we present a second taxonomy that complements the more general one in Figure \[fig:treeCat\] by classifying contributions dealing with the post-hoc explanation of Deep Learning models. To this end we focus on particular aspects related to this family of black-box ML methods, and expose how they link to the classification criteria used in the first taxonomy.
Model-agnostic Techniques for Post-hoc Explainability {#sec:model-agnostic}
-----------------------------------------------------
Model-agnostic techniques for post-hoc explainability are designed to be plugged to any model with the intent of extracting some information from its prediction procedure. Sometimes, simplification techniques are used to generate proxies that mimic their antecedents with the purpose of having something tractable and of reduced complexity. Other times, the intent focuses on extracting knowledge directly from the models or simply visualizing them to ease the interpretation of their behavior. Following the taxonomy introduced in Section 2, model-agnostic techniques may rely on *model simplification*, *feature relevance* estimation and *visualization* techniques:
- *Explanation by simplification*. They are arguably the broadest technique under the category of model agnostic post-hoc methods. *Local explanations* are also present within this category, since sometimes, simplified models are only representative of certain sections of a model. Almost all techniques taking this path for *model simplification* are based on rule extraction techniques. Among the most known contributions to this approach we encounter the technique of Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) [@ribeiro2016trust] and all its variations [@ModelAgnosticMusic; @NothingElseMatters]. LIME builds locally linear models around the predictions of an opaque model to explain it. These contributions fall under explanations by simplification as well as under *local explanations*. Besides LIME and related flavors, another approach to rule extraction is G-REX [@GREX]. Although it was not originally intended for extracting rules from opaque models, the generic proposition of G-REX has been extended to also account for model explainability purposes [@RuleExtractionInThere; @AccVsComp]. In line with rule extraction methods, the work in [@InterpretableTwoLevel] presents a novel approach to learn rules in CNF (Conjunctive Normal Form) or DNF (Disjunctive Normal Form) to bridge from a complex model to a human-interpretable model. Another contribution that falls off the same branch is that in [@InterpretabilityViaModelExtraction], where the authors formulate *model simplification* as a model extraction process by approximating a transparent model to the complex one. Simplification is approached from a different perspective in [@DistillAndCompare], where an approach to distill and audit black box models is presented. In it, two main ideas are exposed: a method for model distillation and comparison to audit black-box risk scoring models; and an statistical test to check if the auditing data is missing key features it was trained with. The popularity of *model simplification* is evident, given it temporally coincides with the most recent literature on XAI, including techniques such as LIME or G-REX. This symptomatically reveals that this post-hoc explainability approach is envisaged to continue playing a central role on XAI.
- *Feature relevance explanation* techniques aim to describe the functioning of an opaque model by ranking or measuring the influence, relevance or importance each feature has in the prediction output by the model to be explained. An amalgam of propositions are found within this category, each resorting to different algorithmic approaches with the same targeted goal. One fruitful contribution to this path is that of [@lundberg2017unified] called SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations). Its authors presented a method to calculate an additive feature importance score for each particular prediction with a set of desirable properties (local accuracy, *missingness* and consistency) that its antecedents lacked. Another approach to tackle the contribution of each feature to predictions has been coalitional Game Theory [@EfficientExplanation] and local gradients [@ExplainingClassifications]. Similarly, by means of local gradients [@IndividualClassificationDecisions] test the changes needed in each feature to produce a change in the output of the model. In [@ExploringByRandomization] the authors analyze the relations and dependencies found in the model by grouping features, that combined, bring insights about the data. The work in [@AlgorithmicTransparency] presents a broad variety of measures to tackle the quantification of the degree of influence of inputs on outputs of systems. Their QII (Quantitative Input Influence) measures account for correlated inputs while measuring influence. In contrast, in [@SensitivityAnalysis] the authors build upon the existing SA (Sensitivity Analysis) to construct a Global SA which extends the applicability of the existing methods. In [@RealTimeImageSaliency] a real-time image saliency method is proposed, which is applicable to differentiable image classifiers. The study in [@AtributeInteractions] presents the so-called Automatic STRucture IDentification method (ASTRID) to inspect which attributes are exploited by a classifier to generate a prediction. This method finds the largest subset of features such that the accuracy of a classifier trained with this subset of features cannot be distinguished in terms of accuracy from a classifier built on the original feature set. In [@ViaInfluence] the authors use influence functions to trace a model’s prediction back to the training data, by only requiring an oracle version of the model with access to gradients and Hessian-vector products. Compared to those attempting explanations by simplification, a similar amount of publications were found tackling explainability by means of *feature relevance* techniques. Many of the contributions date from 2017 and some from 2018, implying that as with *model simplification* techniques, *feature relevance* has also become a vibrant subject study in the current XAI landscape.
- *Visual explanation* techniques are a vehicle to achieve model-agnostic explanations. Representative works in this area can be found in [@SensitivityAnalysis], which present a portfolio of visualization techniques to help in the explanation of a black-box ML model built upon the set of extended techniques mentioned earlier (Global SA). Another set of visualization techniques is presented in [@UsingSensitivityAndVisualization]. The authors present three novel SA methods (data based SA, Monte-Carlo SA, cluster-based SA) and one novel input importance measure (Average Absolute Deviation). Finally, [@VisualizingStatisticalLearning] presents ICE (Individual Conditional Expectation) plots as a tool for visualizing the model estimated by any supervised learning algorithm. Visual explanations are less common in the field of model-agnostic techniques for post-hoc explainability. Since the design of these methods must ensure that they can be seamlessly applied to any ML model disregarding its inner structure, creating *visualizations* from just inputs and outputs from an opaque model is a complex task. This is why almost all visualization methods falling in this category work along with *feature relevance* techniques, which provide the information that is eventually displayed to the end user.
Several trends emerge from our literature analysis. To begin with, rule extraction techniques prevail in model-agnostic contributions under the umbrella of post-hoc explainability. This could have been intuitively expected if we bear in mind the wide use of rule based learning as explainability wrappers anticipated in Section \[ref:rbl\], and the complexity imposed by not being able to *get into* the model itself. Similarly, another large group of contributions deals with *feature relevance*. Lately these techniques are gathering much attention by the community when dealing with DL models, with hybrid approaches that utilize particular aspects of this class of models and therefore, compromise the independence of the *feature relevance* method on the model being explained. Finally, visualization techniques propose interesting ways for visualizing the output of *feature relevance* techniques to ease the task of model’s interpretation. By contrast, visualization techniques for other aspects of the trained model (e.g. its structure, operations, etc) are tightly linked to the specific model to be explained.
Post-hoc Explainability in Shallow ML Models {#ssec:shallow-posthoc}
--------------------------------------------
Shallow ML covers a diversity of supervised learning models. Within these models, there are strictly interpretable (transparent) approaches (e.g. KNN and Decision Trees, already discussed in Section \[sec:transparent\]). However, other shallow ML models rely on more sophisticated learning algorithms that require additional layers of explanation. Given their prominence and notable performance in predictive tasks, this section concentrates on two popular shallow ML models (tree ensembles and Support Vector Machines, SVMs) that require the adoption of post-hoc explainability techniques for explaining their decisions.
### Tree Ensembles and Random Forests
Tree ensembles are arguably among the most accurate ML models in use nowadays. Their advent came as an efficient means to improve the generalization capability of single decision trees, which are usually prone to overfitting. To circumvent this issue, tree ensembles combine different trees to obtain an aggregated prediction/regression. While it results to be effective against overfitting, the combination of models makes the interpretation of the overall ensemble more complex than each of its compounding tree learners, forcing the user to draw from post-hoc explainability techniques. For tree ensembles, techniques found in the literature are explanation by simplification and *feature relevance* techniques; we next examine recent advances in these techniques.
To begin with, many contributions have been presented to simplify tree ensembles while maintaining part of the accuracy accounted for the added complexity. The author from [@domingos1998knowledge] poses the idea of training a single albeit less complex model from a set of random samples from the data (ideally following the real data distribution) labeled by the ensemble model. Another approach for simplification is that in [@Intrees], in which authors create a Simplified Tree Ensemble Learner (STEL). Likewise, [@MakingTEInterpretable] presents the usage of two models (simple and complex) being the former the one in charge of interpretation and the latter of prediction by means of Expectation-Maximization and Kullback-Leibler divergence. As opposed to what was seen in model-agnostic techniques, not that many techniques to board explainability in tree ensembles by means of *model simplification*. It derives from this that either the proposed techniques are good enough, or model-agnostic techniques do cover the scope of simplification already.
Following simplification procedures, *feature relevance* techniques are also used in the field of tree ensembles. Breiman [@CostComplexityPrunning] was the first to analyze the variable importance within Random Forests. His method is based on measuring MDA (Mean Decrease Accuracy) or MIE (Mean Increase Error) of the forest when a certain variable is randomly permuted in the out-of-bag samples. Following this contribution [@auret2012interpretation] shows, in an real setting, how the usage of variable importance reflects the underlying relationships of a complex system modeled by a Random Forest. Finally, a crosswise technique among post-hoc explainability, [@FeatureTweaking] proposes a framework that poses recommendations that, if taken, would convert an example from one class to another. This idea attempts to disentangle the variables importance in a way that is further descriptive. In the article, the authors show how these methods can be used to elevate recommendations to improve malicious online ads to make them rank higher in paying rates.
Similar to the trend shown in model-agnostic techniques, for tree ensembles again, simplification and *feature relevance* techniques seem to be the most used schemes. However, contrarily to what was observed before, most papers date back from 2017.
### Support Vector Machines
Another shallow ML model with historical presence in the literature is the SVM. SVM models are more complex than tree ensembles, with a much opaquer structure. Many implementations of post-hoc explainability techniques have been proposed to relate what is mathematically described internally in these models, to what different authors considered explanations about the problem at hand. Technically, an SVM constructs a hyper-plane or set of hyper-planes in a high or infinite-dimensional space, which can be used for classification, regression, or other tasks such as outlier detection. Intuitively, a good separation is achieved by the hyperplane that has the largest distance (so-called functional margin) to the nearest training-data point of any class, since in general, the larger the margin, the lower the generalization error of the classifier. SVMs are among the most used ML models due to their excellent prediction and generalization capabilities. From the techniques stated in Section 2, post-hoc explainability applied to SVMs covers explanation by *simplification*, *local explanations*, *visualizations* and *explanations by example*.
Among explanation by simplification, four classes of simplifications are made. Each of them differentiates from the other by how deep they go into the algorithm inner structure. First, some authors propose techniques to build rule based models only from the support vectors of a trained model. This is the approach of [@barakat2007rule], which proposes a method that extracts rules directly from the support vectors of a trained SVM using a modified sequential covering algorithm. In [@barakat2008] the same authors propose eclectic rule extraction, still considering only the support vectors of a trained model. The work in [@Chaves2005] generates fuzzy rules instead of classical propositional rules. Here, the authors argue that long antecedents reduce comprehensibility, hence, a fuzzy approach allows for a more linguistically understandable result. The second class of simplifications can be exemplified by [@fu2004], which proposed the addition of the SVM’s hyperplane, along with the support vectors, to the components in charge of creating the rules. His method relies on the creation of hyper-rectangles from the intersections between the support vectors and the hyper-plane. In a third approach to *model simplification*, another group of authors considered adding the actual training data as a component for building the rules. In [@nunez2002rule; @nunez2006; @nunez2002B] the authors proposed a clustering method to group prototype vectors for each class. By combining them with the support vectors, it allowed defining ellipsoids and hyper-rectangles in the input space. Similarly in [@zhang2005], the authors proposed the so-called Hyper-rectangle Rule Extraction, an algorithm based on SVC (Support Vector Clustering) to find prototype vectors for each class and then define small hyper-rectangles around. In [@fung2005], the authors formulate the rule extraction problem as a multi-constrained optimization to create a set of non-overlapping rules. Each rule conveys a non-empty hyper-cube with a shared edge with the hyper-plane. In a similar study conducted in [@chen2007], extracting rules for gene expression data, the authors presented a novel technique as a component of a multi-kernel SVM. This multi-kernel method consists of feature selection, prediction modeling and rule extraction. Finally, the study in [@intepretationSVM] makes use of a growing SVC to give an interpretation to SVM decisions in terms of linear rules that define the space in Voronoi sections from the extracted prototypes.
Leaving aside rule extraction, the literature has also contemplated some other techniques to contribute to the interpretation of SVMs. Three of them (visualization techniques) are clearly used toward explaining SVM models when used for concrete applications. For instance, [@ustun2007visualisation] presents an innovative approach to visualize trained SVM to extract the information content from the kernel matrix. They center the study on Support Vector Regression models. They show the ability of the algorithm to visualize which of the input variables are actually related with the associated output data. In [@interpretingHeatMapSVM] a visual way combines the output of the SVM with heatmaps to guide the modification of compounds in late stages of drug discovery. They assign colors to atoms based on the weights of a trained linear SVM that allows for a much more comprehensive way of debugging the process. In [@interpretingNeuroSVM] the authors argue that many of the presented studies for interpreting SVMs only account for the weight vectors, leaving the margin aside. In their study they show how this margin is important, and they create an statistic that explicitly accounts for the SVM margin. The authors show how this statistic is specific enough to explain the multivariate patterns shown in neuroimaging.
Noteworthy is also the intersection between SVMs and Bayesian systems, the latter being adopted as a post-hoc technique to explain decisions made by the SVM model. This is the case of [@probabilisticSVM] and [@bayesianForSVM], which are studies where SVMs are interpreted as MAP (Maximum A Posteriori) solutions to inference problems with Gaussian Process priors. This framework makes tuning the hyper-parameters comprehensible and gives the capability of predicting class probabilities instead of the classical binary classification of SVMs. Interpretability of SVM models becomes even more involved when dealing with non-CPD (Conditional Positive Definite) kernels that are usually harder to interpret due to missing geometrical and theoretical understanding. The work in [@haasdonk2005feature] revolves around this issue with a geometrical interpretation of indefinite kernel SVMs, showing that these do not classify by hyper-plane margin optimization. Instead, they minimize the distance between convex hulls in pseudo-Euclidean spaces.
A difference might be appreciated between the post-hoc techniques applied to other models and those noted for SVMs. In previous models, *model simplification* in a broad sense was the prominent method for post-hoc explainability. In SVMs, *local explanations* have started to take some weight among the propositions. However, simplification based methods are, on average, much older than local explanations.
As a final remark, none of the reviewed methods treating SVM explainability are dated beyond 2017, which might be due to the progressive proliferation of DL models in almost all disciplines. Another plausible reason is that these models are already understood, so it is hard to improve upon what has already been done.
Explainability in Deep Learning {#ssec:deep-posthoc}
-------------------------------
Post-hoc *local explanations* and *feature relevance* techniques are increasingly the most adopted methods for explaining DNNs. This section reviews explainability studies proposed for the most used DL models, namely multi-layer neural networks, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN).
### Multi-layer Neural Networks
From their inception, multi-layer neural networks (also known as multi-layer perceptrons) have been warmly welcomed by the academic community due to their huge ability to infer complex relations among variables. However, as stated in the introduction, developers and engineers in charge of deploying these models in real-life production find in their questionable explainability a common reason for reluctance. That is why neural networks have been always considered as black-box models. The fact that explainability is often a must for the model to be of practical value, forced the community to generate multiple explainability techniques for multi-layer neural networks, including *model simplification* approaches, *feature relevance* estimators, *text explanations*, *local explanations* and model *visualizations*.
Several *model simplification* techniques have been proposed for neural networks with one single hidden layer, however very few works have been presented for neural networks with multiple hidden layers. One of these few works is DeepRED algorithm [@zilke2016deepred], which extends the decompositional approach to rule extraction (splitting at neuron level) presented in [@CRED] for multi-layer neural network by adding more decision trees and rules.
Some other works use *model simplification* as a post-hoc explainability approach. For instance, [@InterpretableDeepICU] presents a simple distillation method called *Interpretable Mimic Learning* to extract an interpretable model by means of gradient boosting trees. In the same direction, the authors in [@TreeView] propose a hierarchical partitioning of the feature space that reveals the iterative rejection of unlikely class labels, until association is predicted. In addition, several works addressed the distillation of knowledge from an ensemble of models into a single model [@hinton2015distilling; @bucilua2006model; @Traore19] .
Given the fact that the simplification of multi-layer neural networks is more complex as the number of layers increases, explaining these models by *feature relevance* methods has become progressively more popular. One of the representative works in this area is [@DeepTaylor], which presents a method to decompose the network classification decision into contributions of its input elements. They consider each neuron as an object that can be decomposed and expanded then aggregate and back-propagate these decompositions through the network, resulting in a *deep* Taylor decomposition. In the same direction, the authors in [@shrikumar2016not] proposed DeepLIFT, an approach for computing importance scores in a multi-layer neural network. Their method compares the activation of a neuron to the reference activation and assigns the score according to the difference.
On the other hand, some works try to verify the theoretical soundness of current explainability methods. For example, the authors in [@Axiomatic], bring up a fundamental problem of most *feature relevance* techniques, designed for multi-layer networks. They showed that two axioms that such techniques ought to fulfill namely, *sensitivity* and *implementation invariance*, are violated in practice by most approaches. Following these axioms, the authors of [@Axiomatic] created *integrated gradients*, a new *feature relevance* method proven to meet the aforementioned axioms. Similarly, the authors in [@LearningHowTo] analyzed the correctness of current *feature relevance* explanation approaches designed for Deep Neural Networks, e,g., DeConvNet, Guided BackProp and LRP, on simple linear neural networks. Their analysis showed that these methods do not produce the theoretically correct explanation and presented two new explanation methods *PatternNet* and *PatternAttribution* that are more theoretically sound for both, simple and deep neural networks.
### Convolutional Neural Networks
Currently, CNNs constitute the state-of-art models in all fundamental computer vision tasks, from image classification and object detection to instance segmentation. Typically, these models are built as a sequence of convolutional layers and pooling layers to automatically learn increasingly higher level features. At the end of the sequence, one or multiple fully connected layers are used to map the output features map into scores. This structure entails extremely complex internal relations that are very difficult to explain. Fortunately, the road to explainability for CNNs is easier than for other types of models, as the human cognitive skills favors the understanding of visual data.
Existing works that aim at understanding what CNNs learn can be divided into two broad categories: 1) those that try to understand the decision process by mapping back the output in the input space to see which parts of the input were discriminative for the output; and 2) those that try to delve inside the network and interpret how the intermediate layers see the external world, not necessarily related to any specific input, but in general.
One of the seminal works in the first category was [@AdaptiveDeconv]. When an input image runs feed-forward through a CNN, each layer outputs a number of feature maps with strong and soft activations. The authors in [@AdaptiveDeconv] used Deconvnet, a network designed previously by the same authors [@zeiler2010deconvolutional] that, when fed with a feature map from a selected layer, reconstructs the maximum activations. These reconstructions can give an idea about the parts of the image that produced that effect. To visualize these strongest activations in the input image, the same authors used the occlusion sensitivity method to generate a saliency map [@VisualizingUnderstanding], which consists of iteratively forwarding the same image through the network occluding a different region at a time.
To improve the quality of the mapping on the input space, several subsequent papers proposed simplifying both the CNN architecture and the visualization method. In particular, [@LearningDeepFeatures] included a global average pooling layer between the last convolutional layer of the CNN and the fully-connected layer that predicts the object class. With this simple architectural modification of the CNN, the authors built a class activation map that helps identify the image regions that were particularly important for a specific object class by projecting back the weights of the output layer on the convolutional feature maps. Later, in [@springenberg2014striving], the authors showed that max-pooling layers can be used to replace convolutional layers with a large stride without loss in accuracy on several image recognition benchmarks. They obtained a cleaner visualization than Deconvnet by using a guided backpropagation method.
To increase the interpretability of classical CNNs, the authors in [@InterpretableCNN] used a loss for each filter in high level convolutional layers to force each filter to learn very specific object components. The obtained activation patterns are much more interpretable for their exclusiveness with respect to the different labels to be predicted. The authors in [@LayerWise] proposed visualizing the contribution to the prediction of each single pixel of the input image in the form of a heatmap. They used a Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP) technique, which relies on a Taylor series close to the prediction point rather than partial derivatives at the prediction point itself. To further improve the quality of the visualization, attribution methods such as heatmaps, saliency maps or class activation methods (*GradCAM* [@selvaraju2017grad]) are used (see Figure \[fig:visualisation\]). In particular, the authors in [@selvaraju2017grad] proposed a Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM), which uses the gradients of any target concept, flowing into the final convolutional layer to produce a coarse localization map, highlighting the important regions in the image for predicting the concept.
In addition to the aforementioned [*feature relevance*]{} and [*visual*]{} explanation methods, some works proposed generating *text explanations* of the visual content of the image. For example, the authors in [@xu2015show] combined a CNN feature extractor with an RNN attention model to automatically learn to describe the content of images. In the same line, [@xiao2015application] presented a three-level attention model to perform a fine-grained classification task. The general model is a pipeline that integrates three types of attention: the object level attention model proposes candidate image regions or patches from the input image, the part-level attention model filters out non-relevant patches to a certain object, and the last attention model localizes discriminative patches. In the task of video captioning, the authors in [@ImprovingInterpretability] use a CNN model combined with a bi-directional LSTM model as encoder to extract video features and then feed these features to an LSTM decoder to generate textual descriptions.
One of the seminal works in the second category is [@UnderstandingDeep]. In order to analyse the visual information contained inside the CNN, the authors proposed a general framework that reconstruct an image from the CNN internal representations and showed that several layers retain photographically accurate information about the image, with different degrees of geometric and photometric invariance. To visualize the notion of a class captured by a CNN, the same authors created an image that maximizes the class score based on computing the gradient of the class score with respect to the input image [@InsideConv]. In the same direction, the authors in [@SynthesizingPreferredInputs] introduced a Deep Generator Network (DGN) that generates the most representative image for a given output neuron in a CNN.
For quantifying the interpretability of the latent representations of CNNs, the authors in [@QuantifyingInterpretability] used a different approach called network dissection. They run a large number of images through a CNN and then analyze the top activated images by considering each unit as a concept detector to further evaluate each unit for semantic segmentation. This paper also examines the effects of classical training techniques on the interpretability of the learned model.
Although many of the techniques examined above utilize *local explanations* to achieve an overall explanation of a CNN model, others explicitly focus on building global explanations based on locally found prototypes. In [@adebayo2018local; @adebayo2018sanity], the authors empirically showed how *local explanations* in deep networks are strongly dominated by their lower level features. They demonstrated that deep architectures provide strong priors that prevent the altering of how these low-level representations are captured. All in all, *visualization* mixed with *feature relevance* methods are arguably the most adopted approach to explainability in CNNs.
Instead of using one single interpretability technique, the framework proposed in [@Olah18] combines several methods to provide much more information about the network. For example, combining feature visualization (*what is a neuron looking for?*) with attribution (*how does it affect the output?*) allows exploring how the network decides between labels. This visual interpretability interface displays different blocks such as feature visualization and attribution depending on the visualization goal. This interface can be thought of as a union of individual elements that belong to layers (input, hidden, output), atoms (a neuron, channel, spatial or neuron group), content (activations – the amount a neuron fires, attribution – which classes a spatial position most contributes to, which tends to be more meaningful in later layers), and presentation (information visualization, feature visualization). Figure \[fig:feature\] shows some examples. Attribution methods normally rely on pixel association, displaying what part of an input example is responsible for the network activating in a particular way [@Olah17].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Examples of explanation when using LIME on images [@LIME].\[fig:lime\]](dog1.png "fig:"){height="1.35in"} ![Examples of explanation when using LIME on images [@LIME].\[fig:lime\]](dog2.png "fig:"){height="1.35in"} ![Examples of explanation when using LIME on images [@LIME].\[fig:lime\]](dog3.png "fig:"){height="1.35in"}
\(a) Original image \(b) Explaining *electric guitar* \(c) Explaining *acoustic guitar*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A much simpler approach to all the previously cited methods was proposed in LIME framework [@LIME], as was described in Subsection \[sec:model-agnostic\] LIME perturbs the input and sees how the predictions change. In image classification, LIME creates a set of perturbed instances by dividing the input image into interpretable components (contiguous *superpixels*), and runs each perturbed instance through the model to get a probability. A simple linear model learns on this data set, which is locally weighted. At the end of the process, LIME presents the superpixels with highest positive weights as an explanation (see Figure \[fig:lime\]).
A completely different explainability approach is proposed in adversarial detection. To understand model failures in detecting adversarial examples, the authors in [@papernot2018deep] apply the k-nearest neighbors algorithm on the representations of the data learned by each layer of the CNN. A test input image is considered as adversarial if its representations are far from the representations of the training images.
### Recurrent Neural Networks
As occurs with CNNs in the visual domain, RNNs have lately been used extensively for predictive problems defined over inherently sequential data, with a notable presence in natural language processing and time series analysis. These types of data exhibit long-term dependencies that are complex to be captured by a ML model. RNNs are able to retrieve such time-dependent relationships by formulating the retention of knowledge in the neuron as another parametric characteristic that can be learned from data.
Few contributions have been made for explaining RNN models. These studies can be divided into two groups: 1) explainability by understanding what a RNN model has learned (mainly via *feature relevance* methods); and 2) explainability by modifying RNN architectures to provide insights about the decisions they make (*local explanations*).
In the first group, the authors in [@ExplainingRNN] extend the usage of LRP to RNNs. They propose a specific propagation rule that works with multiplicative connections as those in LSTMs (Long Short Term Memory) units and GRUs (Gated Recurrent Units). The authors in [@VisualizingUnderstandingRNN] propose a visualization technique based on finite horizon n-grams that discriminates interpretable cells within LSTM and GRU networks. Following the premise of not altering the architecture, [@DistillingRNN] extends the interpretable mimic learning distillation method used for CNN models to LSTM networks, so that interpretable features are learned by fitting Gradient Boosting Trees to the trained LSTM network under focus.
Aside from the approaches that do not change the inner workings of the RNNs, [@RETAIN] presents RETAIN (REverse Time AttentIoN) model, which detects influential past patterns by means of a two-level neural attention model. To create an interpretable RNN, the authors in [@InterpretableRNN] propose an RNN based on SISTA (Sequential Iterative Soft-Thresholding Algorithm) that models a sequence of correlated observations with a sequence of sparse latent vectors, making its weights interpretable as the parameters of a principled statistical model. Finally, [@MarkovRNN] constructs a combination of an HMM (Hidden Markov Model) and an RNN, so that the overall model approach harnesses the interpretability of the HMM and the accuracy of the RNN model.
### Hybrid Transparent and Black-box Methods
The use of background knowledge in the form of logical statements or constraints in Knowledge Bases (KBs) has shown to not only improve explainability but also performance with respect to purely data-driven approaches [@Donadello17; @donadello2018semantic; @dAvilaGarcez19NeSy]. A positive side effect shown is that this hybrid approach provides robustness to the learning system when errors are present in the training data labels. Other approaches have shown to be able to jointly learn and reason with both symbolic and sub-symbolic representations and inference. The interesting aspect is that this blend allows for expressive probabilistic-logical reasoning in an end-to-end fashion [@manhaeve2018deepproblog]. A successful use case is on dietary recommendations, where explanations are extracted from the reasoning behind (non-deep but KB-based) models [@Donadello19].
Future data fusion approaches may thus consider endowing DL models with explainability by externalizing other domain information sources. Deep formulation of classical ML models has been done, e.g. in Deep Kalman filters (DKFs) [@Krishnan15], Deep Variational Bayes Filters (DVBFs) [@Karl16], Structural Variational Autoencoders (SVAE) [@Johnson16], or conditional random fields as RNNs [@Zheng15]. These approaches provide deep models with the interpretability inherent to probabilistic graphical models. For instance, SVAE combines probabilistic graphical models in the embedding space with neural networks to enhance the interpretability of DKFs. A particular example of classical ML model enhanced with its DL counterpart is Deep Nearest Neighbors DkNN [@papernot2018deep], where the neighbors constitute human-interpretable explanations of predictions. The intuition is based on the rationalization of a DNN prediction based on evidence. This evidence consists of a characterization of confidence termed *credibility* that spans the hierarchy of representations within a DNN, that must be supported by the training data [@papernot2018deep].
A different perspective on hybrid XAI models consists of enriching black-box models knowledge with that one of transparent ones, as proposed in [@WhatDoesExplainableAImean] and further refined in [@Bennetot19]. In particular, this can be done by constraining the neural network thanks to a semantic KB and bias-prone concepts [@Bennetot19].
Other examples of hybrid symbolic and sub-symbolic methods where a knowledge-base tool or graph-perspective enhances the neural (e.g., language [@petroni2019language]) model are in [@Bollacker19; @Shang19]. In reinforcement learning, very few examples of symbolic (graphical [@Zolotas19] or relational [@santoro2017simple; @garnelo2016towards]) hybrid models exist, while in recommendation systems, for instance, explainable autoencoders are proposed [@Bellini18]. A specific transformer architecture symbolic visualization method (applied to music) pictorially shows how soft-max attention works [@huang2018music]. By visualizing self-reference, i.e., the last layer of attention weights, arcs show which notes in the past are informing the future and how attention is skip over less relevant sections. Transformers can also help explain image captions visually [@cornia2019smart].
Another hybrid approach consists of mapping an uninterpretable black-box system to a white-box *twin* that is more interpretable. For example, an opaque neural network can be combined with a transparent Case Based Reasoning (CBR) system [@Aamodt94; @Caruana99]. In [@Keane19], the DNN and the CBR (in this case a kNN) are paired in order to improve interpretability while keeping the same accuracy. The *explanation by example* consists of analyzing the feature weights of the DNN which are then used in the CBR, in order to retrieve nearest-neighbor cases to explain the DNN’s prediction.
Alternative Taxonomy of Post-hoc Explainability Techniques for Deep Learning {#ssec:second_tax}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DL is the model family where most research has been concentrated in recent times and they have become central for most of the recent literature on XAI. While the division between model-agnostic and model-specific is the most common distinction made, the community has not only relied on this criteria to classify XAI methods. For instance, some model-agnostic methods such as *SHAP* [@lundberg2017unified] are widely used to explain DL models. That is why several XAI methods can be easily categorized in different taxonomy branches depending on the angle the method is looked at. An example is LIME which can also be used over CNNs, despite not being exclusive to deal with images. Searching within the alternative DL taxonomy shows us that LIME can explicitly be used for *Explaining a Deep Network Processing*, as a kind of *Linear Proxy Model*. Another type of classification is indeed proposed in [@Gilpin18] with a segmentation based on 3 categories. The first category groups methods explaining the processing of data by the network, thus answering to the question *“why does this particular input leads to this particular output?”*. The second one concerns methods explaining the representation of data inside the network, i.e., answering to the question *“what information does the network contain?”*. The third approach concerns models specifically designed to simplify the interpretation of their own behavior. Such a multiplicity of classification possibilities leads to different ways of constructing XAI taxonomies.
[c@c]{} &
[c]{}
\
(a) & (b)
Figure \[fig:treeGilpin\] shows the alternative Deep Learning taxonomy inferred from [@Gilpin18]. From the latter, it can be deduced the complementarity and overlapping of this taxonomy to Figure \[fig:treeCat\] as:
- Some methods [@InsideConv; @ExplainingRNN] classified in distinct categories (namely *feature relevance for CNN* and *feature relevance for RNN*) in Figure \[fig:treeCat\] are included in a single category (*Explanation of Deep Network Processing with Salience Mapping*) when considering the classification from [@Gilpin18].
- Some methods [@augasta2012reverse; @kim2017interpretability] are classified on a single category (*Explanation by simplification for Multi-Layer Neural Network*) in Figure \[fig:treeCat\] while being in 2 different categories (namely, *Explanation of Deep Network Processing with Decision Trees* and *Explanation of Deep Network Representation with the Role of Representation Vectors*) in [@Gilpin18], as shown in Figure \[fig:treeGilpin\].
A classification based on explanations of model processing and explanations of model representation is relevant, as it leads to a differentiation between the execution trace of the model and its internal data structure. This means that depending of the failure reasons of a complex model, it would be possible to pick-up the right XAI method according to the information needed: the execution trace or the data structure. This idea is analogous to testing and debugging methods used in regular programming paradigms [@Hofer06].
XAI: Opportunities, Challenges and Research Needs {#sec:challenges}
=================================================
We now capitalize on the performed literature review to put forward a critique of the achievements, trends and challenges that are still to be addressed in the field of explainability of ML and data fusion models. Actually our discussion on the advances taken so far in this field has already anticipated some of these challenges. In this section we revisit them and explore new research opportunities for XAI, identifying possible research paths that can be followed to address them effectively in years to come:
- When introducing the overview in Section \[sec:intro\] we already mentioned the existence of a tradeoff between model interpretability and performance, in the sense that making a ML model more understandable could eventually degrade the quality of its produced decisions. In Subsection \[ssec:tradeoff\] we will stress on the potential of XAI developments to effectively achieve an optimal balance between the interpretability and performance of ML models.
- In Subsection \[sec:what\] we stressed on the imperative need for reaching a consensus on *what* explainability entails within the AI realm. Reasons for pursuing explainability are also assorted and, under our own assessment of the literature so far, not unambiguously mentioned throughout related works. In Subsection \[ssec:concepts\_and\_metrics\] we will further delve into this important issue.
- Given its notable prevalence in the XAI literature, Subsections \[ssec:deep-posthoc\] and \[ssec:second\_tax\] revolved on the explainability of Deep Learning models, examining advances reported so far around a specific bibliographic taxonomy. We go in this same direction with Subsection \[ssec:deep\_learning\_challenges\], which exposes several challenges that hold in regards to the explainability of this family of models.
- Finally, we close up this prospective discussion with Subsections \[ssec:robust\_adv\] and \[ssec:other\_challenges\], which place on the table several research niches (such as model confidentiality and data diversity) that despite its connection to model explainability, remain insufficiently studied by the community.
On the Tradeoff between Interpretability and Performance {#ssec:tradeoff}
--------------------------------------------------------
The matter of interpretability versus performance is one that repeats itself through time, but as any other big statement, has its surroundings filled with myths and misconceptions.
As perfectly stated in [@rudin2018please], it is not necessarily true that models that are more complex are inherently more accurate. This statement is false in cases in which the data is well structured and features at our disposal are of great quality and value. This case is somewhat common in some industry environments, since features being analyzed are constrained within very controlled physical problems, in which all of the features are highly correlated, and not much of the possible landscape of values can be explored in the data [@diez2019data]. What can be hold as true, is that more complex models enjoy much more flexibility than their simpler counterparts, allowing for more complex functions to be approximated. Now, returning to the statement *“models that are more complex are more accurate”*, given the premise that the function to be approximated entails certain complexity, that the data available for study is greatly widespread among the world of suitable values for each variable and that there is enough data to harness a complex model, the statement presents itself as a true statement. It is in this situation that the trade-off between performance and interpretability can be observed. It should be dully noted that, the attempt of solving problems that do not respect the aforementioned premises will fall on the trap of attempting to solve a problem that does not provide enough data diversity (variance). Hence, the added complexity of the model will only fight against the task of accurately solving the problem.
In this path toward performance, when the performance comes hand in hand with complexity, interpretability encounters itself on a downwards slope that until now appeared unavoidable. However, the apparition of more sophisticated methods for explainability could invert or at least cancel that slope. Figure \[fig:tradeoff\] shows a tentative representation inspired by previous works [@gunning2017explainable] in which XAI shows its power to improve the common trade-off between model interpretability and performance.
On the Concept and Metrics {#ssec:concepts_and_metrics}
--------------------------
The literature clearly asks for an unified concept of explainability. In order for the field to thrive, it is imperative to place a common ground upon which the community is enabled to contribute new techniques and methods. A common concept must convey the needs expressed in the field. It should propose a common structure for every XAI system. This paper attempted a new proposition of a concept of explainability that is built upon that from Gunning [@gunning2017explainable]. In that proposition and the following strokes to complete it (Subsection \[sec:what\]), explainability is defined as the ability a model has to make its functioning clearer to an audience. To address it, post-hoc type methods exist. The concept portrayed in this survey might not be complete but as it stands, allows for a first common ground and reference point to sustain a profitable discussion in this matter. It is paramount that the field of XAI reaches an agreement in this respect combining the shattered efforts of a widespread field behind the same banner.
Another key feature needed to relate a certain model to this concrete concept is the existence of a metric. A metric, or group of them should allow for a meaningful comparison of how well a model fits the definition of explainable. Without such tool, any claim in this respect dilutes among the literature, not providing a solid ground on which to stand. These metrics, as the classic ones (accuracy, F1, sensitivity...), should express how well the model performs in a certain aspect of explainability.
This survey does not tackle the problem of designing such a suite of metrics, since such a task should be approached by the community as a whole prior acceptance of the broader concept of explainability, which on the other hand, is one of the aims of the current work.
Challenges to achieve Explainable Deep Learning {#ssec:deep_learning_challenges}
-----------------------------------------------
While many efforts are currently being made in the area of XAI, there are still many challenges to be faced before being able to obtain explainability in DL models. First, as explained in Subsection \[sec:what\], there is a lack of agreement on the vocabulary and the different definitions surrounding XAI. As an example, we often see the terms *feature importance* and *feature relevance* referring to the same concept. This is even more obvious for visualization methods, where there is absolutely no consistency behind what is known as saliency maps, salient masks, heatmaps, neuron activations, attribution, and other approaches alike. As XAI is a relatively young field, the community does not have a standardized terminology yet.
As it has been commented in Subsection \[ssec:tradeoff\], there is a trade-off between interpretability and accuracy [@Gilpin18], i.e., between the simplicity of the information given by the system on its internal functioning, and the exhaustiveness of this description. Whether the observer is an expert in the field, a policy-maker or a user without machine learning knowledge, intelligibility does not have to be at the same level in order to provide the *audience* an understanding [@Preece18Stakeholders]. This is one of the reasons why, as mentioned above, a challenge in XAI is establishing objective metrics on what constitutes a good explanation. A possibility to reduce this subjectivity is taking inspiration from experiments on human psychology, sociology or cognitive sciences to create objectively convincing explanations. Relevant findings to be considered when creating an explainable AI model are highlighted in [@Miller19]: First, explanations are better when *constrictive*, meaning that a prerequisite for a good explanation is that it does not only indicate why the model made a decision X, but also why it made decision X rather than decision Y. It is also explained that probabilities are not as important as causal links in order to provide a satisfying explanation. Considering that black box models tend to process data in a quantitative manner, it would be necessary to translate the probabilistic results into qualitative notions containing causal links. In addition, they state that explanations are *selective*, meaning that focusing solely on the main causes of a decision-making process is sufficient. It was also shown that the use of counterfactual explanations can help the user to understand the decision of a model [@goudet2018learning; @Lopez-Paz17; @Byrne19].
Combining connectionist and symbolic paradigms seems a favourable way to address this challenge [@Bennetot19; @dAvilaGarcez19NeSy; @garnelo2016towards; @garnelo2019reconciling; @marra2019integrating]. On one hand, connectionist methods are more precise but opaque. On the other hand, symbolic methods are popularly considered less efficient, while they offer a greater explainability thus respecting the conditions mentioned above:
- The ability to refer to established reasoning rules allows symbolic methods to be constrictive.
- The use of a KB formalized e.g. by an ontology can allow data to be processed directly in a qualitative way.
- Being selective is less straightforward for connectionist models than for symbolic ones.
Recalling that a good explanation needs to influence the mental model of the user, i.e. the representation of the external reality using, among other things, symbols, it seems obvious that the use of the symbolic learning paradigm is appropriate to produce an explanation. Therefore, neural-symbolic interpretability could provide convincing explanations while keeping or improving generic performance [@Donadello17].
As stated in [@WhatDoesExplainableAImean], a truly explainable model should not leave explanation generation to the users as different explanations may be deduced depending on their background knowledge. Having a semantic representation of the knowledge can help a model to have the ability to produce explanations (e.g., in natural language [@Bennetot19]) combining common sense reasoning and human-understandable features.
Furthermore, until an objective metric has been adopted, it appears necessary to make an effort to rigorously formalize evaluation methods. One way may be drawing inspiration from the social sciences, e.g., by being consistent when choosing the evaluation questions and the population sample used [@Kelley03].
A final challenge XAI methods for DL need to address is providing explanations that are accessible for society, policy makers and the law as a whole. In particular, conveying explanations that require non-technical expertise will be paramount to both handle ambiguities, and to develop the social right to the (not-yet available) right for explanation in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [@Wachter17].
XAI, Model’s Confidentiality and Robustness in Adversarial Settings {#ssec:robust_adv}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing has been said about confidentiality concerns linked to XAI. One of the last surveys very briefly introduced the idea of algorithm property and trade secrets [@adadi2018peeking]. However, not much attention has been payed to these concepts. If *confidential* is the property that makes something *secret*, in the AI context many aspects involved in a model may hold this property. For example, imagine a model that some company has developed through many years of research in a specific field. The knowledge synthesized in the model built might be considered to be confidential, and it may be compromised even by providing only input and output access [@Orekondy18]. The latter shows that, under minimal assumptions, *data model functionality stealing* is possible. An approach that has served to make DL models more robust against intellectual property exposure based on a sequence of non accessible queries is in [@Oh19]. This recent work exposes the need for further research toward the development of XAI tools capable of explaining ML models while keeping the model’s confidentiality in mind.
Ideally, XAI should be able to explain the knowledge within an AI model and it should be able to reason about what the model acts upon. However, the information revealed by XAI techniques can be used both to generate more effective attacks in adversarial contexts aimed at confusing the model, at the same time as to develop techniques to better protect against private content exposure by using such information. Adversarial attacks [@goodfellow2014explaining] try to manipulate a ML algorithm after learning what is the specific information that should be fed to the system so as to lead it to a specific output. For instance, regarding a supervised ML classification model, adversarial attacks try to discover the minimum changes that should be applied to the input data in order to cause a different classification. This has happened regarding computer vision systems of autonomous vehicles; a minimal change in a stop signal, imperceptible to the human eye, led vehicles to detect it as a 45 mph signal [@eykholt2017robust]. For the particular case of DL models, available solutions such as Cleverhans [@DBLP:journals/corr/GoodfellowPM16] seek to detect adversarial vulnerabilities, and provide different approaches to harden the model against them. Other examples include AlfaSVMLib [@Xiao:2015:SVM:2779626.2779777] for SVM models, and AdversarialLib [@Biggio:2013:EAA:3120190.3120221] for evasion attacks. There are even available solutions for unsupervised ML, like clustering algorithms [@DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1811-09982].
Other Challenges in XAI {#ssec:other_challenges}
-----------------------
Besides the opportunities and challenges of XAI elaborated in previous subsections, other emerging areas in AI and ML can also harness the explainability of models:
- Strongly linked to the concept of fairness (tackled in detail in Subsection \[ssec:fairnessaccount\]), much attention has been lately devoted to the concept of *data diversity*, which essentially refers to the capability of an algorithmic model to ensure that all different types of objects are represented in its output [@drosou2017diversity]. Therefore, diversity can be thought to be an indicator of the quality of a collection of items that, when taking the form of a model’s output, can quantify the proneness of the model to produce diverse results rather than highly accurate predictions. Diversity comes into play in human-centered applications with ethical restrictions that permeate to the AI modeling phase [@lerman2013big]. Likewise, certain AI problems (such as content recommendation or information retrieval) also aim at producing diverse recommendations rather than highly-scoring yet similar results [@agrawal2009diversifying; @smyth2001similarity]. In these scenarios, dissecting the internals of a black-box model via XAI techniques can help identifying the capability of the model to maintain the input data diversity at its output. Learning strategies to endow a model with diversity keeping capabilities could be complemented with XAI techniques in order to shed transparency over the model internals, and assess the effectiveness of such strategies with respect to the diversity of the data from which the model was trained. Conversely, XAI could help discriminating which parts of the model are compromising its overall ability to preserve diversity.
- The concept of *discrimination*, on the other hand, also connects with ethical concerns with black-box models and their tendency to unintentionally create unfair decisions by considering sensitive factors such as the individual’s race, age or gender [@d2017conscientious]. Unfortunately, such unfair decisions can give rise to discriminatory issues, either by explicitly considering sensitive attributes or implicitly by using factors that correlate with sensitive data. In fact, an attribute may implicitly encode a protected factor, as occurs with postal code in credit rating [@barocas2016big]. It is in the identification of implicit correlations between protected and unprotected features where XAI techniques find their place within discrimination-aware data mining methods. By analyzing how the output of the model behaves with respect to the input feature, the model designer may unveil hidden correlations between the input variables amenable to cause discrimination. XAI techniques such as SHAP [@lundberg2017unified] could be used to generate counterfactual outcomes explaining the decisions of a ML model when fed with protected and unprotected variables.
- Safety issues have also been studied in regards to processes that depend on the output of AI models, such as vehicular perception and self-driving in autonomous vehicles, automated surgery, data-based support for medical diagnosis, insurance risk assessment and cyber-physical systems in manufacturing, among others [@varshney2017safety]. In all these scenarios erroneous model outputs can lead to harmful consequences, which has yielded comprehensive regulatory efforts aimed at ensuring that no decision is made solely on the basis of data processing [@goodman2017Fair]. In parallel, research has been conducted towards minimizing both risk and uncertainty of harms derived from decisions made on the output of a ML model. As a result, many techniques have been reported to reduce such a risk, among which we pause at the evaluation of the model’s output confidence to decide upon. In this case, the inspection of the share of epistemic uncertainty (namely, the uncertainty due to lack of knowledge) of the input data and its correspondence with the model’s output confidence can inform the user and eventually trigger his/her rejection of the model’s output [@weiss2004mining; @attenberg2015beat]. To this end, explaining via XAI techniques which region of the input data the model is focused on when producing a given output can discriminate possible sources of epistemic uncertainty within the input domain.
- When shifting the focus to the research practices seen in Data Science, it has been noted that reproducibility is stringently subject not only to the mere sharing of data, models and results to the community, but also to the availability of information about the full discourse around data collection, understanding, assumptions held and insights drawn from model construction and results’ analyses [@neff2017critique]. In other words, in order to transform data into a valuable actionable asset, individuals must engage in collaborative sense-making by sharing the context producing their findings, wherein context refers to sets of narrative stories around how data were processed, cleaned, modeled and analyzed. In this discourse we find also an interesting space for the adoption of XAI techniques due to their powerful ability to describe black-box models in an understandable, hence conveyable fashion towards colleagues from Social Science, Politics, Humanities and Legal fields. This confluence of multi-disciplinary teams in projects related to Data Science and the search for methodologies to make them appraise the ethical implications of their data-based choices has been lately coined as Critical Data studies [@iliadis2016critical]. It is in this field where XAI can significantly boost the exchange of information among heterogeneous audiences about the knowledge learned by models.
- Finally, we envision an exciting synergy between the XAI realm and *Theory-guided Data Science*, a paradigm exposed in [@TGDSkarpatne2017theory] that merges both Data Science and the classic theoretical principles underlying the application/context where data are produced. The rationale behind this rising paradigm is the need for data-based models to generate knowledge that is the prior knowledge brought by the field in which it operates. This means that the model type should be chosen according to the type of relations we intend to encounter. The structure should also follow what is previously known. Similarly, the training approach should not allow for the optimization process to enter regions that are not plausible. Accordingly, regularization terms should stand the prior premises of the field, avoiding the elimination of badly represented true relations for spurious and deceptive false relations. Finally, the output of the model should inform about everything the model has come to learn, allowing to reason and merge the new knowledge with what was already known in the field.
Many examples of the implementation of this approach are currently available with promising results. The studies in [@TGDShautier2010finding]-[@TGDSschrodt2015bhpmf] were carried out in diverse fields, showcasing the potential of this new paradigm for data science. Above all, it is relevant to notice the resemblance that all concepts and requirements of Theory-guided Data Science share with XAI. All the additions presented in [@TGDSkarpatne2017theory] push toward techniques that would eventually render a model explainable, and furthermore, knowledge consistent. The concept of *knowledge from the beginning*, central to Theory-guided Data Science, must also consider how the knowledge captured by a model should be explained for assessing its compliance with theoretical principles known beforehand. This, again, opens a magnificent window of opportunity for XAI.
Toward Responsible AI: Principles of Artificial Intelligence, Fairness, Privacy and Data Fusion {#sec:responsibleAI}
===============================================================================================
Over the years many organizations, both private and public, have published guidelines to indicate how AI should be developed and used. These guidelines are commonly referred to as AI *principles*, and they tackle issues related to potential AI threats to both individuals and to the society as a whole. This section presents some of the most important and widely recognized principles in order to link XAI – which normally appears inside its own principle – to all of them. Should a responsible implementation and use of AI models be sought in practice, it is our firm claim that XAI does not suffice on its own. Other important principles of Artificial Intelligence such as privacy and fairness must be carefully addressed in practice. In the following sections we elaborate on the concept of Responsible AI, along with the implications of XAI and data fusion in the fulfillment of its postulated principles.
Principles of Artificial Intelligence {#ssec:principlesAI}
-------------------------------------
A recent review of some of the main AI principles published since 2016 appears in [@fjeld2019principled]. In this work, the authors show a visual framework where different organizations are classified according to the following parameters:
- Nature, which could be private sector, government, inter-governmental organization, civil society or multistakeholder.
- Content of the principles: eight possible principles such as privacy, explainability, or fairness. They also consider the coverage that the document grants for each of the considered principles.
- Target audience: to whom the principles are aimed. They are normally for the organization that developed them, but they could also be destined for another audience (see Figure \[fig:audiences\]).
- Whether or not they are rooted in the International Human Rights, as well as whether they explicitly talk about them.
For instance, [@benjamins2019responsible] is an illustrative example of a document of AI principles for the purpose of this overview, since it accounts for some of the most common principles, and deals explicitly with explainability. Here, the authors propose five principles mainly to guide the development of AI within their company, while also indicating that they could also be used within other organizations and businesses.
The authors of those principles aim to develop AI in a way that it directly reinforces inclusion, gives equal opportunities for everyone, and contributes to the common good. To this end, the following aspects should be considered:
- The outputs after using AI systems should not lead to any kind of discrimination against individuals or collectives in relation to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnic, origin or any other personal condition. Thus, a fundamental criteria to consider while optimizing the results of an AI system is not only their outputs in terms of error optimization, but also how the system deals with those groups. This defines the principle of *Fair AI*.
- People should always know when they are communicating with a person, and when they are communicating with an AI system. People should also be aware if their personal information is being used by the AI system and for what purpose. It is crucial to ensure a certain level of understanding about the decisions taken by an AI system. This can be achieved through the usage of XAI techniques. It is important that the generated explanations consider the profile of the user that will receive those explanations (the so-called *audience* as per the definition given in Subsection \[sec:what\]) in order to adjust the transparency level, as indicated in [@theodorou2017designing]. This defines the principle of *Transparent and Explainable AI*.
- AI products and services should always be aligned with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals [@RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:7559] and contribute to them in a positive and tangible way. Thus, AI should always generate a benefit for humanity and the common good. This defines the principle of *Human-centric AI* (also referred to as *AI for Social Good* [@Hager:19]).
- AI systems, specially when they are fed by data, should always consider privacy and security standards during all of its life cycle. This principle is not exclusive of AI systems since it is shared with many other software products. Thus, it can be inherited from processes that already exist within a company. This defines the principle of *Privacy and Security by Design*, which was also identified as one of the core ethical and societal challenges faced by Smart Information Systems under the Responsible Research and Innovation paradigm (RRI, [@stahl2018ethics]). RRI refers to a package of methodological guidelines and recommendations aimed at considering a wider context for scientific research, from the perspective of the lab to global societal challenges such as sustainability, public engagement, ethics, science education, gender equality, open access, and governance. Interestingly, RRI also requires openness and transparency to be ensured in projects embracing its principles, which links directly to the principle of Transparent and Explainable AI mentioned previously.
- The authors emphasize that all these principles should always be extended to any third-party (providers, consultants, partners...).
Going beyond the scope of these five AI principles, the European Commission (EC) has recently published ethical guidelines for Trustworthy AI [@hleg2019high] through an assessment checklist that can be completed by different profiles related to AI systems (namely, product managers, developers and other roles). The assessment is based in a series of principles: 1) human agency and oversight; 2) technical robustness and safety; 3) privacy and data governance; 4) transparency, diversity, non-discrimination and fairness; 5) societal and environmental well-being; 6) accountability. These principles are aligned with the ones detailed in this section, though the scope for the EC principles is more general, including any type of organization involved in the development of AI.
It is worth mentioning that most of these AI principles guides directly approach XAI as a key aspect to consider and include in AI systems. In fact, the overview for these principles introduced before [@fjeld2019principled], indicates that 28 out of the 32 AI principles guides covered in the analysis, explicitly include XAI as a crucial component. Thus, the work and scope of this article deals directly with one of the most important aspects regarding AI at a worldwide level.
Fairness and Accountability {#ssec:fairnessaccount}
---------------------------
As mentioned in the previous section, there are many critical aspects, beyond XAI, included within the different AI principles guidelines published during the last decade. However, those aspects are not completely detached from XAI; in fact, they are intertwined. This section presents two key components with a huge relevance within the AI principles guides, Fairness and Accountability. It also highlights how they are connected to XAI.
### Fairness
Recalling the Fair AI principle introduced in the previous section, [@benjamins2019responsible] reminds that fairness is a discipline that generally includes proposals for bias detection within datasets regarding sensitive data that affect protected groups (through variables like gender, race...). Such proposals permit to discover correlations between non-sensitive variables and sensitive ones, detect imbalanced outcomes from the algorithms that penalize a specific subgroup of people, and mitigate the effect of bias on the model’s decisions.
Approaches centered on fairness aspects can deal with:
- Individual fairness: here, fairness is analyzed by modeling the differences between each subject and the rest of the population.
- Group fairness: it deals with fairness from the perspective of all individuals.
- Counterfactual fairness: it tries to interpret the causes of bias using, for example, causal graphs.
The sources for bias, as indicated in [@barocas2016big], can be traced to:
- Skewed data: bias within the data acquisition process.
- Tainted data: errors in the data modelling definition, wrong feature labelling, and other possible causes.
- Limited features: using too few features could lead to an inference of false feature relationships that can lead to bias.
- Sample size disparities: when using sensitive features, disparities between different subgroups can induce bias.
- Proxy features: there may be correlated features with sensitive ones that can induce bias even when the sensitive features are not present in the dataset.
The next question that can be asked is what criteria could be used to define when AI is not biased. For supervised ML, [@hardt2016equality] presents a framework that uses three criteria to evaluate group fairness when there is a sensitive feature present within the dataset:
- Independence: this criterion is fulfilled when the model predictions are independent of the sensitive feature. Thus, the proportion of positive samples (namely, those ones belonging to the class of interest) given by the model is the same for all the subgroups within the sensitive feature.
- Separation: it is met when the model predictions are independent of the sensitive feature given the target variable. For instance, in classification models, the True Positive (TP) rate and the False Positive (FP) rate are the same in all the subgroups within the sensitive feature. This criteria is also known as *Equalized Odds*.
- Sufficiency: it is accomplished when the target variable is independent of the sensitive feature given the model output. Thus, the Positive Predictive Value is the same for all subgroups within the sensitive feature. This criteria is also known as Predictive Rate Parity.
Although not all of the criteria can be fulfilled at the same time, they can be optimized together in order to minimize the bias within the ML model.
There are two possible actions that could be used in order to achieve those criteria. On one hand, evaluation includes measuring the amount of bias present within the model (regarding one of the criteria aforementioned). There are many different metrics that can be used, depending on the criteria considered. Regarding independence criterion, possible metrics are *statistical parity difference* or *disparate impact*. In case of the separation criterion, possible metrics are *equal opportunity difference* and *average odds difference* [@hardt2016equality]. Another possible metric is the *Theil index* [@speicher2018unified], which measures inequality both in terms of individual and group fairness.
On the other hand, mitigation refers to the process of fixing some aspects in the model in order to remove the effect of the bias in terms of one or several sensitive features. Several techniques exist within the literature, classified in the following categories:
- Pre-processing: these groups of techniques are applied before the ML model is trained, looking to remove the bias at the first step of the learning process. An example is Reweighing [@kamiran2012data], which modifies the weights of the features in order to remove discrimination in sensitive attributes. Another example is [@zemel2013learning], which hinges on transforming the input data in order to find a good representation that obfuscates information about membership in sensitive features.
- In-processing: these techniques are applied during the training process of the ML model. Normally, they include Fairness optimization constraints along with cost functions of the ML model. An example is Adversarial Debiasing, [@zhang2018mitigating]. This technique optimizes jointly the ability of predicting the target variable while minimizing the ability of predicting sensitive features using a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN).
- Post-processing: these techniques are applied after the ML model is trained. They are less intrusive because they do not modify the input data or the ML model. An example is Equalized Odds [@hardt2016equality]. This techniques allows to adjust the thresholds in the classification model in order to reduce the differences between the TP rate and the FP rate for each sensitive subgroup.
Even though these references apparently address an AI principle that appears to be independent of XAI, the literature shows that they are intertwined. For instance, the survey in [@fjeld2019principled] evinces that 26 out of the 28 AI principles that deal with XAI, also talk about fairness explicitly. This fact elucidates that organizations usually consider both aspects together when implementing Responsible AI.
The literature also exploses that XAI proposals can be used for bias detection. For example, [@ahn2019fairsight] proposes a framework to visually analyze the bias present in a model (both for individual and group fairness). Thus, the fairness report is shown just like the visual summaries used within XAI. This explainability approach eases the understanding and measurement of bias. The system must report that there is bias, justify it quantitatively, indicate the degree of fairness, and explain why a user or group would be treated unfairly with the available data.
Another example is [@soares2019fair], where the authors propose a fair-by-design approach in order to develop ML models that jointly have less bias and include as explanations human comprehensible rules. The proposal is based in self-learning locally generative models that use only a small part of the whole dataset available (weak supervision). It first finds recursively relevant prototypes within the dataset, and extracts the empirical distribution and density of the points around them. Then it generates rules in an IF/THEN format that explain that a data point is classified within a specific category because it is *similar* to some prototypes. The proposal then includes an algorithm that both generates explanations and reduces bias, as it is demonstrated for the use case of recidivism using the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) dataset [@dressel2018accuracy].
Finally, CERTIFAI (Counterfactual Explanations for Robustness, Transparency, Interpretability, and Fairness of Artificial Intelligence models) [@sharma2019certifai] uses a customized genetic algorithm to generate counterfactuals that can help to see the robustness of a ML model, generate explanations, and examine fairness (both at the individual level and at the group level) at the same time.
### Accountability
Regarding accountability, the EC [@hleg2019high] defines the following aspects to consider:
- Auditability: it includes the assessment of algorithms, data and design processes, but preserving the intellectual property related to the AI systems. Performing the assessment by both internal and external auditors, and making the reports available, could contribute to the trustworthiness of the technology. When the AI system affects fundamental rights, including safety-critical applications, it should always be audited by an external third party.
- Minimization and reporting of negative impacts: it consists of reporting actions or decisions that yield a certain outcome by the system. It also comprises the assessment of those outcomes and how to respond to them. To address that, the development of AI systems should also consider the identification, assessment, documentation and minimization of their potential negative impacts. In order to minimize the potential negative impact, impact assessments should be carried out both prior to and during the development, deployment and use of AI systems. It is also important to guarantee protection for anyone who raises concerns about an AI system (e.g., *whistle-blowers*). All assessments must be proportionate to the risk that the AI systems pose.
- Trade-offs: in case any tension arises due to the implementation of the above requirements, trade-offs could be considered but only if they are ethically acceptable. Such trade-offs should be reasoned, explicitly acknowledged and documented, and they must be evaluated in terms of their risk to ethical principles. The decision maker must be accountable for the manner in which the appropriate trade-off is being made, and the trade-off decided should be continually reviewed to ensure the appropriateness of the decision. If there is no ethically acceptable trade-off, the development, deployment and use of the AI system should not proceed in that form.
- Redress: it includes mechanisms that ensure an adequate redress for situations when unforeseen unjust adverse impacts take place. Guaranteeing a redress for those non-predicted scenarios is a key to ensure trust. Special attention should be paid to vulnerable persons or groups.
These aspects addressed by the EC highlight different connections of XAI with accountability. First, XAI contributes to auditability as it can help explaining AI systems for different profiles, including regulatory ones. Also, since there is a connection between fairness and XAI as stated before, XAI can also contribute to the minimization and report of negative impacts.
Privacy and Data Fusion {#ssec:privacydatafusion}
-----------------------
The ever-growing number of information sources that nowadays coexist in almost all domains of activity calls for data fusion approaches aimed at exploiting them simultaneously toward solving a learning task. By merging heterogeneous information, data fusion has been proven to improve the performance of ML models in many applications. This section speculates with the potential of data fusion techniques to enrich the explainability of ML models, and to compromise the privacy of the data from which ML models are learned. To this end, we briefly overview different data fusion paradigms, and later analyze them from the perspective of data privacy. As we will later, despite its relevance in the context of Responsible AI, the confluence between XAI and data fusion is an uncharted research area in the current research mainstream.
### Basic Levels of Data Fusion {#sssec:levels_data_fusion}
We depart from the different levels of data fusion that have been identified in comprehensive surveys on the matter [@SMIRNOV201931; @DING2019129; @WANG201942; @LAU2019357]. In the context of this subsection, we will distinguish among fusion at data level, fusion at model level and fusion at knowledge level. Furthermore, a parallel categorization can be established depending on where such data is processed and fused, yielding centralized and distributed methods for data fusion. In a centralized approach, nodes deliver their locally captured data to a centralized processing system to merge them together. In contrast, in a distributed approach, each of the nodes merges its locally captured information, eventually sharing the result of the local fusion with its counterparts.
Fusion through the information generation process has properties and peculiarities depending on the level at which the fusion is performed. At the so-called *data level*, fusion deals with raw data. As schematically shown in Figure \[fig:fusion\_all\], a fusion model at this stage receives raw data from different information sources, and combines them to create a more coherent, compliant, robust or simply representative data flow. On the other hand, fusion at the *model level* aggregates models, each learned from a subset of the data sets that were to be fused. Finally, at the *knowledge level* the fusion approach deals with knowledge in the form of rules, ontologies or other knowledge representation techniques with the intention of merging them to create new, better or more complete knowledge from what was originally provided. Structured knowledge information is extracted from each data source and for every item in the data set using multiple *knowledge extractors* (e.g. a reasoning engine operating on an open semantic database). All produced information is then fused to further ensure the quality, correctness and manageability of the produced knowledge about the items in the data set.
Other data fusion approaches exist beyonds the ones represented in Figure \[fig:fusion\_all\]. As such, data-level fusion can be performed either by a technique specifically devoted to this end (as depicted in Figure \[fig:fusion\_all\].b) or, instead, performed along the learning process of the ML model (as done in e.g. DL models). Similarly, model-level data fusion can be made by combining the decisions of different models (as done in tree ensembles).
### Emerging Data Fusion Approaches {#sssec:advanced_levels_data_fusion}
In the next subsection we examine other data fusion approaches that have recently come into scene due to their implications in terms of data privacy:
- In Big Data fusion (Figure \[fig:fusion\_all\].d), local models are learned on a split of the original data sources, each submitted to a Worker node in charge of performing this learning process (*Map* task). Then, a *Reduce* node (or several *Reduce* nodes, depending on the application) combines the outputs produced by each *Map* task. Therefore, Big Data fusion can be conceived as a means to distribute the complexity of learning a ML model over a pool of Worker nodes, wherein the strategy to design how information/models are fused together between the *Map* and the *Reduce* tasks is what defines the quality of the finally generated outcome [@ramirez2018big].
- By contrast, in Federated Learning [@1610.02527; @mcmahan2017communication; @konevcny2016federated], the computation of ML models is made on data captured locally by remote client devices (Figure \[fig:fusion\_all\].e). Upon local model training, clients transmit encrypted information about their learned knowledge to a central server, which can take the form of layer-wise gradients (in the case of neural ML models) or any other model-dependent content alike. The central server aggregates (fuses) the knowledge contributions received from all clients to yield a shared model harnessing the collected information from the pool of clients. It is important to observe that no client data is delivered to the central server, which elicits the privacy-preserving nature of Federated Learning. Furthermore, computation is set closer to the collected data, which reduces the processing latency and alleviates the computational burden of the central server.
- Finally, Multiview Learning [@sun2013survey] constructs different *views* of the object as per the information contained in the different data sources (Figure \[fig:fusion\_all\].f). These views can be produced from multiple sources of information and/or different feature subsets. Multiview Learning devises strategies to jointly optimize ML models learned from the aforementioned views to enhance the generalization performance, specially in those applications with weak data supervision and hence, prone to model overfitting. This joint optimization resorts to different algorithmic means, from co-training to co-regularization [@zhao2017multi].
### Opportunities and Challenges in Privacy and Data Fusion under the Responsible AI Paradigm {#sssec:opportunities_data_fusion}
AI systems, specially when dealing with multiple data sources, need to explicitly include privacy considerations during the system’s life cycle. This is specially critical when working with personal data, because respecting people’s right to privacy should always be addressed. The EC [@hleg2019high] highlights that privacy should also address data governance, covering the quality and integrity of the data used. It should also include the definition of access protocols and the capability to process data in a way that ensures privacy. The EC guide breaks down the privacy principle into three aspects:
- Privacy and data protection: they should be guaranteed in AI systems throughout its entire lifecycle. It includes both information provided by users and information generated about those users derived from their interactions with the system. Since digital information about a user could be used in a negative way against them (discrimination due to sensitive features, unfair treatment...), it is crucial to ensure proper usage of all the data collected.
- Quality and integrity of data: quality of data sets is fundamental to reach good performance with AI systems that are fueled with data, like ML. However, sometimes the data collected contains socially constructed biases, inaccuracies, errors and mistakes. This should be tackled before training any model with the data collected. Additionally, the integrity of the data sets should be ensured.
- Access to data: if there is individual personal data, there should always be data protocols for data governance. These protocols should indicate who may access data and under which circumstances.
The aforementioned examples from the EC shows how data fusion is directly intertwined with privacy and with fairness, regardless of the technique employed for it.
Notwithstanding this explicit concern from regulatory bodies, loss of privacy has been compromised by DL methods in scenarios where no data fusion is performed. For instance, a few images are enough to threaten users’ privacy even in the presence of image obfuscation [@Oh16], and the model parameters of a DNN can be exposed by simply performing input queries on the model [@Orekondy18; @Oh19]. An approach to explain loss of privacy is by using *privacy loss* and *intent loss* subjective scores. The former provides a subjective measure of the severity of the privacy violation depending on the role of a face in the image, while the latter captures the intent of the bystanders to appear in the picture. These kind of explanations have motivated, for instance, secure matching cryptographic protocols for photographer and bystanders to preserve privacy [@Orekondy18; @Aditya16; @sun2018hybrid]. We definite advocate for more efforts invested in this direction, namely, in ensuring that XAI methods do not pose a threat in regards to the privacy of the data used for training the ML model under target.
When data fusion enters the picture, different implications arise with the context of explainability covered in this survey. To begin with, classical techniques for fusion at the data level only deal with data and have no connection to the ML model, so they have little to do with explainability. However, the advent of DL models has blurred the distinction between information fusion and predictive modeling. The first layers of DL architectures are in charge of learning high-level features from raw data that possess relevance for the task at hand. This learning process can be thought to aim at solving a data level fusion problem, yet in a directed learning fashion that makes the fusion process tightly coupled to the task to be solved.
In this context, many techniques in the field of XAI have been proposed to deal with the analysis of correlation between features. This paves the way to explaining how data sources are actually fused through the DL model, which can yield interesting insights on how the predictive task at hand induces correlations among the data sources over the spatial and/or time domain. Ultimately, this gained information on the fusion could not only improve the usability of the model as a result of its enhanced understanding by the user, but could also help identifying other data sources of potential interest that could be incorporated to the model, or even contribute to a more efficient data fusion in other contexts.
Unfortunately, this previously mentioned concept of fusion at data level contemplates data under certain constraints of known form and source origin. As presented in [@dong2013big], the Big Data era presents an environment in which these premises cannot be taken for granted, and methods to board Big Data fusion (as that illustrated in Figure \[fig:fusion\_all\].d) have to be thought. Conversely, a concern with model fusion context emerges in the possibility that XAI techniques could be explanatory enough to compromise the confidentiality of private data. This could eventually occur if sensitive information (e.g. ownership) could be inferred from the explained fusion among protected and unprotected features.
When turning our prospects to data fusion at model level, we have already argued that the fusion of the outputs of several transparent models (as in tree ensembles) could make the overall model opaque, thereby making it necessary to resort to post-hoc explainability solutions. However, model fusion may entail other drawbacks when endowed with powerful post-hoc XAI techniques. Let us imagine that relationships of a model’s input features have been discovered by means of a post-hoc technique) and that one of those features is hidden or unknown. Will it be possible to infer another model’s features if that previous feature was known to be used in that model? Would this possibility uncover a problem as privacy breaches in cases in which related protected input variables are not even shared in the first place?
To get the example clearer, in [@zhang2015comobile] a multiview perspective is utilized in which different single views (representing the sources they attend to) models are fused. These models contain among others, cell-phone data, transportation data, etc. which might introduce the problem that information that is not even shared can be discovered through other sources that are actually shared. In the example above, what if instead of features, a model shares with another a layer or part of its architecture as in Federated Learning? Would this sharing make possible to infer information from that exchanged part of its model, to the extent of allowing for the design of adversarial attacks with better success rate upon the antecedent model?
If focused at knowledge level fusion, a similar reasoning holds: XAI comprises techniques that extract knowledge from ML model(s). This ability to explain models could have an impact on the necessity of discovering new knowledge through the complex interactions formed within ML models. If so, XAI might enrich knowledge fusion paradigms, bringing the possibility of discovering new knowledge extractors of relevance for the task at hand. For this purpose, it is of paramount importance that the knowledge extracted from a model by means of XAI techniques can be understood and extrapolated to the domain in which knowledge extractors operate. The concept matches with ease with that of transfer learning portrayed in [@pan2009survey]. Although XAI is not contemplated in the surveyed processes of extracting knowledge from models trained in certain feature spaces and distributions, to then be utilized in environments where previous conditions do not hold, when deployed, XAI can pose a threat if the explanations given about the model can be reversely engineered through the knowledge fusion paradigm to eventually compromise, for instance, the differential privacy of the overall model.
The distinction between centralized and distributed data fusion also spurs further challenges in regards to privacy and explainability. The centralized approach does not bring any further concerns that those presented above. However, distributed fusion does arise new problems. Distributed fusion might be applied for different reasons, mainly due to environmental constraints or due to security or privacy issues. The latter context may indulge some dangers. Among other goals (e.g. computational efficiency), model-level data fusion is performed in a distributed fashion to ensure that no actual data is actually shared, but rather parts of an ML model trained on local data. This rationale lies at the heart of Federated Learning, where models exchange locally learned information among nodes. Since data do not leave the local device, only the transmission of model updates is required across distributed devices. This lightens the training process for network-compromised settings and guarantees data privacy [@konevcny2016federated]. Upon the use of post-hoc explainability techniques, a node could disguise sensitive information about the local context in which the received ML model part was trained. In fact, it was shown that a black-box model based on a DNN from which an input/output query interface is given can be used to accurately predict every single hyperparameter value used for training, allowing for potential privacy-related consequences [@Oh19; @Oh16; @Aditya16]. This relates to studies showing that blurring images does not guarantee privacy preservation.
Data fusion, privacy and model explainability are concepts that have not been analysed together so far. From the above discussion it is clear that there are unsolved concerns and caveats that demand further study by the community in forthcoming times.
Implementing Responsible AI Principles in an Organization
---------------------------------------------------------
While increasingly more organizations are publishing AI principles to declare that they care about avoiding unintended negative consequences, there is much less experience on how to actually implement the principles into an organization. Looking at several examples of principles declared by different organizations [@fjeld2019principled], we can divide them into two groups:
- AI-specific principles that focus on aspects that are specific to AI, such as explainability, fairness and human agency.
- End-to-end principles that cover all aspects involved in AI, including also privacy, security and safety.
The EC Guidelines for Trustworthy AI are an example of end-to-end principles [@hleg2019high], while those of Telefonica (a large Spanish ICT company operating worldwide) are more AI-specific [@benjamins2019responsible]. For example, safety and security are relevant for any connected IT system, and therefore also for AI systems. The same holds for privacy, but it is probably true that privacy in the context of AI systems is even more important than for general IT systems, due to the fact that ML models need huge amounts of data and most importantly, because XAI tools and data fusion techniques pose new challenges to preserve the privacy of protected records.
When it comes to implement the AI Principles into an organization, it is important to operationalize the AI-specific parts and, at the same time, leverage the processes already existing for the more generic principles. Indeed, in many organizations there already exist norms and procedures for privacy, security and safety. Implementing AI principles requires a methodology such as that presented in [@benjamins2019responsible] that breaks down the process into different parts. The ingredients of such a methodology should include, at least:
- AI principles (already discussed earlier), which set the values and boundaries.
- Awareness and training about the potential issues, both technical and non-technical.
- A questionnaire that forces people to think about certain impacts of the AI system. This questionnaire should give concrete guidance on what to do if certain undesired impacts are detected.
- Tools that help answering some of the questions, and help mitigating any problems identified. XAI tools and fairness tools fall in this category
- A governance model assigning responsibilities and accountabilities. There are two philosophies for governance: 1) based on committees that review and approve AI developments, and 2) based on the self-responsibility of the employees. While both are possible, given the fact that agility is key for being successful in the digital world, it seems wiser to focus on awareness and employee responsibility, and only use committees when there are specific, but important issues.
From the above elaborations, it is clear that the implementation of Responsible AI principles in companies should balance between two requirements: 1) major cultural and organizational changes needed to enforce such principles over processes endowed with AI functionalities; and 2) the feasibility and compliance of the implementation of such principles with the IT assets, policies and resources already available at the company. It is in the gradual process of rising corporate awareness around the principles and values of Responsible AI where we envision that XAI will make its place and create huge impact.
Conclusions and Outlook {#sec:conc}
=======================
This overview has revolved around eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), which has been identified in recent times as an utmost need for the adoption of ML methods in real-life applications. Our study has elaborated on this topic by first clarifying different concepts underlying model explainability, as well as by showing the diverse purposes that motivate the search for more interpretable ML methods. These conceptual remarks have served as a solid baseline for a systematic review of recent literature dealing with explainability, which has been approached from two different perspectives: 1) ML models that feature some degree of transparency, thereby interpretable to an extent by themselves; and 2) post-hoc XAI techniques devised to make ML models more interpretable. This literature analysis has yielded a global taxonomy of different proposals reported by the community, classifying them under uniform criteria. Given the prevalence of contributions dealing with the explainability of Deep Learning models, we have inspected in depth the literature dealing with this family of models, giving rise to an alternative taxonomy that connects more closely with the specific domains in which explainability can be realized for Deep Learning models.
We have moved our discussions beyond what has been made so far in the XAI realm toward the concept of Responsible AI, a paradigm that imposes a series of AI principles to be met when implementing AI models in practice, including fairness, transparency, and privacy. We have also discussed the implications of adopting XAI techniques in the context of data fusion, unveiling the potential of XAI to compromise the privacy of protected data involved in the fusion process. Implications of XAI in fairness have also been discussed in detail.
Our reflections about the future of XAI, conveyed in the discussions held throughout this work, agree on the compelling need for a proper understanding of the potentiality and caveats opened up by XAI techniques. It is our vision that model interpretability must be addressed jointly with requirements and constraints related to data privacy, model confidentiality, fairness and accountability. A responsible implementation and use of AI methods in organizations and institutions worldwide will be only guaranteed if all these AI principles are studied jointly.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Alejandro Barredo-Arrieta, Javier Del Ser and Sergio Gil-Lopez would like to thank the Basque Government for the funding support received through the EMAITEK and ELKARTEK programs. Siham Tabik, Salvador Garcia, Daniel Molina and Francisco Herrera acknowledge funding support from the Spanish Government (SMART-DaSCI project, TIN2017-89517-P), as well as from the BBVA Foundation through its *Ayudas Fundación BBVA a Equipos de Investigación Científica* 2018 call (DeepSCOP project). We also thank Chris Olah, Alexander Mordvintsev and Ludwig Schubert for borrowing images for illustration purposes. Part of this overview is inspired by a preliminary work of the concept of Responsible AI: R. Benjamins, A. Barbado, D. Sierra, *“Responsible AI by Design”*, to appear in the Proceedings of the Human-Centered AI: Trustworthiness of AI Models & Data (HAI) track at AAAI Fall Symposium, DC, November 7-9, 2019 [@benjamins2019responsible].
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: The alternative term *simulability* is also used in the literature to refer to the capacity of a system or process to be simulated. However, we note that this term does not appear in current English dictionaries.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We characterize the disorder induced localization in momentum space for ultracold atoms in one-dimensional incommensurate lattices, according to the dual Aubry-André model. For low disorder the system is localized in momentum space, and the momentum distribution exhibits time-periodic oscillations of the relative intensity of its components. The behavior of these oscillations is explained by means of a simple three-mode approximation. We predict their frequency and visibility by using typical parameters of feasible experiments. Above the transition the system diffuses in momentum space, and the oscillations vanish when averaged over different realizations, offering a clear signature of the transition.'
author:
- 'M. Larcher'
- 'M. Modugno'
- 'F. Dalfovo'
title: Localization in momentum space of ultracold atoms in incommensurate lattices
---
Disorder is among the most intriguing and ubiquitous aspects of condensed matter [@kramer]. The prediction of localization induced by a random disorder in a periodic lattice dates back to the seminal work by Anderson [@anderson1958]. Recently, ultracold atomic gases have demonstrated to be an extremely versatile tool to explore the effects of disorder, owing to the great tunability of the system parameters and geometrical configurations [@fallani2008; @billy2008; @roati2008; @deissler2010; @demarco]. Notably, Anderson localization of matter waves has been observed both for correlated (speckle) disorder [@billy2008] and quasi-periodic optical lattices [@roati2008], the latter case realizing the so-called Aubry-André (AA) model [@harper1955; @aubry1980]. Localization effects in the quantum dynamics of one-dimensional lattice models have attracted a large interest also in the recent theoretical literature [@larcher2009; @interaction_vs_localization; @others]. The AA model has the peculiar property of exhibiting a transition, already in one dimension and both in real and momentum space (duality), from extended to exponentially localized states as the disorder strength is increased above a critical value [@aubry1980; @aulbach2004; @lahini2009]. So far the evolution of wave packets in the AA model has been investigated mainly in real space, looking for signatures of the transition from ballistic diffusion to sub-diffusion and localization, both in theory [@hiramoto1988; @larcher2009] and experiments [@roati2008; @lahini2009].
Here we focus on the dynamics of the momentum distribution and identify measurable effects of the transition from diffusion to localization in momentum space. This is relevant for current experiments with ultracold atoms, where the momentum distribution is accessible by performing time of flight measurements and, typically, with an higher accuracy than in real space. In addition, it provides complementary information for a better understanding of the key role played by duality of the AA model.
The quantum dynamics of the AA model for the amplitude $\psi_n(t)$ is governed by the equation $$i \partial_t \psi_n = -[\psi_{n+1}+\psi_{n-1}]+\lambda\cos(2\pi\alpha n+\varphi)\psi_{n}
\label{eq:AA}$$ where $\lambda$ is the disorder strength, and $\varphi$ an arbitrary phase. This equation can be used to model non-interacting atoms subject to two periodic optical lattices with different wavelengths, that is, a bichromatic lattice [@roati2008; @deissler2010]. In this case, $\alpha$ is the ratio between their wavelengths. In the tight-binding regime, Eq. (\[eq:AA\]) is easily obtained starting from the Schrödinger equation and projecting the continuous wave function $\psi(x)$ on the basis of the Wannier functions, $w_n(x)$, of the lowest band of the primary lattice [@modugno2009], $\psi(x) = \sum_n \psi_n w_n(x)$, where $n$ is the lattice site index. The secondary lattice appears in the last term of Eq. (\[eq:AA\]) in the form of a modulation which mimics a disorder (quasi-disorder). Without any loss of generality, one can choose $\alpha < 1$, because Eq. (\[eq:AA\]) is invariant under a shift of $\alpha$ by an integer number. When $\alpha$ is a rational number it is possible to write it as $\alpha=p/q$ and the solution of Eq. (\[eq:AA\]) can be restricted to a region of size $N=q$, which coincides with spatial periodicity of the system. The case of irrational $\alpha$ can be obtained as a limit of a continued fraction approximation.
Aubry-André showed [@aubry1980] that this model has a duality under the following transformation $${\phi_l}= N^{-1/2} \sum_n \psi_n e^{in[{2\pi}\alpha l+\theta]}e^{-i\varphi l}
\label{eq:AA_transformation_phi}$$ which maps Eq. (\[eq:AA\]) into an equation for the new variable $\phi_l$ exactly of the same form as Eq. (\[eq:AA\]) but with disorder strength $4/\lambda$. This transformation corresponds to a projection on a basis of quasi-momentum eigestates with eigenvalues $\xi = 2\pi\alpha l+\theta=
(2\pi/N) p l+\theta$, where $\xi$ is defined in the first Brillouin zone, $\xi\in[-\pi,\pi]$. By using this duality one can show that the AA model undergoes a transition from an extended to a localized regime at $\lambda=2$.
![(Color online) Quasi-momentum distribution $|f_k(t)|^2$ obtained from the DFT of the solution of Eq (\[eq:AA\]). The index $\xi$ is related to $k$ by $\xi=2\pi k/N$. Here we use $\alpha=0.2282...$ and $\varphi=0$. The initial wave packet in real space is a Gaussian of width $\sigma=10$. Time is given in dimensionless units. Top panel: $\lambda=1$, only few modes are involved and a periodic oscillation of the central and side peaks is observed. The side peaks are at a distance $\pm2\pi\alpha$ from the central peak. Bottom panel: $\lambda=5$, the evolution is affected by the coupling of many modes and the periodic oscillations are no more visible. []{data-label="fig:transition_eps"}](fig1_transition_exp.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) Oscillation frequency of the central peak of quasi-momentum ($\lambda<2$, red) and spatial ($\lambda>2$, blue) distributions, for $\sigma=10$, $\varphi=0$. The full solution of the AA model (dots) is compared with the predictions of an analytic three-mode approximation (full lines) and a semi-analytic five-mode approximation (dashed line).[]{data-label="fig:period_oo"}](fig2_period.jpg){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) Visibility of the oscillations in real and quasi-momentum space a function $\lambda$, for $\varphi=0$. The numerical points are compared with the three-mode approximation (full lines). Bottom: only few modes have been initially populated by using a $\delta$-function initial wave packet in real space and a Gaussian with $\sigma=10$ in momentum space. Top: many modes have been initially populated by inverting the initial conditions with respect to the bottom panel. []{data-label="fig:visibility_oo"}](fig3_visibility.jpg){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In the AA model the space is discrete and one can conveniently introduce the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) $$f_k = N^{-1/2} \sum_n \psi_n e^{-i\frac{2\pi}{N}kn}
\label{eq:DFT}$$ which corresponds to a projection on the basis of quasi-momentum eigenstates with eigenvalues $\xi=(2\pi/N)k$. The relation bewteen momentum and quasi-momentum distributions is $|\tilde{\psi}(k,t)|^2 = {N}|f_k(t)|^2 |\tilde{w}(k)|^2$ where $\tilde{w}(k)$ is the Fourier transform of the Wannier function centered on the lattice site $n=0$. Note also that the expression (\[eq:DFT\]) is related to the dual mapping (\[eq:AA\_transformation\_phi\]) by an arbitrary shift of $\theta$ and a permutation [@aulbach2004]. By applying the transformation (\[eq:DFT\]) to the AA model one gets [@modugno2009] $$\label{eq:AA_momentum}
i \partial_t f_k = -2\cos\left(\frac{2\pi k}{N}\right)f_k+\frac{\lambda}{2}\left[ e^{-i\varphi}f_{k+p}+e^{i\varphi}f_{k-p} \right]$$ which is the equation describing the evolution in momentum space. Owing to the duality of the AA model under the transformation (\[eq:AA\_transformation\_phi\]), and to the similarity of the latter with Eq. (\[eq:DFT\]), the localization properties in momentum space are the same of the dual AA model, except for the fact that disorder couples modes differing by $|\Delta \xi| = 2\pi\alpha$ instead of neighboring ones.
In the following we will consider the evolution of a wave packet, by solving Eq. (\[eq:AA\]) in real space and then computing the evolution in momentum space by means of the DFT [@numerics]. As initial condition we choose a Gaussian wave packet, $\psi_j(0)=A\exp\{-{j^2}/{2\sigma^2}\}$, where $\sigma$ is the width and $A$ is a normalization factor. This choice is convenient if one wants to simulate realistic experimental configurations; it also allows one to explore the behavior of sharp to broad wave packets in a continuous manner.
According to the previous discussion, localization in momentum space occurs for $\lambda<2$, where the wave packet instead diffuses in real space. In this regime one thus expects to see only one or few momentum components significantly populated. Conversely, for $\lambda>2$ the regime is diffusive in momentum space and localized in real space, and one should see a momentum distribution with many modes coupled together during the evolution of the system. This is indeed confirmed by our numerical simulations, as shown in Fig. \[fig:transition\_eps\] (the value $\alpha=1064.4/866.6-1=0.2282...$ has been chosen in order to model the bichromatic lattice of the experiment of Ref. [@deissler2010]). A striking feature is that, for $\lambda<2$, the quasi-momentum components $|f_k|^2$ exhibit periodic oscillations, occurring among the central peak and two side peaks at distance $\pm 2\pi\alpha$. The numerical result for the frequency of these oscillations is plotted in Fig. \[fig:period\_oo\] as a function of $\lambda$ (red points for $\lambda <2$) [@frequency].
This oscillating behavior can be understood in terms of the following model. Let us assume that the width $\sigma$ of the initial wave packet is large enough, so that only the $k=0$ mode is populated at $t=0$ ($f_k(0)
=\delta_{k,0}$), and assume also that the evolution couples this mode with two side modes at $k=\pm p$ only (i.e., $\xi=0 $ and $\pm2\pi\alpha$, respectively). In this way, the AA equation is mapped into an eigenvalue problem of a $3\times 3$ matrix, whose eigenvectors and eigenvalues can be written as $g_{k,j}$ and $E_j$, respectively, with $j=1,2,3$. The initial condition is $f_k(0)=\sum_{j=1}^3 \gamma_j g_{k,j}$, where the coefficients $\gamma_j$ are given by the standard rules of quantum mechanics. Under these assumptions one has $\gamma_{j=3}\equiv 0$, and the time evolution takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
|f_k(t)|^2=&(\gamma_1 g_{k,1})^2+(\gamma_2 g_{k,2})^2\nonumber\\
&+\gamma_1\gamma_2 g_{k,1}g_{k,2}\cos\left[(E_2-E_1)t\right] \, .
\label{eq:periodic_behaviour}\end{aligned}$$ This expression describes a time-periodic oscillation of the relative intensity of the central and side peaks, with frequency $\nu(\lambda<2) =|E_2-E_1|/2\pi$, given by $$\nu (\lambda<2) = \pi^{-1} \sqrt{[1-\cos(2\pi\alpha)]^2+\lambda^2/2 } \, .
\label{eq:momentum_period}$$ It is worth stressing that, once $\alpha$ is fixed, this frequency depends only on the disorder strength $\lambda$, but not on the phase $\varphi$. This three-mode approximation provides a reasonable description of the numerical results, as shown by the solid line for $\lambda <2$ in Fig. \[fig:period\_oo\]. An even better agreement can be obtained by including the next side peaks in a five-mode approximation. This yields the semi-analytic result shown by the dashed line in the same figure. One sees that more modes must be included in order to get closer to the numerical results when $\lambda$ approaches the critical value $\lambda=2$.
In the region $\lambda>2$ the few-mode approximation is expected to fail in the momentum space, where the wave packet is no more localized. Indeed, in this regime, we do not see any significant evidence of periodic behaviors in the momentum distribution (see the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:transition\_eps\]). Conversely, owing to the duality of the AA model, one expects periodic oscillations to take place in real space, where the wave packet is localized. This is confirmed by our numerical integration of Eq. (\[eq:AA\]). The frequency of the oscillations in real space, for $\varphi=0$, is shown as blue dots in the $\lambda>2$ region of Fig. \[fig:period\_oo\]. By assuming that the initial density distribution is localized in a single site ($n=0$) which is coupled with the nearest neighboring sites, $n=\pm 1$, we obtain a three-mode approximation analogous to the one used before in quasi-momentum space, but describing oscillations in the spatial distribution. The scenario is complicated by the presence of several frequency components, which also depend on phase $\varphi$. However, in the special case $\varphi=0$, one finds just a single $\varphi$-independent frequency, given by $$\nu(\lambda>2) = (2\pi)^{-1} \sqrt{\lambda^2 [1-\cos(2\pi\alpha)]^2 + 8} \, ,
\label{eq:real_period}$$ which is shown as the solid line for $\lambda>2$ in Fig. \[fig:period\_oo\]. The dashed line is the result of a straightforward semi-analytic extension to five modes, as in the $\lambda<2$ region. It is worth mentioning that, though in the calculations in Fig. \[fig:period\_oo\] we have used a Gaussian of width $\sigma=10$ as initial shape of the wave packet, we have also checked that the frequency $\nu$ does not depend on $\sigma$, except close to $\lambda=2$.
The amplitude of the oscillations also changes with $\lambda$, affecting its visibility. The latter can be calculated from the frequency spectrum of the numerical solution of Eq. (\[eq:AA\]), as the ratio between the modulus of the Fourier component of frequency $\nu(\lambda)$ and the modulus of the component at zero frequency. In a consistent way, one can define the visibility in the three-mode approximation; for the oscillations in momentum space for $\lambda<2$, the visibility can be written as $(1/2)\gamma_1\gamma_2 g_{0,1}g_{0,2}/[(\gamma_1 g_{0,1})^2+(\gamma_2 g_{0,2})^2]$. A similar definition can be given in real space for $\lambda>2$.
In Fig. \[fig:visibility\_oo\] we show the visibility of the oscillations as a function of $\lambda$. The points are the numerical results, while the lines represent the three-mode approximation. We have used two values for the width of the initial Gaussian wave packet, namely $\sigma=0$ (i.e., a $\delta$-function) and $\sigma=10$. In the upper panel, the two values of $\sigma$ are used for $\lambda<2$ and $\lambda>2$, respectively. They correspond to a broad initial wave packet both in momentum space for $\lambda<2$ and real space for $\lambda>2$. In the bottom panel we use again the same values of $\sigma$, but in the opposite regions, so to have a narrow initial wave packet in both spaces [@width]. One can see that the visibility depends significantly on both $\sigma$ and $\lambda$. Again, the three-mode approximation is qualitatively correct, except near $\lambda=2$. We observe that the three-mode approximation gives a better agreement for a narrow initial distribution (lower panel), as in the opposite case of a broad distribution many modes are initially excited and this approximation is not expected to be accurate. Another interesting feature is the effect of the duality of the AA model. Indeed, in both panels, the results in the region $\lambda<2$ almost coincide with those in the region $\lambda>2$ under the change of variable $\lambda \to 4/\lambda$, provided the initial distributions are broad (upper panel) or narrow (lower panel) in both momentum and real spaces; this duality also implies the continuity at $\lambda=2$.
These predictions suggest that the oscillations of the central and side peaks in the momentum distribution can be efficiently used to probe the transition from diffusion to localization in the AA model. A possible strategy consists of measuring the intensity of the central peak as a function of time for different values of $\lambda$, exploiting the fact that for $\lambda>2$ the oscillations are phase dependent, while for $\lambda<2$ they are not. Actually, in typical experiments with ultracold atoms, the phase $\varphi$ varies at random at each realization, so that performing an average over many realizations at fixed $\lambda$ is equivalent to an average over numerical simulations with different $\varphi$. Thus one expect that the oscillations vanish for $\lambda>2$ (phase sensitive regime), but remain clearly visible for $\lambda<2$ (phase independent regime). This is shown in Fig. \[fig:color\_plot\_central\_peak\], where the average has been done over $50$ different values of the phase $\varphi$ for each value of $\lambda$. Indeed the behavior of $|f_0(t)|^2$ exhibits a transition at $\lambda=2$. From the same figure one can also extract the frequency $\nu(\lambda<2)$. By using the experimental parameters of Ref. [@deissler2010], with $\alpha=1064.4/866.6$ and $\lambda=1$, the oscillation period turns out to be of the order of $5$ ms.
![(Color online) Phase-averaged intensity of the central peak in momentum space, $|f_{0}(t)|^2$, as a function of time and disorder strength $\lambda$ for a wavepacket with $\sigma=10$. The intensity is given in arbitrary units. []{data-label="fig:color_plot_central_peak"}](fig4_ft_center.jpg){width="1\columnwidth"}
In summary, we have studied the time evolution of the AA model in momentum space. We have shown that the occurrence of periodic oscillations of the quasi-momentum components can be used efficiently to observe the transition from diffusion to disorder induced localization. We have numerically calculated the frequency and visibility of these oscillations and we have introduced a simple few-mode approximation to interpret their behavior. These results are relevant for current experiments with ultracold atoms, where the AA model is realized using a bichromatic lattice and the momentum distribution can be detected with good resolution by performing time of flight measurements. This study provides also a starting point for future investigations on the interplay between interaction and localization. It is known that in certain regimes the presence of a repulsive interaction can destroy the disorder induced (Anderson) localization giving a sub-diffusive spreading of an initially localized wavepacket [@larcher2009; @interaction_vs_localization], but its experimental detection in real space is currently limited by the difficulty to reach the long time regime, and by the finite resolution in the observation of low density tails of the atomic distribution [@deissler2010]. In this sense, the observation of oscillations in momentum space can be a more reliable tool.
[*Acknowledgments.*]{} M.M. acknowledges support from INO-CNR through the DQS EuroQUAM project from ESF. This work is also supported by Miur.
B. Kramer and A. MacKinnon, Rep. Prog. Phys. **56** 1469 (1993).
P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. **109**, 1492 (1958).
L. Fallani, C. Fort, M. Inguscio, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. **56**, 119(2008).
J. Billy *et al.*, Nature [**453**]{}, 891 (2008).
G. Roati *et al.*, Nature [**453**]{}, 895 (2008).
B. Deissler *et al.*, Nat. Phys. **6**, 354 (2010).
M. Pasienski *et al.*, Nat. Phys. **6**, 677 (2010).
P. G. Harper, Proc. Phys. Soc. London A [**68**]{}, 874 (1955).
S. Aubry and G. André, Ann. Israel Phys. Soc. [**3**]{}, 133 (1980).
M. Larcher, F. Dalfovo, and M. Modugno, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 053606 (2009).
A. S. Pikovsky and D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 094101 (2008); I. Garc[í]{}a-Mata and D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. E [**79**]{}, 026205 (2009); S. Flach, D. O. Krimer and, Ch. Skokos, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 024101 (2009); Ch. Skokos, D. O. Krimer, S. Komineas and, S. Flach, Phys. Rev. E [**79**]{}, 056211 (2009).
G.S. Ng and T.Kottos, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 205120 (2007); G. Kopidakis [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 084103 (2008); X. Deng [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. B [**68**]{}, 435 (2009); S. K. Adhikari and L. Salasnich, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 023606 (2009).
C. Aulbach *et al.*, New J. Phys. [**6**]{}, 70 (2004).
The AA model has been experimentally realized also with light diffusion in photonic lattices, in Y. Lahini *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 013901 (2009).
H. Hiramoto and S. Abe, J. Phys. Soc. Japan [**57**]{}, 1365 (1988).
M. Modugno, New J. Phys. [**11**]{}, 033023 (2009).
Eq. (\[eq:AA\]) is solved by means of a RK4 method. See e.g., W. H. Press et al., Numerical Recipes (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1986).
The frequency is extracted from the frequency spectrum of the central peak in quasi-momentum (real) space, $|f_0(t)|^2$ ($|\psi_0(t)|^2$). The signal is Fourier transformed, and the oscillation frequency is identified as the dominant component of the frequency spectrum.
For $\sigma=10$, the momentum width $1/\sigma$ is much smaller than the distance between coupled modes, $\Delta\xi=2\pi\alpha$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Vehicular Ad hoc NETworks (VANETs) have emerged as a platform to support intelligent inter-vehicle communication and improve traffic safety and performance. The road-constrained, high mobility of vehicles, their unbounded power source, and the emergence of roadside wireless infrastructures make VANETs a challenging research topic. A key to the development of protocols for inter-vehicle communication and services lies in the knowledge of the topological characteristics of the VANET communication graph. This paper explores the dynamics of VANETs in urban environments and investigates the impact of these findings in the design of VANET routing protocols. Using both real and realistic mobility traces, we study the networking shape of VANETs under different transmission and market penetration ranges. Given that a number of RSUs have to be deployed for disseminating information to vehicles in an urban area, we also study their impact on vehicular connectivity. Through extensive simulations we investigate the performance of VANET routing protocols by exploiting the knowledge of VANET graphs analysis.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'bib/IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'bib/tkde2010.bib'
title: The Dynamics of Vehicular Networks in Urban Environments
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a de Haas-van Alphen study of the Fermi surface of the low temperature antiferromagnet CeZn$_{11}$ and its non-magnetic analogue LaZn$_{11}$, measured by torque magnetometry up to fields of $33\,\mathrm{T}$ and at temperatures down to $320\,\mathrm{mK}$. Both systems possess similar de Haas-van Alphen frequencies, with three clear sets of features – ranging from $50\,\mathrm{T}$ to $4\,\mathrm{kT}$ – corresponding to three bands of a complex Fermi surface, with an expected fourth band also seen weakly in CeZn$_{11}$. The effective masses of the charge carriers are very light ($<1\,m_e$) in LaZn$_{11}$ but a factor of $2$ - $4$ larger in CeZn$_{11}$, indicative of stronger electronic correlations. We perform detailed density functional theory (DFT) calculations for CeZn$_{11}$ and find that only DFT+$U$ calculations with $U$=1.5$\mathrm{eV}$, which localize the $4f$ states, provide a good match to the measured de Haas-van Alphen frequencies, once the presence of magnetic breakdown orbits is also considered. Our study suggests that the Fermi surface of CeZn$_{11}$ is very close to that of LaZn$_{11}$ being dominated by Zn $3d$, as the Ce $4f$ states are localised and have little influence on its electronic structure, however, they are responsible for its magnetic order and contribute to enhance electronic correlations.'
author:
- 'S. F. Blake'
- 'H. Hodovanets'
- 'A. McCollam'
- 'S. L. Bud’ko'
- 'P. C. Canfield'
- 'A. I. Coldea'
bibliography:
- 'CeZn11paper.bib'
title: 'A de Haas van Alphen study of the role of 4f electrons in antiferromagnetic CeZn$_{11}$ as compared to its non-magnetic analogue LaZn$_{11}$'
---
Introduction
============
Intermetallic compounds containing Ce have been widely studied for their unconventional electronic and magnetic properties, associated with the heavy fermion behaviour that may arise from interactions between the conduction and the $f$ electrons [@Coleman2007]. In these materials the competition between the RKKY interaction [@Ruderman1954] – which favours localisation of the $f$ electrons and an antiferromagnetic (AFM) ground state – and the Kondo effect [@Kasuya1956] – which favours hybridisation with the conduction electrons and a paramagnetic (PM) ground state – can lead to regions of unconventional superconductivity [@Steglich1979] and non-Fermi liquid behaviour [@VanLohneysen1994], reached by tuning with doping [@VanLohneysen1994], pressure [@Sullow1999] or magnetic field [@Custers2003] and accompanied by greatly enhanced effective masses and Sommerfeld coefficients [@Steglich1979; @VanLohneysen1994; @Sullow1999; @Custers2003].
As an intermetallic containing Ce, the compound CeZn$_{11}$ – which crystallises in a tetragonal structure (space group $I4_1 / amd$) with each Ce atom enclosed by a polyhedra of 22 Zn atoms [@OZelinskaMConrad2004] – is therefore of interest as a potential heavy fermion material. Its *caged* crystal structure is similar to the heavy fermion antiferromagnets U$_2$Zn$_{17}$ [@Ott1984] and UCd$_{11}$ [@Cornelius1999], which both possess an Actinide surrounded by a polyhedra of Zn or Cd atoms. However the isoelectronic caged compound CeCd$_{11}$ has AFM ordering but no heavy fermion behaviour, with the RKKY interaction dominating and the occupied $f$ states well localised [@Yoshiuchi2010].
CeZn$_{11}$ shows a low temperature AFM state below $T_N = 2 \, \mathrm{K}$, with the saturated magnetic susceptibility and magnetic entropy taking values close to those expected for a Ce$^{3+}$ ion in a $4f^1$ configuration, confirming the magnetic state arises from localised moments at the Ce sites [@Hodovanets2013a; @Nakazawa1993]. Applying a magnetic field suppresses the AFM phase by $5\,\mathrm{T}$ (for ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$) and the Sommerfeld coefficient, $\gamma$, becomes significantly enhanced around this quantum phase transition, increasing up to $200 \,\mathrm{mJ}/\mathrm{mol}\,\mathrm{K}^2$ before dropping to a smaller value in the PM phase [@Hodovanets2013a] – unlike in the heavy fermion antiferromagnets where it remains strongly enhanced [@Ott1984; @Cornelius1999]. LaZn$_{11}$, with a similar crystallographic structure but lacking the $4f$ electron, is a non-magnetic analogue to CeZn$_{11}$ and shows a Sommerfeld coefficient of $\gamma = 10.3 \, \mathrm{mJ}/\mathrm{mol}\,\mathrm{K}^2$ [@Hodovanets2013a], consistent with what is expected for a normal metal without correlations. Thus comparing these two systems can help establish the role of the $4f$ electron in determining the electronic and magnetic properties of CeZn$_{11}$.
In this paper we present a study of de Haas-van Alphen (dHvA) oscillations in single crystals of CeZn$_{11}$ and LaZn$_{11}$, measured using torque magnetometry at temperatures down to $320\,\mathrm{mK}$ and magnetic fields up to $33\,\mathrm{T}$. The cyclotron effective masses are extracted from the temperature dependence of the dHvA oscillations, and the experimentally determined frequencies are compared to those predicted by density functional theory (DFT), spin polarised DFT and DFT+$U$ calculations. We find that, with the consideration of magnetic breakdown orbits, the Fermi surface of CeZn$_{11}$ resembles that of LaZn$_{11}$ with the $4f$ electrons localised well below the Fermi level. The effective masses are very light in LaZn$_{11}$, in close agreement with band structure calculations, and we detect significant mass enhancement caused by stronger electronic correlations in CeZn$_{11}$.
Experimental details
====================
The torque experienced by a sample in a magnetic field (${\bf B}$) is given by ${\bm \tau} = {\bf M} \times {\bf B}$ and so acts as an indirect measure of the sample’s magnetisation (${\bf M}$), depending on the component perpendicular to the applied field. Therefore, with the exception of entirely isotropic systems for which the torque is zero, torque magnetometry provides a measure of the anisotropic magnetic properties of a system and a way of detecting magnetic phase transitions. Low noise torque magnetometry measurements conducted using piezoresistive cantilevers are also able to measure the dHvA effect, oscillations in the magnetisation of a sample whose frequencies ($F$) in inverse field are related to the size of extremal orbits of the Fermi surface ($A_F$) by the Onsager relation $F= (\hbar / 2 \pi e) \, A_F$, as detailed in Ref.. The amplitude of dHvA oscillations additionally contains information about the effective masses and scattering processes of the charge carriers in the system [@Shoenberg1984a].
High quality CeZn$_{11}$ and LaZn$_{11}$ single crystals were grown by the method detailed in [@Hodovanets2013a], with reported residual resistivity ratios in excess of $300$. For torque measurements small, flake-like samples, no bigger than $100 \times 100 \times 20 \, \mu\mathrm{m}$ were selected to limit the deviation experienced by the cantilevers, were cleaved from larger single crystals. The orientations of the flat faces of these samples were determined by single crystal x-ray diffraction. The torque measurements were carried out using Seiko PRC-400 and PRC-120 self-sensing microresistive cantilevers, with the sample affixed by Apiezon N grease so that it may be accurately positioned by hand and its orientation was compared with the X-ray diffraction pictures to be along a high symmetry axis. LaZn$_{11}$ was measured at fields up to $14\,\mathrm{T}$ and temperatures down to $2\,\mathrm{K}$ in a Quantum Design PPMS fitted with a horizontal rotator with a high angular accuracy of less than $0.05^\mathrm{o}$. CeZn$_{11}$ was measured at fields up to $18\,\mathrm{T}$ and temperatures down to $1.4\,\mathrm{K}$ in an Oxford Instruments superconducting magnet and fields up to $33\,\mathrm{T}$ and temperatures down to $0.32\,\mathrm{K}$ in a Bitter resisitive magnet, fitted with a Helium-3 insert, at HFML Nijmegen. In both cases the sample was mounted on a single axis Swedish rotator where the rotation is controlled manually by turning a dial at the top of the probe (accurate to within $1^\mathrm{o}$). DFT calculations were conducted using the Wien2k package [@Blaha2001] on a $46\times46\times46$ ($\sim$10,000 $k$-point) grid, with the GGA form of the exchange-correlation energy and spin-orbit coupling included. Experimental lattice parameters were taken from Ref. . DFT+$U$ calculations were conducted for $U$=0, 1 and 1.5$\mathrm{eV}$, with the Hubbard $U$ term applied only to the Ce $4f$ electron.
de Haas van Alphen effect in torque measurements
================================================
Figure \[RawData\]a) shows the magnetic field dependence of torque for CeZn$_{11}$, measured up to $33\,\mathrm{T}$ at $320\,\mathrm{mK}$, for fixed field orientations between the different crystallographic planes of the sample: ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ ($0^\mathrm{o}$), the easy axis of magnetisation [@Hodovanets2013a], and ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$ ($45^\mathrm{o}$). We observe strong kinks in the torque at low fields, corresponding to the magnetic field-induced transition from an AFM to a PM phase, that vary with field orientation from $3\,\mathrm{T}$ at ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$ to $5\,\mathrm{T}$ at ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$. Figure \[RawData\]b) shows the temperature-field phase diagram of this phase transition along the easy axis ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$, with $T_N=2\,\mathrm{K}$ at zero field and the AFM phase suppressed entirely by $5\,\mathrm{T}$. Our values obtained from torque measurement (taken as the peak in $d \tau / dB$ and $d \tau / d T$) are in good agreement with those previously measured in resistivity ($\rho$) and specific heat ($C_p$) [@Hodovanets2013a], also plotted in Figure \[RawData\]b).
![[**dHvA oscillations in CeZn$_{11}$ and LaZn$_{11}$.**]{} [**CeZn$_{11}$**]{}: [**a)**]{} Field dependence of torque at $320\,\mathrm{mK}$ for angles between ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ ($0^\mathrm{o}$) and ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$ ($45^\mathrm{o}$), alongside [**b)**]{} the temperature-field phase diagram at ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ (white data points taken from [@Hodovanets2013a]), [**c)**]{} the oscillatory component of torque and [**e)**]{} FFTs of the oscillatory component. [**LaZn$_{11}$**]{}: [**d)**]{} Field dependence of torque at $2\,\mathrm{K}$ and [**f)**]{} FFTs of the oscillatory component for angles between ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ ($0^\mathrm{o}$) and ${\bf B} \parallel [0\,0\,1]$ ($90^\mathrm{o}$). FFTs are performed over a wide field window of $\Delta B = 10$ - $33\,\mathrm{T}$ to distinguish the low frequencies below $F=2\,\mathrm{kT}$ and a narrow high field window of $\Delta B = 20$ - $33\,\mathrm{T}$ to amplify the high frequencies above separated by the vertical dashed line.[]{data-label="RawData"}](Fig1.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
At all orientations the torque has a strong magnetic background, largest along the easy axis ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$, arising from the localised $4f$ moments of the Ce atom. On top of this background de Haas-van Alphen oscillations are observed, and can be seen clearly at higher fields once the background (approximated to a third order polynomial fit) is subtracted, as shown in Figure \[RawData\]c). Oscillations are seen across the angular range with considerable variation in both frequency and amplitude, indicative of a complex, three-dimensional Fermi surface. Fast Fourier transforms (FFTs) of the oscillatory component of the torque, shown in Figure \[RawData\]e), reveal three clear sets of features close to ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$: a small frequency around $50\,\mathrm{T}$ labelled $\alpha$, a pair of slightly larger frequencies close to $280\,\mathrm{T}$ labelled $\beta$, and a clear frequency at $3.9\,\mathrm{kT}$ labelled $\gamma$. The features $\alpha$ and $\beta$ decrease in both amplitude and frequency at higher angles with rotation away from ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$, but $\gamma$ exists across the entire measured angular range. Additionally there are many unassigned, smaller amplitude frequencies up to $10\,\mathrm{kT}$ that are present at some orientations.
The magnetic field dependence of torque was also measured for LaZn$_{11}$ for field orientations between the crystallographic planes ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ ($0^\mathrm{o}$) and ${\bf B} \parallel [0\,0\,1]$ ($90^\mathrm{o}$). Figure \[RawData\]d) shows the torque measurements for LaZn$_{11}$ with dHvA oscillations clearly visible on top of a weak paramagnetic background – as La does not possess a $4f$ electron the background torque is much smaller than in CeZn$_{11}$. FFTs of the oscillatory component of the torque are shown in Figure \[RawData\]f), close to ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ similar features are seen to those in CeZn$_{11}$, suggesting a similarity of the Fermi surface: a cluster of very small frequencies labelled $\alpha$, a pair of stronger frequencies around $250\,\mathrm{T}$ labelled $\beta$, and a clear high frequency of $3.9\,\mathrm{kT}$ labelled $\gamma$. Rotating towards ${\bf B} \parallel [0\,0\,1]$ – a different rotation to that performed for CeZn$_{11}$ – all but the lowest frequencies disappear, with a few smaller amplitude frequencies present at some orientations but no clear branches. LaZn$_{11}$ does not appear to show the multitude of high ($>4\,\mathrm{kT}$) frequencies seen in CeZn$_{11}$, probably because its measurement was conducted at lower fields where higher frequencies are less visible due to the damping effect of scattering processes [@Shoenberg1984a]. Previously reported dHvA measurements on LaZn$_{11}$ [@Hodovanets2013a] – conducted up to $7\,\mathrm{T}$ at ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ and ${\bf B} \parallel [0\,0\,1]$ – observed the same low frequency $\alpha$ and $\beta$ peaks (and the smaller peak at $\sim$$700\,\mathrm{T}$ at ${\bf B} \parallel [0\,0\,1]$) reported here but not the higher frequency features, likely due to the smaller fields used for measurement.
Cyclotron effective masses
==========================
To compare the cyclotron effective masses, $m^*$, of the charge carriers in CeZn$_{11}$ and LaZn$_{11}$, the torque was measured close to ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ over a range of temperatures for both samples. Figures \[MassData\]a) and d) show the temperature dependence of dHvA oscillations in CeZn$_{11}$ and LaZn$_{11}$ respectively, with the corresponding FFTs shown in Figures \[MassData\]b) and e). The temperature dependence of amplitudes associated to different dHvA oscillations frequencies allow us to extract the value for the cyclotron effective masses, $m^*$, using the Lifshitz-Kosevich (LK) formula ($R_T=X/\mathrm{sinh}(X)$, where $X=2 \pi^2 k_b T m^* / e \hbar B$ [@Shoenberg1984a; @Lifshitz1956]). LK fits to the temperature dependence of the amplitudes of the three sets of frequencies $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are shown in Figures \[MassData\]c) and f), with the extracted effective masses (and the corresponding frequencies) listed in Table \[MassTable\]. The frequencies of the $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ peaks are comparable between LaZn$_{11}$ and CeZn$_{11}$, but the effective masses in CeZn$_{11}$ are consistently larger – taking values between $0.7$ - $2.4\, m_e$ versus $0.1$ - $1.4\, m_e$ in LaZn$_{11}$. This mass enhancement, compared to LaZn$_{11}$, of the effective masses by a factor of $2$ - $4$ in CeZn$_{11}$ suggesting stronger electronic correlations and agrees with the enhancement in the Sommerfeld coefficient of $\sim 3$ obtained from specific heat measurements [@Hodovanets2013a].
![[**Temperature dependence of dHvA oscillations in CeZn$_{11}$ and LaZn$_{11}$.**]{} [**CeZn$_{11}$**]{}: [**a)**]{} Oscillatory component of torque measured close to ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ between $0.3$ - $8\,\mathrm{K}$ and [**b)**]{} the corresponding FFTs for the highest, median and lowest temperatures. The colour of the lines in a) represent temperature on the scale shown in inset of b). [**c)**]{} LK fits to the temperature dependence of the oscillation amplitude for different frequencies. [**LaZn$_{11}$**]{}: [**d)**]{} - [**f)**]{} The same three figures, for measurements close to ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ between $2$ - $25\,\mathrm{K}$. LK amplitudes are scaled at the lowest temperature for direct comparison.[]{data-label="MassData"}](Fig2.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
In addition to the three sets of common frequencies $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ seen in both CeZn$_{11}$ and LaZn$_{11}$, there are also additional, unassigned frequencies present only in CeZn$_{11}$: a large peak around $500\,\mathrm{T}$ and a number of frequencies between $1$ - $2\,\mathrm{kT}$, in addition to the high ($>4\,\mathrm{kT}$) frequencies seen away from ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ in Figure \[RawData\]e). Although the relatively small magnetic fields (up to $14\,\mathrm{T}$ versus up to $33\,\mathrm{T}$ for CeZn$_{11}$) used for the measurement of LaZn$_{11}$ may explain why the high frequencies are not observed, these smaller ($<2\,\mathrm{kT}$) frequencies are of comparable size, amplitude and effective mass (see also Appendix II) to the common frequencies $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$, so their absence in LaZn$_{11}$ cannot be due solely to the smaller fields and higher temperatures used for measurement. Furthermore the values (and effective masses) of these unassigned frequencies do not correspond to any multiples of the common frequencies, so they do not originate from any higher order harmonics and their origin is discussed in detail later.
------------ ----- ---------------- --------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- ---------
$F$ $m^*$ $F$ $m_b$ $F$ $m^*$ $F$ $m_b$
$(\mathrm{T})$ $(m_e)$ $(\mathrm{T})$ $(m_e)$ $(\mathrm{T})$ $(m_e)$ $(\mathrm{T})$ $(m_e)$
$\beta_1$ 1 260(10) 0.76(2) 251 0.21 220(5) 0.31(1) 216 0.29
$\beta_2$ 1 300(10) 0.97(3) 297 0.18 250(5) 0.23(1) 266 0.21
$\alpha_1$ 2 - - 35 0.09 25(5) 0.10(1) 25 0.10
$\alpha_2$ 2 55(5) 0.77(3) 55 0.14 60(5) 0.22(1) 58 0.12
$\alpha_3$ 2 - - 72 0.11 80(5) 0.23(1) 69 0.28
$\alpha'$ 2 1730(10) 1.55(4) 1516 0.82
$\gamma$ 3 3880(10) 2.39(2) 4087 1.37 3880(10) 1.34(3) 4237 1.18
- 4 - - 136 2.39 - - 242 0.36
$\delta$ 4 170(10) 0.98(3) 217 0.75
------------ ----- ---------------- --------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- ---------
\[MassTable\]
Density functional theory calculations
======================================
In order to determine the Fermi surface topology of CeZn$_{11}$ and LaZn$_{11}$, and the origin of the unassigned frequencies seen in CeZn$_{11}$, DFT (and DFT+$U$) calculations were conducted for both LaZn$_{11}$ and CeZn$_{11}$. The DFT calculated Fermi surface of LaZn$_{11}$ is shown in Figure \[FermiSurfacesLaZn11\]a) and the density of states (DoS) at the Fermi level in Figure \[FermiSurfacesLaZn11\]b). As La has an unoccupied $4f$ orbital, all of the $4f$ electron states are well above the Fermi level and form the large peak of La states seen close to $2\,\mathrm{eV}$ in the DoS plot of Figure \[FermiSurfacesLaZn11\]b). Instead the Fermi level is dominated by $3d$ states, which form the continuum of Zn states across the plotted range. The Fermi surface that results from these $3d$ states consists of the four bands shown in Figure \[FermiSurfacesLaZn11\]a): two small pockets, band 1 (in blue) and band 4 (in cyan); two large and complex surfaces, band 2 (in green) and band 3 (in red).
To compare this Fermi surface with the measured dHvA oscillations in LaZn$_{11}$, the frequencies arising from its extremal orbits were calculated over the measured angular range ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0] \rightarrow {\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$ and are plotted in Figure \[AngleCompLaZn11\]c). Figure \[AngleCompLaZn11\]a) shows the angular dependence of the measured torque FFTs over the same range, with the FFT amplitude determining the colour scale; the dHvA frequencies thus correspond to the peaks in intensity (blue means low amplitude and red high amplitude), and the extracted values are plotted in Figure \[AngleCompLaZn11\]b). There is very good agreement between the measured and calculated frequencies, with all observed peaks accounted for by the DFT Fermi surface: the set of frequencies $\alpha$ corresponds to orbits around the many small perforations and protrusions of band 2, $\beta$ corresponds to orbits around the pocket of band 1, $\gamma$ corresponds to large orbits traversing the girth of band 3. Additionally, the weaker features seen in smaller regions of the angular range arise from either larger orbits around much of band 2 or smaller orbits around parts of band 3. An exact comparison of the frequencies and masses at ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ is given in Table \[MassTable\] – as well as the agreement in frequency, the effective masses are also very close to the calculated band masses for LaZn$_{11}$. Band 4 is not seen experimentally however, and the reason for this may lie with the value of its effective masses which can be guessed from its band masses: at ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ its band mass is close to double that of the comparable sized frequencies of band 1, and away from ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ its band mass is up to 5 times larger (see Appendix II). These larger band masses for band 4 will lead to greater thermal damping of its dHvA frequencies, to the extent that it may not be visible in the measured temperature range. Other than this, the measured Fermi surface deviates little from that produced by DFT calculations however, so LaZn$_{11}$, with its $4f$ electron states located well above the Fermi level, provides a close facsimile to the Fermi surface expected for CeZn$_{11}$ if the $4f$ electron states are well localised, with Zn $3d$ states dominating at the Fermi level. The angular dependence of the measured torque FFTs and the extracted dHvA frequencies for CeZn$_{11}$ are shown in Figure \[AngleCompCeZn11\]a) and b) respectively. Although the three sets of frequencies $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are still the strongest features, there are many unassigned features at both intermediate ($0.4$ - $1\,\mathrm{kT}$) and high ($>4\,\mathrm{kT}$) frequencies. The frequencies arising from the DFT calculated Fermi surface of LaZn$_{11}$ over the same angular range are plotted in Figure \[AngleCompCeZn11\]c). As was the case in LaZn$_{11}$, $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are well matched by orbits of band 2, band 1 and band 3 respectively, although the frequencies of $\beta$ are this time slightly underestimated by the DFT calculations. No features of the LaZn$_{11}$ Fermi surface are able to reproduce the unassigned frequencies seen only in CeZn$_{11}$ however, and the band masses calculated are considerably smaller than the effective masses measured in CeZn$_{11}$.
{width="100.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
Figure \[FermiSurfacesCeZn11\]a) shows the DFT calculated Fermi surface for CeZn$_{11}$. Although this Fermi surface still consists of four broadly similar bands to LaZn$_{11}$ – the small pockets of bands 1 (blue) and 4 (cyan), the large and complex surfaces of bands 3 (green) and 4 (red) – its exact topology is considerably different to that of LaZn$_{11}$, with a larger total area. The reason for this is clear from the DoS plot of Figure \[FermiSurfacesCeZn11\]b): there is a large peak of Ce $4f$ states located right at the Fermi level, with the $1/14$th of the peak beneath the Fermi level corresponding to the single $4f$ electron of the Ce atom. The Fermi surface thus has a significant contribution from these $4f$ states – as well as the continuum of Zn $3d$ states – which acts to substantially change the possible Fermi surface orbits. Figure \[AngleCompCeZn11\]d) shows the frequencies produced by the DFT calculated CeZn$_{11}$ Fermi surface over the measured angular range. Although band 2 is considerably changed from the case of LaZn$_{11}$, there are still many small orbits which may correspond to the set of frequencies $\alpha$. However the frequencies of band 1 are significantly reduced and no longer agree well with the measured values of $\beta$, while no large orbits of band 3 are a possible match with the measured frequency $\gamma$. The DFT calculation of CeZn$_{11}$ is therefore unable to reproduce the measured dHvA frequencies.
To remove the $4f$ states from the Fermi level DFT+$U$ calculations were performed for CeZn$_{11}$. These calculations introduce a Hubbard term to account for the Coulomb repulsion between electrons occupying the $4f$ states, with $U$ the energy penalty for a doubly occupied state [@Anisimov1991]. This acts to lower the energy states of one spin configuration and raise those of the other and so, with a large enough $U$, one can localise the occupied $4f$ electron states well beneath the Fermi level. DFT+$U$ calculations must therefore be spin polarised in order to treat the two spin configurations separately, and this spin polarisation can also affect the electronic structure, with the introduction of a spin-dependent term in the exchange-correlation potential [@VonBarth1972].
The Fermi surface produced by a spin polarised DFT calculation (effectively DFT+$U$ with $U=0\,\mathrm{eV}$) of CeZn$_{11}$ is shown in Figure \[FermiSurfacesCeZn11\]c) and the DoS in Figure \[FermiSurfacesCeZn11\]d). In the DoS the large Ce $4f$ peak has been split into two: a spin down peak (in green) raised in energy, and a spin up peak (in blue) which still lies right at the Fermi level. The resultant Fermi surface now consists of only three bands, with the decrease in energy of the spin up states acting to lower band 1 entirely below the Fermi level, shrink bands 2 and 3 in size and greatly expands band 4. As a result, the orbits associated with this Fermi surface, shown in Figure \[AngleCompCeZn11\]e) for the measured angular range, are of relatively similar size, falling between $400\,\mathrm{T}$ and $1.5\,\mathrm{kT}$. Although this range corresponds to that of the weaker intermediate dHvA frequencies, no parts of the spin polarised Fermi surface are able to generate frequencies close to the three clearest features, $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$, seen in measurements. The spin polarised DFT calculation is therefore also unable to reproduce the measured dHvA frequencies.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="95.00000%"}
To localise the Ce $4f$ electron, DFT+$U$ calculations were performed for CeZn$_{11}$. A value of $U=1 \, \mathrm{eV}$ was found to be insufficient to move the $4f$ states away from the Fermi level, with a Fermi surface identical to that of the $U=0$ calculation in Figure \[FermiSurfacesCeZn11\]c). However a relatively modest value of $U=1.5 \, \mathrm{eV}$ was able to localise the $4f$ electron, despite being smaller than the values of $U=4$ - $5\,\mathrm{eV}$ typically applied to Ce-based heavy fermion materials [@Dong2014]. The resulting Fermi surface and DoS plot shown in Figure \[FermiSurfacesCeZn11\]e) and f) respectively. In the DoS, the spin down states have still been raised in energy and the spin up states lowered, but the spin up peak no longer resides at the Fermi level – instead the large $U$ has acted to localise a single spin up $4f$ electron, creating the small Ce peak beneath the Fermi level, and raise in energy the remaining spin up states away from the Fermi level. The Fermi level is thus dominated by Zn $3d$ states, as was the case in LaZn$_{11}$, with only a small Ce $4f$ contribution. Unsurprisingly the Fermi surface looks much like that of LaZn$_{11}$, with bands 1 - 3 near identical. Band 4, however, is extended in-plane, so that the four pockets now join at the edge of the Brillouin zone to form a cross-shaped Fermi surface, while an additional band, band 5 (in purple), has appeared, albeit consisting of a single pocket too small to be observed in dHvA measurements.
The frequencies arising from this DFT+$U$ calculated Fermi surface of CeZn$_{11}$, shown as the coloured lines in Figure \[AngleCompCeZn11\]f), are very similar to those for DFT calculations of LaZn$_{11}$ over the same angular range, shown in Figure \[AngleCompCeZn11\]c). Band 1 has increased very slightly in size while band 3 has decreased, as can be seen by the frequency values given in Table \[MassTable\]. The DFT calculated orbits still agree very well with the observed frequency peaks of $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$, and a slight increase in the size of band 1 would bring the frequencies of $\beta$ into even closer agreement. The slight changes to band 2 also result in the appearance of a larger, $1.5\,\mathrm{kT}$ frequency close to ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$, and this frequency is labelled $\alpha'$ in Figure \[MassData\]b). The largest changes occur to the frequencies of band 4 where the orbits are no longer around small pockets but instead around a larger, cross-shaped Fermi surface. The associated band masses are still much larger than those of the other bands, however for one of the frequency branches – that which is largest at ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ and decreases with rotation towards ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$ – they are relatively smaller than the rest ($0.75 \, m_e$ versus $2.39 \, m_e$ in Table \[MassTable\]). This branch can be seen weakly in the measured FFTs of Figure \[AngleCompCeZn11\]a) and is extracted and plotted in Figure \[AngleCompCeZn11\]b), labelled $\delta$ in Table I. For bands 1 - 3 however the band masses of the DFT+$U$ calculated Fermi surface of CeZn$_{11}$ are comparable to those found in LaZn$_{11}$ (both in calculation and experiment) and not the larger effective masses measured in CeZn$_{11}$, as can be seen in Table \[MassTable\]. This confirms that the presence of Ce in CeZn$_{11}$ leads to a definite mass enhancement, in contrast to LaZn$_{11}$ where any mass enhancement above the calculated band mass is negligible.
Magnetic breakdown orbits
=========================
Although the DFT+$U$ calculated Fermi surface of CeZn$_{11}$ is able to match the strongest measured frequency peaks of $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$, its orbits cannot account for the weaker, unassigned intermediate and high frequencies. Figures \[BreakdownFFTs\]a) and b) show the magnetic field dependence of the FFTs at ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ and ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$ respectively, with the positions of the unassigned frequency peaks marked by dashed grey lines. At both orientations it can be seen that the unassigned peaks onset at higher fields than the nearby $\alpha$, $\beta$ or $\gamma$ peaks, which is unexpected for frequencies of similar size and effective mass originating from (presumably) the same bands. However, this is the behaviour expected in the case of magnetic breakdown where, at high fields, charge carriers are able to tunnel between adjacent bands of the Fermi surface if their separation in reciprocal space is small enough. This process, depending on the complexity of the Fermi surface and the number of tunnelling points, can generate many new frequencies that may be observed as dHvA oscillations [@Carter2010]. The higher fields needed for magnetic breakdown thus explain why breakdown frequencies are observed in CeZn$_{11}$ (measured up to $33\,\mathrm{T}$) and not LaZn$_{11}$ (measured up to $14\,\mathrm{T}$). Explicitly the field dependence is contained within the tunnelling probability $P=\mathrm{exp} (- B_{BD} / B)$, where the breakdown field $B_{BD}=(\pi \hbar / 2e)(k_g^3/(a+b))^{1/2}$ can be considered the field above which the breakdown orbit may be observed; $k_g$ is the tunnelling gap and $1/a$ and $1/b$ are the radii of curvature of the two bands at the tunnelling point [@Chambers1966].
![[**Field dependence of FFTs in CeZn$_{11}$**]{} at [**a)**]{} ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ and [**b)**]{} ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$, performed over $5\,\mathrm{T}$ field windows, $B_{max}$, between $6$ - $33\,\mathrm{T}$. Different spectra for the different field windows are shifted for clarity. Dashed lines and arrows indicate the positions of the measured and DFT+$U$ calculated magnetic breakdown frequencies, respectively.[]{data-label="BreakdownFFTs"}](Fig7.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
As the DFT+$U$ calculated Fermi surface of CeZn$_{11}$ is so complex there are a multitude of potential tunnelling points located throughout the Brillouin zone, capable of connecting all bands of the Fermi surface indefinitely across reciprocal space. By applying a number of caveats to rule out the least probable orbits, as shown in detail in the Supplementary Material, the possible magnetic breakdown orbits arising from CeZn$_{11}$ were calculated over the measured angular range. The grey arrows in Figure \[BreakdownFFTs\]a) and b) indicate the frequencies of the calculated magnetic breakdown orbits for the two high symmetry orientations ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ and ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$: their frequency values correspond well with the unassigned frequency peaks (indicated by the dashed grey lines), especially at ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$. The breakdown fields of these orbits take values between $B_{BD}=22$ - $39\,\mathrm{T}$, comparable to the measured field range, with the exception of the higher frequencies at ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$ which take larger values of $B_{BD}=120$ - $290\,\mathrm{T}$. These breakdown frequencies show the most deviation from the measured values, thus an adjustment to the shape of these orbits to bring the frequencies into better agreement may also decrease the band separation, and hence the breakdown field, to a smaller value closer to the measured range. The magnetic breakdown frequencies across the measured angular range are shown in Figure \[AngleCompCeZn11\]f), plotted in dark grey beneath the rest of the coloured frequencies arising from conventional orbits of the CeZn$_{11}$ DFT+$U$ calculated Fermi surface. We find a good correspondence in both size and number with the unassigned experimental dHvA frequencies of CeZn$_{11}$ (dark grey points in Figure \[AngleCompCeZn11\]b)) with those extracted from the calculated magnetic breakdown orbits in Figure \[AngleCompCeZn11\]f). Some discrepancies that still exist, in both the size of the frequencies and the angular range over which they are visible, may arise from slight differences between the experimental and DFT+$U$ calculated CeZn$_{11}$ Fermi surfaces as a slight adjustment to the orbit shape may decrease the breakdown field, expanding the angular range over which the frequency is visible. Nevertheless, the consideration of magnetic breakdown orbits means that the DFT+$U$ calculated Fermi surface of CeZn$_{11}$ is able to fully describe the dHvA oscillations seen in CeZn$_{11}$ (see also Appendix I), and so its Fermi surface looks much like that of Figure \[FermiSurfacesCeZn11\]e), with the occupied $4f$ electron states localised well below the Fermi level.
In conclusion, we report a dHvA study of the Fermi surface of the antiferromagnet CeZn$_{11}$, alongside its non-magnetic analogue LaZn$_{11}$, to determine the contribution of the $4f$ Ce electrons to its electronic and magnetic properties. Torque measurements detect a field-induced magnetic phase transition in CeZn$_{11}$, but both CeZn$_{11}$ and LaZn$_{11}$ show similar dHvA frequencies originating from a complex, multi-band Fermi surface. We compare our results with DFT and DFT+$U$ calculations and find that the measured frequencies of LaZn$_{11}$ are well described by a four band Fermi surface, dominated by Zn $3d$ states. For CeZn$_{11}$ both DFT and spin polarised DFT calculations place a large peak of Ce $4f$ states at the Fermi level and produce Fermi surfaces that do not agree with the measured dHvA frequencies. However DFT+$U$ calculations with $U$=1.5 $\mathrm{eV}$ produce a Fermi surface very similar to that found in experiments and localise the occupied $4f$ states well below the Fermi level. Additional, weaker frequencies observed only in CeZn$_{11}$ are found to originate from magnetic breakdown orbits, which can occur at higher fields where tunnelling between orbits becomes possible. The cyclotron effective masses are a factor of $2$ - $4$ larger in CeZn$_{11}$ than in LaZn$_{11}$. Our study confirms that the occupied $4f$ electron states are well localised in CeZn$_{11}$, resulting in a Fermi surface close to that of LaZn$_{11}$. However the larger cyclotron effective masses found in CeZn$_{11}$, compared to LaZn$_{11}$, suggest the localised $4f$ electrons are still able to enhance the electronic correlations, as well as determining the magnetic properties of the system.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank Roser Valenti and Milan Tomic for useful discussions and Arjun Narayanan and Matthew Watson for technical support. This work was mainly supported by the EPSRC (EP/L001772/1, EP/I004475/1, EP/I017836/1). Part of this work was supported supported by HFML-RU/FOM, member of the European Magnetic Field Laboratory (EMFL) and by EPSRC (UK) via its membership to the EMFL (grant no. EP/N01085X/1). The authors would like to acknowledge the use of the University of Oxford Advanced Research Computing (ARC) facility in carrying out part of this work. Work done at Ames Lab was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Science, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering. Ames Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11358. AIC acknowledges an EPSRC Career Acceleration Fellowship (EP/I004475/1).
Appendix I. Calculation of magnetic breakdown orbits
====================================================
As the the DFT+U calculated Fermi surface of CeZn$_{11}$ is rather complicated, there are a multitude of potenetial magnetic breakdown tunnelling points located throughout the Brillouin zone. Calculating an infinite number of orbits is obviously impossible, and even an intermediate number of orbits will be computationally intensive – each additional tunnelling point exponentially increases the number of orbits – and gratuitous – only a small number of additional orbits are seen experimentally. However further constraints can be placed on the orbits calculated, these are shown pictorially in Figure \[CeZn11\_allowedorbits\]. In an applied field the electrons will all process in the same direction (i.e. clockwise or anti-clockwise, depending on the geometry) around the fundamental orbits, and this must also be the case for the magnetic breakdown orbits.
![[**Possible and impossible magnetic breakdown orbits in CeZn$_{11}$**]{}, shown for a slice centered on $[0\,0\,0]$ for the field orientation ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$. Arrows denote the direction of electronic motion for the field direction indicated.[]{data-label="CeZn11_allowedorbits"}](Fig8.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Therefore the orbit of Figure \[CeZn11\_allowedorbits\]a) is allowed – the electrons travel in the same direction for all constituent parts of the orbit – but the orbit of Figure \[CeZn11\_allowedorbits\]b) is not. Furthermore band 4 is unlikely to contribute to any observable magnetic breakdown orbits: its fundamental frequencies are for the most part not observed due to their comparatively larger masses, and any magnetic breakdown orbits arising from these frequencies would be of even smaller amplitude. For this reason the orbit of Figure \[CeZn11\_allowedorbits\]c) is unlikely to be experimentally observable, and so all similar orbits involving band 4 are discounted. Finally, the probability of an orbit occuring decreases with every tunnelling point passed, whether or not a tunnelling event occurs. Therefore orbits encompassing a large number of tunnelling points, such as that shown in Figure \[CeZn11\_allowedorbits\]d), are highly improbable, and the amplitudes of the associated frequencies will be vanishingly small; these can also be neglected in calculations.
Figure \[CeZn11\_slices\] shows slices of the Fermi surface normal to the high symmetry directions $[1\,0\,0]$ and $[1\,1\,0]$, where the bands are in closest proximity. Points where tunnelling may be possible between bands are marked with an **x**. In the simplest cases, such as slice d), the tunnelling points link two orbits of the Fermi surface that are well separated from the rest. The magnetic breakdown of these orbits will lead to two or three additional frequencies, of comparable size to the parent orbits. However a more complicated case is presented in slice c), where tunnelling via band 1 is able to link orbits of band 2 in adjacent Brillouin zones, allowing for the construction of a potentially infinite number of possible orbits. In slice a), where all parts of the Fermi surface are interconnected by tunnelling points, things are even more complicated still.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Figures \[CeZn11\_breakdownorbits\]a),c) and b),d) show the magnetic breakdown orbits calculated, with the prior constraints applied, for the orientations ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$ and ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$ respectively. The frequency values and associated breakdown fields are given beneath, with the orbits seen experimentally marked in red and bolded. Most of the orbits found have reassuringly low breakdown fields, in the range $22\,\mathrm{T}<B_{BD}<39\,\mathrm{T}$, compared to a maximum measured field of $33\,\mathrm{T}$. The exceptions to this are the orbits between band 2 and band 3 shown in Figure \[CeZn11\_breakdownorbits\]a), which take values of $B_{BD}=120\,\mathrm{T}$ and $291\,\mathrm{T}$ for the outer and inner tunnelling points respectively. These same orbits also showed the largest discrepancy with their measured frequency values, so it is likely that in reality bands 2 and 3 take a slightly modified form at this orientation, both lowering $B_{BD}$ and better matching the experimental frequencies.
Not all the calculated breakdown orbits are seen, most notably those shown in Figure \[CeZn11\_breakdownorbits\]b) and c). In the latter case the high breakdown field, $B_{BD}=124\,\mathrm{T}$, is likely prohibitive; in the former case the high frequency ($5389\,\mathrm{T}$) and effective mass ($1.12\,m_e$) will damp the amplitude of oscillation. The few frequencies in Figure \[CeZn11\_breakdownorbits\]a) and d) that are not clearly seen experimentally all occur in the proximity of other frequencies, either of fundamental or breakdown origin, making them difficult to distinguish.
Appendix II. Other temperature dependence of dHvA oscillations in LaZn$_{11}$ and CeZn$_{11}$.
==============================================================================================
This section present additional figures of the temperature dependence of dHvA oscillations in LaZn$_{11}$ and CeZn$_{11}$. The results are compared with the results of DFT calculations for different field orientations and the extracted parameters are listed in the Tables below. Possible magnetic breakdown orbits for the CeZn$_{11}$ are also listed and they can explain the additional high frequencies of weak amplitude observed for CeZn$_{11}$ as compared with LaZn$_{11}$.
![[**Further temperature dependence of dHvA oscillations in LaZn$_{11}$.**]{} (Top) Oscillatory component of torque, (bottom left) the corresponding FFTs and (bottom right) LK fits to the temperature dependence of the oscillation amplitude for the labelled peaks, for measurements close to [**a)**]{} ${\bf B} \parallel [0\,0\,1]$ and [**b)**]{} ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$ between $2$ - $25\,\mathrm{K}$.[]{data-label="LaZn11_temp"}](Fig11.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
![[**Further temperature dependence of dHvA oscillations in CeZn$_{11}$.**]{} (Top) Oscillatory component of torque, (bottom left) the corresponding FFTs and (bottom right) LK fits to the temperature dependence of the oscillation amplitude for the labelled peaks, for measurements close to [**a)**]{} ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,1\,0]$, with only the magnetic breakdown peaks shown, and [**b)**]{} ${\bf B} \parallel [1\,0\,0]$, with the conventional orbits and magnetic breakdown orbits shown, between $0.3$ - $8\,\mathrm{K}$.[]{data-label="CeZn11_temp"}](Fig12.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
------------ ----- ---------------- --------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- ---------
$F$ $m^*$ $F$ $m_b$ $F$ $m^*$ $F$ $m_b$
$(\mathrm{T})$ $(m_e)$ $(\mathrm{T})$ $(m_e)$ $(\mathrm{T})$ $(m_e)$ $(\mathrm{T})$ $(m_e)$
$\beta_1$ 1 205(5) 0.29(1) - -
$\beta_2$ 1 235(5) 0.23(1) 263 0.15
$\alpha_1$ 2 - - 39 0.18 25(5) 0.10(1) 36 0.11
$\alpha_2$ 2 65(5) 0.20(1) 47 0.23 - - 320 0.33
2 - - 3849 0.29 - - 3499 0.81
$\alpha_3$ 2 710(5) 0.38(1) 606 0.20
$\gamma_1$ 3 635(10) 0.53(4) 731 0.56
3 - - 3849 0.29 - - 3930 1.58
$\gamma_2$ 3 3880(10) 2.39(2) 4087 1.37
- 4 - - 188 0.27
- 4 - - 255 0.82 - - 261 0.75
------------ ----- ---------------- --------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- ---------
------------ ----------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- ---------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- ---------
$F$ $m^*$ $F$ $m_b$ $F$ $m^*$ $F$ $m_b$
$(\mathrm{T})$ $(m_e)$ $(\mathrm{T})$ $(m_e)$ $(\mathrm{T})$ $(m_e)$ $(\mathrm{T})$ $(m_e)$
$\beta_1$ 1 260(10) 0.76(2) 251 0.21
$\beta_2$ 1 300(10) 0.97(3) 297 0.18 - - 298 0.12
$\alpha_1$ 2 - - 35 0.09 - - 32 0.08
$\alpha_2$ 2 55(5) 0.77(3) 55 0.14 50(10) 0.71(4) 51 0.10
$\alpha_3$ 2 - - 72 0.11 170(5) 0.68(2) 218 0.29
$\alpha'$ 2 1730(10) 1.55(4) 1516 0.82 3730(10) 1.66(5) 3683 0.72
$\gamma$ 3 3880(10) 2.39(2) 4087 1.37 3865(10) 1.28(4) 3953 1.38
- 4 - - 136 2.39 - - 122 1.38
$\delta$ 4 170(10) 0.98(3) 217 0.75 170(5) 0.68(2) 169 0.27
- 4 - - 740 1.93
Magnetic breakdown orbits
530(10) 0.95(3) - - 385(10) 0.61(2) - -
745(10) 1.7(1) 893 0.84 445(5) 1.15(3) 508 0.02
1420(10) 1.57(3) 1353 0.86 885(10) 1.40(2) - -
3655(10) 2.36(9) 3477 1.34 960(10) 1.43(2) 941 0.38
4035(10) 2.29(9) 4227 1.46 1225(5) 0.87(2) 1666 0.48
2450(10) 1.56(3) 2308 0.66
5275(10) 1.59(8) 5640 1.13
6620(10) 2.24(9) 6282 0.94
7835(20) 2.37(4) 8179 0.68
9100(10) 1.97(9) 9867 0.26
------------ ----------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- ---------- ---------------- --------- ---------------- ---------
\[CeZn11\_MassTable\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a practical $S$-matrix to potential inversion procedure for coupled-channel scattering. The inversion technique developed is applied to non-diagonal $S^J_{ll''}$ for spin one projectiles, yielding a tensor interaction and is also applicable to spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ plus spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ scattering. The method is a generalization of the iterative-perturbative, IP, method. It is tested and evaluated and we investigate the degree of uniqueness of the potential, particularly for cases where there is insufficient information to define the potential uniquely. We examine the potentials which result when the $S$-matrix is generated from a $T_{\rm P}$ interaction. We also develop the generalisation, using established procedures, of IP $S$-matrix-to-potential inversion to direct observable-to-potential inversion. This ‘direct inversion’ procedure is demonstrated to be an efficient method for finding a multi-component potential including a interaction fitting multi-energy $\sigma$, ${\rm i}T_{11}$, $T_{20}$, $T_{21}$ and $T_{22}$ data for the scattering of spin-1 nuclei from spin-zero target. It is applicable to other channel spin 1 cases.'
address: |
$^{\dag}$Physics Department, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, U.K.\
$^{\ddag}$Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University, Moscow 119899, Russia.
author:
- 'S.G. Cooper$^{\dag}$, V.I. Kukulin$^{\ddag}$, R.S. Mackintosh$^{\dag}$ and V.N. Pomerantsev$^{\ddag}$'
title: |
An inversion procedure for coupled-channel scattering:\
determining the deuteron-nucleus tensor interaction.
---
Introduction
============
Various methods for carrying out $S$-matrix to potential inversion are now available, see for example [@chadan; @balaton], but, until recently, it has been possible only for cases with channel-spin zero or 1/2. However, there have been many accurate experiments involving spin-one polarised particles and these provide a powerful motivation to develop an efficient technique for inversion in cases with higher channel spin, i.e. coupled-channel scattering. With such a technique, one can exploit the very large volume of polarisation data which has accumulated. This includes vector and tensor analysing powers and polarisation transfer observables.
Over the years, we have developed a practical and widely generalisable procedure, the iterative perturbative, IP, method [@early; @kalinin; @ketal1; @zuev; @candm] and we recently [@prl] demonstrated an extension to spin-1 projectiles for the first time. Ref. [@prl] demonstrates the method in one specific application, but does not give details or a derivation of the method. In this paper we present details of our extension of the IP $S$-matrix to potential inversion method to the coupled-channel case of spin-1 projectiles and present further evaluation of it. We also test and evaluate an important extension of the IP method, single step data-to-potential inversion for coupled-channel scattering.
In Ref. [@prl] we applied single step inversion to analyse real data. We note here that there are also many ways in which IP $S\rightarrow V$ inversion can contribute to understanding nucleus-nucleus interactions. Perhaps the most obvious application is the inversion of $S$-matrix elements found by phase shift analysis of experimental data. However, there are also many important applications which involve the inversion of theoretical $S$-matrix elements, i.e. elastic channel $S$ derived from coupled channel calculations, Glauber model and resonating group model calculations. The potential found in this way contains information concerning the contribution of tensor components to dynamic polarization and exchange processes to inter-nuclear potentials. For the particular case of spin-polarised deuteron and $^6$Li scattering, obvious applications include the study of the influence of reaction channels and distortion effects on the projectile-nucleus potential, especially in its non-central components. There are a number of longstanding puzzles relating to spin-polarised deuteron scattering, including the anomalously small real part of the tensor interaction, which can be studied using these methods.
Coupled-channel inversion represents a significant development in inversion techniques since a non-diagonal potential is derived from a non-diagonal $S$-matrix. Such a potential couples channels of the same conserved quantum numbers but different values of orbital angular momentum. Spin-1 inversion is therefore the first example of coupled channel inversion in which a non-diagonal $S$-matrix is made to yield a non-diagonal potential. Apart from the general derivation, the present paper is framed for a very specific two-channel case: deuterons scattering from a spin zero nucleus with inversion determining a tensor interaction involving the non-diagonal operator $T_{\rm R}$ as given below. In spite of the rather specific nature of the present application, we believe this work opens the way to a fully general class of coupled-channel inversion situations involving the determination of a coupling potential from a non-diagonal $S$-matrix.
This paper presents in detail only those aspects of the IP inversion formalism which are connected with the specific coupled channel generalisation to spin-1 scattering. In other respects it calls upon previous publications [@ketal1; @zuev; @candm] in which the general aspects of the IP inversion procedure are described. Because of the specific application to spin-1 projectiles, we establish our notation by beginning in Section II with a brief review of basic aspects of spin-1 scattering.
An important feature of the IP $S\rightarrow V$ inversion procedure is the natural way in which it can be convoluted with $
{\rm (data)} \rightarrow S$ fitting to give an overall ${\rm (data)} \rightarrow V$ algorithm. This provides a new and efficient data analysis tool which in many cases obviates the need for independent ${\rm (data)} \rightarrow S$ inversion. Important advantages follow when fitting data for many energies since the underlying potential model guarantees that the energy dependence of the $S$-matrix will be smooth without the need to postulate parameterized forms for $S(E)$. Indeed, we have shown [@prl58] that ${\rm (data)} \rightarrow V$ inversion can provide a powerful alternative method for phase shift fitting of multi-energy scattering data for light nuclei.
Ref. [@prl] contained a restricted analysis of low energy $\vec{\rm d}$ + $^4$He data. A future paper will present a much more exhaustive analysis of the very large collection of data for this system. At a later stage we hope to present an analysis of $^6\vec{\rm Li} + ^4$He data, including tensor analysing powers.
The scattering of spin-1 nuclei from spin-0 targets
===================================================
Formalism for spin-1 scattering
-------------------------------
In order to establish our notation, we outline the standard formalism for the elastic scattering of spin-1 projectiles from a spin-0 target in the presence of tensor forces. The key feature introduced by the tensor interaction of type (see below for a classification of tensor forces) is that it couples channels of different orbital angular momentum $l$. Specifically, for particular values of the conserved quantities $J$, the total angular momentum, and $\pi$, the parity, whenever $\pi = (-1)^{J+1}$, then two values of orbital angular momentum, $l=J-1$ and $J+1$, are coupled by .
For total angular momentum $J$ and orbital angular momentum $l'$ the radial wavefunction $\psi^J_{l'l}$ satisfies the coupled equations, $$\left[ \frac{{\rm d}^2}{{\rm d} r^2} + k^2 -\frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}(l'J|V|l'J)
-\frac{l'(l'+1)}{r^2}
\right] \psi^J_{l'l}(k,r)
= \sum_{l'' \ne l'} \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}(l'J|V|l''J) \psi^J_{l''l}(k,r)
\label{eq:cde}$$ where $\mu$ is the reduced mass of the system and $(l'J|V|l''J)$, a function of $r$, is the matrix element of the inter-nuclear interaction $V$ integrated over all angular and internal degrees of freedom. The second subscript, $l$, on $\psi$ identifies the incoming orbital angular momentum. This is determined by imposing on the solution of the coupled equations, the following asymptotic boundary conditions : $$\psi^J_{l'l}(k,r) \rightarrow \delta_{l'l} I_{l'}(kr) - S^J_{l'l} O_{l'}(kr).
\label{eq:boundary}$$ Here, $I_l(r)$ and $O_l(r)$ are the incoming and outgoing asymptotic Coulomb radial wavefunctions, often written $H_l(r)^{*}$ and $H_l(r)$ respectively as in Satchler [@satchlerbook], namely: $$I_l(kr)=G_l(kr)-{\rm i} F_l(kr);\qquad I_l(kr)=G_l(kr)-{\rm i} F_l(kr);$$ where $F_l$ and $G_l$ are regular and irregular Coulomb wavefunctions respectively. Note that the boundary conditions given in Eq. \[eq:boundary\] differ by a factor from those adopted by Satchler. Where there is no ambiguity, we suppress the $J$ superscript. When $\pi= (-1)^J$, $V$ is diagonal and Eq. \[eq:cde\] is uncoupled.
In general, $S$ will not be unitary, but will be subject to the unitarity limits: $|S_{11}|^2 + |S_{12}|^2 \le 1$ and $|S_{22}|^2 + |S_{21}|^2 \le 1$, where, of course $S_{12}=S_{21}$. These limits present no particular problem for $S \rightarrow V$ inversion where $S$ can be assumed to satisfy them, but they can represent a significant problem in the case of data to potential inversion, see Section \[datatp\].
The $T_{\rm R}$ interaction and its effect. {#matrixele}
-------------------------------------------
Non-diagonal matrix elements $(l'J|V|l''J)$ occur in Eqn. \[eq:cde\] for elastic scattering of spin-1 projectiles with certain types of tensor force. The possible forms of local tensor interaction have been classified by Satchler [@satchler; @satchlerbook] who defined , $T_{\rm L}$ and $T_{\rm P}$ interactions. The $T_{\rm L}$ interaction is believed [@stamp] to be very small, at least below 50 MeV/u, and is in any case diagonal in $l$. The $T_{\rm P}$ interaction could well be substantial [@andy] but appears to be hard to distinguish phenomenologically from . The gradient operators within $T_{\rm P}$ make calculations harder, and the present inversion method does not apply to it.
### The operator
In this work we assume that the inter-nucleus potential $V$ contains a tensor force component of form [@satchlerbook]: $${\mbox{$T_{\rm R}$}}V_R(r) \equiv ({\bf (s\cdot \hat{r})^2} -2/3) V_R(r).
\label{eq:tensor}$$
We quote the matrix elements of the interaction for future reference. The diagonal matrix elements of are:
$l=J-1$ $l=J$ $l=J+1$
-------------------------------- --------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------------------------
$<Jl|{\mbox{$T_{\rm R}$}}|Jl>$ $-\frac{1}{3} \frac{J-1}{2J+1}$ $ \frac{1}{3}$ $ -\frac{1}{3}\frac{J+2}{2J+1}$
and the non-diagonal matrix elements are: $$<J\, J-1|{\mbox{$T_{\rm R}$}}|J\, J+1> = <J\, J+1|{\mbox{$T_{\rm R}$}}|J\, J-1> =
\frac{[J(J+1)]^{1/2}}{2J+1} \label{eq:diagTR}.$$
### The radial form of the interaction
The derivation of $ V_R(r)$ from the folding model has been discussed at length long ago by Keaton and his colleagues [@kaprc8; @kav; @keaton] and also by Raynal [@raynalpl]. Within the folding model, the deuteron interaction arises directly from the D-state component. The overall general success of folding models for central and spin-orbit interactions suggests that folding model calculations of $ V_R(r)$ should give at least approximately the correct radial form and overall magnitude, but this has not been borne out in the case of according to extensive phenomenological studies, e.g.[@frickprl; @clementzphys; @frickzphys; @matoba; @ermer]. The overall conclusion is that the real part of $ V_R(r)$ predicted by the folding model is much too strong for heavy nuclei, of the right order of magnitude for light target nuclei, and actually about three times too strong for a $^4$He target.[^1] These facts, together with a large literature discussing breakup and reaction channel contributions, suggest that we have no generally applicable reliable knowledge of $V_R(r)$. There is reason to doubt even the general arguments, based on folding models, that it should be small in the interior of heavier nuclei, away from the nuclear density gradients in the surface. Such gradients define the angle between the projectile spin ${\bf s}$ and the vectorial position ${\bf r}$ of the projectile with respect to the nuclear centre, see Eq. \[eq:tensor\].
$S \rightarrow V$ inversion for spin-1 projectiles on spin-0 targets
====================================================================
General background of IP inversion
----------------------------------
The IP method has been successful for $S_{lj} \rightarrow V(r) + {\bf l \cdot s} V_{\rm so}(r)$ inversion for spin half projectiles, and we now present its generalisation to spin-1 inversion. The only restriction is to a tensor interaction. Certain features of the IP method, to our knowledge not shared by other inversion methods, will be of particular importance in the particular systems to which we shall apply spin-1 inversion. These include the ability to find an explicitly energy dependent potential from phase shifts for a range of energies, the ability to handle a range of energies simultaneously and to include Majorana terms for all potential components. For many applications the important property is that mentioned in the introduction, i.e. that IP inversion lends itself to direct observable to potential inversion. This not only avoids the need for independently determined phase shifts (or $S$-matrix), but actually provides an advantageous method of determining such phase shifts. For a full description of IP inversion as applied in the spin-1/2 case see Refs.[@ketal1; @zuev; @candm]. The formalism presented in Ref.[@candm], whereby energy dependent potentials are obtained from multi-energy datasets, can be used with spin-1 inversion as described here, although energy dependence is not actually exploited in the test cases. A brief general account of IP inversion is given in the next section.
IP inversion for the coupled channel case; application to spin-1 {#ipinv}
----------------------------------------------------------------
Our notation must reflect the fact that the outcome of inversion will be a potential with many components. We therefore label each component with an index $p$ which identifies central, spin-orbit or tensor terms, each real or imaginary. The number of components doubles when the potential is parity dependent. (Parity dependence is particularly important for light nuclei at lower energies.)
The IP method commences with a ‘starting reference potential’, SRP, and proceeds by iteratively correcting each component $p$ of the potential: $$V^{(p)} \rightarrow V^{(p)} + \sum_n \alpha^{(p)}_n v^{(p)}_n(r) \label{first}$$ where $\alpha^{(p)}_n$ are coefficients to be determined and $v^{(p)}_n(r)$ are the functions comprising the ‘inversion basis’, (which, if required, can be chosen differently for different $p$). The amplitudes $\alpha^{(p)}_n$ are determined at each iteration from linear equations, based on an SVD algorithm, which successively reduce the ‘phase shift distance’ $\sigma$ defined by: $$\sigma^2 = \sum |S^{\rm t}_k - S^{\rm c}_k|^2 \label{sigma}.$$ For each partial wave $k$, $S^{\rm t}_k$ is the ‘target’ $S$-matrix and $S^{\rm c}_k$ is for the potential at the current iteration. Here the label $k$ is a single index which identifies the partial wave angular momentum $l$ as well as the energy $E_i$ when multi energy sets of $S_l(E_i)$ are simultaneously inverted. It also includes non-diagonal elements of $S^J_{ll'}$ in the spin-1 case described later.
The linear equations are based on the (usually) very linear response [@ketal1; @daresbury], $\Delta S$, of the complex $S$-matrix to small changes $\Delta V$ in the potential. The expression for this is well known in the uncoupled case and is very simple: $$\Delta S_l = \frac{{\rm i} m }{\hbar^2 k}
\int_0^{\infty} (\psi_l(r))^2 \Delta V(r) {\rm d}r.
\label{second}$$ In Eq.\[second\], the $S$-matrix $S_l$ is written in terms of the asymptotic form of the regular radial wave function as $\psi_l(r)
\rightarrow I_l(r) - S_l O_l(r)$ where $I_l$ and $O_l$ are incoming and outgoing Coulomb wave functions as before. When inverting $S_l(E_k)$ over a series of energies $E_k$, the energy label $E_k$ is implicit in these equations with index $k$ subsumed with orbital angular momentum $l$ to give an overall channel label. In the case of spin-1/2, the $j$ label is also subsumed in the same way [@candm]. Linear algebraic equations for local variations of $\alpha^{(p)}_n $ follow from the minimisation of $\sigma^2$, [@early; @kalinin; @ketal1].
We now present the generalized linear response relationship which applies to the non-diagonal $S$-matrix for spin-1 elastic scattering. The derivation is given in Section \[derivation\]. For any given set of conserved quantum numbers, certain channels will be coupled by the nucleus-nucleus interaction and we use labels $\kappa, \lambda, \mu, \nu$ for these channels. Thus the matrix element of the nucleus-nucleus interaction $V$ between the wavefunctions for channels $\kappa$ and $\lambda$, corresponding to integrating over all coordinates but $r$, will be written $V_{\kappa\lambda}(r)$. The increment $\Delta S_{\kappa\lambda}$ in the non-diagonal S-matrix which is due to a small perturbation $\Delta V_{\kappa\lambda}(r)$, is$$\Delta S_{\kappa\lambda} = \frac{{\rm i}\mu}{\hbar^2 k}
\sum_{\mu\nu}\int_0^{\infty}\psi_{\mu\kappa}(r) \Delta V_{\mu\nu}(r)
\psi_{\nu\lambda} {\rm d}r \label{integ}$$ where $\psi_{\nu\kappa}$ is the $\nu$th channel (first index) component of that coupled channel solution for the unperturbed non-diagonal potential for which there is in-going flux in channel $\kappa$ (second index) only. The normalisation is $\psi_{\nu\kappa} \rightarrow \delta_{\kappa\nu} I_{l_{\kappa}} - S_{\nu\kappa}
O_{l_{\nu}}$ where $I_l$ and $O_l$ are incoming and outgoing Coulomb wavefunctions for orbital angular momentum $l$; there is no complex conjugation in the integral. Starting from Eq.\[integ\], spin-one inversion becomes a straightforward generalisation of the procedure outlined above and described in Refs. [@ketal1; @zuev; @candm]. The method is implemented in the code IMAGO [@imago] where the linearity relations have been exhaustively tested by the gradient method.
A convenient feature of the IP method is that one can judge from the behaviour of $\sigma^2$ as the iteration proceeds whether a satisfactory inversion has been achieved. A low value of $\sigma^2$ obviously guarantees that a potential closely reproducing the input $S_l$ has been found. Because the IP method is implemented interactively, there is an opportunity to examine the potential for oscillatory features. These might well be spurious and result from over-fitting noisy data. In such a case, one can reduce the basis dimensionality or raise the SVD limit and this generally allows one to achieve a smooth potential, often with only a small increase in $\sigma^2$. One must bear in mind that genuine oscillatory features, corresponding to non-locality in an $L$-independent local potential or to $L$-dependence of the underlying potential, can be necessary to achieve a precise representation of $S_{lj}$ or $S^J_{l'l}$.
We stress here that, although the context of our discussion is the determination of a tensor interaction from the non-diagonal $S$-matrix elements describing the scattering of spin-1 projectiles, the range of application is much more general.
### Derivation of non-diagonal perturbation expression. {#derivation}
We now outline the derivation of Eq.\[integ\]. The derivation can be applied to the general coupled channel inversion from non-diagonal $S$-matrix to non-diagonal potential. Our starting point is Eq.\[eq:cde\] which we shall write with a simplified notation for two channels. Until the last step in the argument, we shall assume we are using units in which $\hbar^2/2m =1$.
The radial wavefunctions in channel $i$ with incoming waves in channel $\lambda$ are written as $\psi_{i\lambda}$ and have asymptotic behaviour at $r\to\infty$: $$\psi_{i\lambda} \rightarrow \delta_{i\lambda}I_{\lambda} - S_{\lambda i}
O_{i}$$ where for simplicity we write $O_i$ for the outgoing Coulomb wavefunction with orbital angular momentum $\ell$ appropriate to channel $i$, and similarly for the ingoing wavefunction $I_{i}$. For brevity we omit labels for conserved quantum numbers $J$ and $\pi$.
Absorbing the centrifugal interaction within the potential, we can write the coupled equations for the radial wavefunctions appropriate to incoming waves in channel $\lambda$ as:
$$\psi_{i\lambda}'' =
\sum_j (V_{ij} -E\delta_{ij})\psi_{j\lambda}, \qquad i=1,2.
\label{eq:one}$$
In the case considered here, $V_{ij}$ with $i\ne j$ arises entirely from the tensor interaction, the matrix $V_{ij}$ being symmetric. Now, denoting by $\bar{\psi}$ the wavefunction arising from a (symmetric) perturbation in the potential $V_{ij}\rightarrow V_{ij} + \Delta V_{ij}$, we can write: $$\bar{\psi}_{i\lambda}'' = \sum_j (V_{ij} +\Delta V_{ij}
-E\delta_{ij})\bar{\psi}_{j\lambda}, \qquad i=1,2.
\label{eq:two}$$ Multiplying Eq.\[eq:one\] by $\bar{\psi}_{i\mu}$ and Eq.\[eq:two\] by $\psi_{i\mu}$, summing over $i$ and then subtracting the second one from the first one, we get: $$\sum_i \frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}r}(\psi_{i\lambda}'
\bar{\psi}_{i\mu} -\bar{\psi}_{i\lambda}'\psi_{i\mu}) =
-\sum_{ij} \psi_{i\mu}\Delta V_{ij} \bar{\psi}_{j\lambda},
\label{eq:three}$$ as all terms including $V_{ij}$ in the right hand side vanish due to symmetry of $V_{ij}$.
Integrating Eq.(\[eq:three\]) from $r=0$ to the asymptotic region and using the usual Wronskian relationship $W[I_{\ell},O_{\ell}] = -2 {\rm i} k$, we get: $$2 {\rm i} k (\bar{S}_{\mu\lambda} - S_{\lambda\mu})=
\sum_{ij}\int_0^{\infty}\psi_{i \mu} \Delta V_{ij} \bar{\psi}_{j \lambda}
{\rm d} r.
\label{eq:four}$$ Since the coupled channel equations with a symmetrical potential matrix give a symmetrical $S$-matrix $S_{\lambda\mu} = S_{\mu\lambda} $, the left hand side of Eq.(\[eq:four\]) is equal $$2 {\rm i} k (\bar{S}_{\mu\lambda} - S_{\mu\lambda})=
2 {\rm i} k \Delta S_{\mu\lambda}$$ Hence we find, reinstating the $2m/\hbar^2$ factor on the right hand side: $$\Delta S_{\lambda \mu} = \frac{{\rm i} m}{\hbar^2 k} \sum_{ij}\int_0^{\infty}
\psi_{i \lambda} \Delta V_{ij} \bar{\psi}_{j \mu} {\rm d} r.
\label{eq:delS}$$ This expression is valid for any symmetrical finite perturbations $\Delta V_{ij}$ decreasing at $r\to\infty$ sufficiently rapidly. It is easily extended to any system of coupled-channel equations. For small $\Delta V_{ij}$ we make the Born approximation assumption that $\bar{\psi} \sim \psi$ and get: $$\Delta S_{\lambda \mu} = \frac{{\rm i} m}{\hbar^2 k} \sum_{ij}\int_0^{\infty}
\psi_{i \lambda} \Delta V_{ij} \psi_{j \mu} {\rm d} r.
\label{eq:dS}$$ The expression (\[eq:dS\]) is the basis for the coupled-channel inversion method. The success of the inversion method in leading to a converged solution confirms the wide applicability of this equation in each step of our iteration process.
Testing couple-channel $S \rightarrow V$ inversion for spin-1 projectiles
=========================================================================
We carried out two contrasting tests of $S \rightarrow V$ inversion as described in Sections \[firsttest\] and \[multi\] below. First let us define the potentials and the inversion basis.
Specification of the interaction potential and basis used {#specs}
---------------------------------------------------------
In one respect our notation is non-standard. We write down the complete potential for spin-1 projectiles scattering from a spin-zero target. It is $$V_{\rm cen}(r) + {\rm i} W_{\rm cen}(r) + V_{\rm coul}(r) + \\
2{\bf l \cdot s}(V_{\rm so} + {\rm i}W_{\rm so}) + (V_{\rm R} +
{\rm i}W_{\rm R})T_{\rm R}
\label{eq:defpot}$$ where $V_{\rm coul}(r)$ is the usual hard-sphere Coulomb potential. Note that our spin-orbit potentials $ V_{\rm so}$ and $W_{\rm so}$, are defined in such a way that they will be half the magnitude of those defined according to the usual convention [@satchlerbook] for spin-1 projectile.[^2] For the test cases we present, the spin-orbit potential is defined as in Eq. \[eq:defpot\].
For notational simplicity, Eq. \[eq:defpot\] has not been written to reflect parity dependence. There are two alternative methods of representing parity dependence. The code IMAGO can apply either of these to each of the components in Eq. \[eq:defpot\] except $V_{\rm coul}$. The first representation defines Wigner and Majorana components for each term, say $V_{\rm x}$: $$V_{\rm x} = V_{\rm x, W} + (-1)^l V_{\rm x, M}$$ where $l$ is the partial wave angular momentum. With this form the inversion procedure can be made to determine $V_{\rm x, W}$ and $V_{\rm x, M}$ for any or all $V_{\rm x}$. An alternative approach is to determine independent positive or negative parity components for $V_{\rm x}$. In many cases, the Wigner-Majorana representation is most natural and has been shown [@kuk-new] to be preferable where the odd parity term may otherwise be ill-determined. However, sometimes the odd-even representation is more appropriate, for example where a particular $V_{\rm x}$ has completely different shapes and magnitudes for the different parities, as we believe can be the case for $V_{\rm R}$. The code IMAGO offers the freedom to represent the parity dependence of each component $V_{\rm x}$ in either way.
The IP method is not tied to any particular set of functions for the inversion basis and each component of the potential can be represented by a different basis. It is an important feature of the IP method, as implemented in IMAGO, that a range of different functions is available, and those which we have applied are specified in [@imago]. Zeroth order Bessel functions and harmonic oscillator functions are both linearly independent sets which have proven useful where bases of large dimensionality are necessary to describe a potential over a wide radial range down to $r=0$. For cases involving light nuclei, particularly for inversion of small $S$-matrix datasets, a small basis comprising a series of Gaussian functions is preferable. A Gaussian basis covering just the nuclear surface region is also useful for heavy ion cases where there is no information available to determine the potential in the nuclear interior. It is important that a basis should not be chosen which would describe the potential over a radial range, or to a degree of detail, which is not warranted by the information contained in the set {$S_l$} or by the nature of the physical situation. In practice, much smaller bases are often necessary in order to eliminate spurious oscillatory features from the potentials. The operation of the SVD algorithm, with adjustable SVD limit, stabilises the inversion and can, where appropriate, reduce the effective dimensionality of the inversion basis.
Single-energy inversion {#firsttest}
-----------------------
In Ref. [@prl] we presented a test of $S \rightarrow V$ for deuterons scattering from the light nucleus $^4$He in which there is very little absorption. Here we present a test for a much heavier nucleus, where there is substantial absorption, and demonstrate that a potential, very accurate almost to the nuclear centre, can be obtained by inversion. The test case studied was for a $^{58}$Ni target and deuterons at a laboratory energy of 56 MeV. The parameters found by Hatanaka [*et al*]{} [@hatanaka] fitting angular distributions and the analyzing powers $A_y$ and $A_{yy}$ were used. A notable feature of the potential was that the imaginary $T_{\rm R}$ term was quite large, but the real $T_{\rm R}$ term was very small (a common but unexplained feature of deuteron optical potentials.) The spin-orbit component was real. The potential was parity independent as expected for this combination of target, projectile and energy. The energy and other characteristics of the reaction are such that there are ‘many’ active partial waves. ‘Many’ here means sufficient, even with $S^J_{l'l}$ for a single energy, to yield a precise reproduction of the potential.
The test was carried out as follows: one of the authors applied the optical model parameters of Hatanaka [*et al*]{} to the standard spin-1 scattering code DDTP [@ddtp], reading out the $S$-matrix onto a file. A second author, knowing only the target and the energy, then applied IMAGO to find the potential from these $S$-matrix elements. The inversion was carried out with a starting potential which contained only real and imaginary central potential components. These were guessed from general systematics without specific knowledge of Hatanaka’s potential. Since with IMAGO there is complete freedom to choose the starting potential and inversion basis, it is worthwhile to test the inversion method starting with no more information about the potential than might be available in a ‘for real’ case.
When a converged solution was found, the potentials obtained were compared with the known potentials with results shown in Figure 1. The solid lines represent the ‘target’ potential, i.e. the potential from which the $S$-matrix was calculated using DDTP. The short dashes represent the potential found by inversion; it can be seen to reproduce the target potential very closely except very near to the nuclear centre in the case of the imaginary tensor component. We have not shown the real tensor component which was only a few percent of the imaginary component nearly everywhere. This small component was reproduced only qualitatively, as expected, since the absolute errors for the real and imaginary $T_{\rm R}$ components were similar in magnitude and comparable to the real $T_{\rm R}$ potential itself. In Figure 1, the dashed line represents the starting potential, zero for the spin-orbit and tensor components. The $S$-matrix elements for the target and inverted potentials are indistinguishable on a graph, corresponding to values of $\sigma$ of roughly $10^{-3}$.
This test shows that the inversion procedure has the capability of revealing quite fine details of the potential as would be required for the kind of applications, discussed in the introduction requiring the inversion of single energy $S$ derived from theory. Such studies might establish, for example, the contribution of specific exchange terms or reaction couplings to the inter-nucleus potential.
Multi-energy inversion at very low energy {#multi}
-----------------------------------------
At low energies and for light target nuclei, very few partial waves are involved so that there will in general be insufficient information contained in the $S$-matrix elements for a single energy to yield a detailed and precise potential. The situation is even worse in cases where parity dependence must be assumed since this halves the information available for potential components of each parity. The problem can be ameliorated if $S$ is available for more than one energy. If $S$ is available over a narrow range of energies, then the algorithm can be made to yield to an energy independent potential; this is what we have earlier called ‘mixed case’ inversion (see Refs. [@ketal1; @zuev] and first of Ref. [@candm]) and, in effect, the information from the energy derivative of $S$ is exploited. In many cases, $S_{lj}$ or $S^J_{l'l}$ are provided over a wide range of energies. In this case one should ideally consider the potential to be energy dependent and determine the energy dependence itself. This can be done within the framework of the parameterisations presented above.
An example of where the sets of $S_{lj}$ or $S^J_{l'l}$ are too small to define the potential very closely is the $S\rightarrow V$ inversion situation embedded in the analysis of low energy, experimentally determined, multi-energy observables for d + alpha scattering. A first report was presented in Ref. [@prl]. The test we now describe is directly relevant and asks the following question: what properties of the potential can reliably be determined from very small sets of $S$?
The test was for deuterons scattering from $^4$He with $S^J_{l'l}$ calculated from a known potential at 11 energies: 8, 8.5 …12.5, 13 MeV. The known potential was energy independent but parity dependent and was taken to be real. (The imaginary parts of empirical potentials are known to be small for d + $^4$He at these energies.) The following terms were included: central Wigner, central Majorana, spin-orbit Wigner and separate even parity and odd parity $T_{\rm R}$ tensor potentials (the odd/even choice for $T_{\rm R}$ reflects what we believe [@prl] to be the case for the actual d + $^4$He tensor force.) The central and spin-orbit terms are like those found in Ref. [@prl], and the very large even parity tensor term is based on that of Dubovichenko [@dubo98], see also [@kuk-new].
The inversion was effectively ‘mixed case’ in the sense just described. The starting potential was zero in all components except for the Wigner real central and Wigner real spin-orbit terms. In keeping with the nature of this test, the very small inversion basis of Ref.[@prl] was used. This has two Gaussians only for each component except the central components for which there were three. The centres and widths of the Gaussians were not varied during the inversion.
The ‘target’ (known) and inverted potentials are shown in Figure 2, together with the starting potential required by the IP method. The starting potential is the dot dashed line, non-zero for two components only, and corresponding to $\sigma = 10.552$ where $\sigma$, defined in Section \[ipinv\], is summed over the 11 energies. The inverted potential is shown as the dotted line, and the ‘target’ potential, from which $S^J_{l'l}$ was calculated, is the full line. We see that the qualitative features are reproduced although less well for the small components and near the nuclear centre. The value of $\sigma$ for the potential shown in the dotted line was $0.135$ which is reasonable for a low energy multi-energy case. For 10.5 MeV, this corresponds to $S^J_{l'l}$ for the target and inverted potentials being indistinguishable on a graph apart from one single term: the phase angle of the non-diagonal part of $S^J_{l'l}$ for higher partial waves for which, in any case, the magnitude $|S^J_{l'l}|,\,\, l\ne l',\,$ is very small. The tensor potential, having very different odd and even parity components, is as well reproduced as could be expected with the very small basis. Note that the starting potential for the inversion has zero tensor terms. From the matrix elements of $T_{\rm R}$ given in Section \[matrixele\], we see that $l=0$ partial waves are ineffective and hence we cannot expect to reproduce the tensor real term $V_{\rm R}$ at $r=0$.
In summary: we found that the qualitative properties of the potential were reliably reproduced, particularly for the larger components. Thus, reliable statements about the general features of d + $^4$He potentials can be made, but nothing can be asserted concerning non-central interactions for $r < 0.5$ fm.
Inverting $S^J_{l'l}$ calculated with a $T_{\rm P}$ tensor interaction.
=======================================================================
The inversion technique which we have described is limited to a tensor force of the $T_{\rm R}$ type. Since there exist processes which are expected to lead to $T_{\rm P}$ forces, the possibility must be faced that data analysed using the data-to-$V$ extension of the inversion method, which is described in Section \[datatp\], will indeed involve a $T_{\rm P}$ tensor interaction. It is therefore relevant to ask, in the context of $S\rightarrow V$ inversion: can we invert $S^J_{l'l}$ calculated with a $T_{\rm P}$ tensor interaction with a potential which has only a $T_{\rm R}$ tensor interaction? If so, to what extent does inversion yield valid central and spin-orbit components?
There is further interest in knowing how well the general effects of a $T_{\rm P}$ interaction can be represented by a $T_{\rm R}$ potential. The properties and even existence of a $T_{\rm P}$ interaction have not yet been convincingly linked to experiment since the consequences of the two kinds of interaction are difficult to distinguish phenomenologically. This was discussed by Goddard [@goddard] who compared $S^J_{l'l}$ and the observables calculated from a $T_{\rm R}$ interaction with the corresponding quantities calculated from a particular $T_{\rm P}$ interaction devised in such a way that, according to semi-classical arguments, it would be very similar in effect.
We study these questions by exploiting the equivalent pairs of tensor potentials introduced by Goddard. We first inverted $S^J_{l'l}$ for 30 MeV deuterons scattered from $^{56}$Fe with a $T_{\rm R}$ potential and then inverted $S^J_{l'l}$ derived from the potential containing that $T_{\rm P}$ interaction which is ‘equivalent’ in Goddard’s sense. The two potentials are given in Table 1 of Ref. [@goddard].
The first part of the test showed that inversion of $S^J_{l'l}$ for a known $T_{\rm R}$ still works very well at about half the energy of the test described in Section \[firsttest\]. The results were very similar: the $T_{\rm R}$ potential, which in this case is of a volume Woods-Saxon form with depth 5 MeV, is accurately reproduced even at the nuclear centre. The solid and (scarcely distinguishable) dashed lines in Figure 3 respectively represent Goddard’s original potential and that found by inversion. The $S^J_{l'l}$ for the inverted potentials, including the non-diagonal terms, are indistinguishable on a graph from those for the original potentials.
The dotted lines in Figure 3, show the inversion for Goddard’s $T_{\rm P}$ case. The non-tensor components are qualitatively well reproduced, the derived potentials having the appearance of the target potentials but with superimposed oscillations. This waviness is relatively more significant for the small components, the real central potential being reproduced to within a few percent for all $r$. The $T_{\rm R}$ interaction found by inversion is now surface peaked in form but of average depth comparable to that of the Woods-Saxon (which however had a local momentum dependence, see [@goddard]). The [*diagonal*]{} $S^J_{l'l}$ for target and inverted potentials are graphically indistinguishable, as are $\arg S^J_{l'l}$ for $l\ne l'$ for low values of $J$. However the non-diagonal $S$-matrix was not well reproduced for $J>7$, for which partial waves the non-diagonal $|S^J_{l'l}|$ is very small. The value of $\sigma$ was much higher than for the $T_{\rm R}$ case, i.e. 0.0294 compared with 0.00589.
The results presented graphically in Figure 3 can be quantified in terms of the volume integrals and rms radii for the central and spin-orbit components of the inverted potentials. For the $T_{\rm R}$ case, all of these quantities were reproduced to a few parts in a thousand with the (small) volume integral of the spin-orbit term being least accurate: the error was 0.7 %. The errors for the non-tensor components found when inverting Goddard’s $T_{\rm P}$ potential were a few percent, the volume integral of the spin-orbit term again being least accurate with an error of 3.8 %.
Goddard also performed an identical comparison for the case of 13.0 MeV deuterons scattering from $^{46}$Ti, and we repeated the test just described for this case. There is interest in doing this since the inversion algorithm applied to $ S^J_{l'l}$ for a single energy is expected to fail at lower energies for reasons explained in Section \[multi\]. However, we find that the results for 13 MeV deuterons on $^{46}$Ti are essentially the same as for 30 MeV deuterons on $^{56}$Fe for both $T_{\rm R}$ and $T_{\rm P}$ interactions. The form of the $T_{\rm R}$ potential representing the actual $T_{\rm P}$ component was essentially the same as that shown for 30 MeV in the bottom panel of Figure 3 and this similarity applies also to the deviations of the non-tensor terms. It therefore appears that we have found general properties of the $T_{\rm R}$ potential representing an actual $T_{\rm P}$ potential.
As a result of these tests, and noting that $T_{\rm P}$ interactions are not predicted to be particularly large, we conclude:
1. The existence of processes of the kind which give rise to a $T_{\rm P}$ component will not prevent this inversion procedure, which includes only $T_{\rm R}$ tensor interactions, from fitting $S^J_{l'l}$ and is unlikely to greatly falsify inversions of this kind, particularly with regard to the non-tensor components. IP spin-1 inversion as described here is thus not fatally undermined by the possible existence of $T_{\rm P}$ interactions. The effort needed to develop spin-1 inversion including $T_{\rm P}$ interactions require greater motivation than exists at present.
2. As Goddard suggested, almost all the effects of such a potential can be well represented by a $T_{\rm R}$ tensor interaction, although its relationship to the form of the $T_{\rm P}$ interaction is, as might be expected, more complicated than can be deduced from simple semi-classical arguments [@goddard]. The phenomenological problem of establishing $T_{\rm P}$ interactions is still considerable.
Data to potential inversion for spin-1 projectiles {#datatp}
==================================================
In what follows, we first briefly indicate how $S\rightarrow V$ inversion is extended to ${\rm (data)} \rightarrow V$ inversion for the uncoupled case, then indicate how this is extended to include coupling, as is required for spin-1 scattering.
Data to potential inversion for uncoupled situation {#dtopunco}
---------------------------------------------------
For clarity we suppress spin-related subscripts and begin by recasting Equation \[second\], using Equation \[first\], as [@early; @ketal1; @candm]: $$\frac{\partial S_l}{\partial \alpha^{(p)}_n} =
\frac{{\rm i} m }{\hbar^2 k}\int_0^{\infty}
(\psi_l(r))^2 v^{(p)}_n(r)
{\rm d}r. \label{third}$$ We now introduce a conventional $\chi^2$ function: $$\chi^2 = \sum^N_{k=1} \left(\frac{\sigma_k-\sigma_k^{\rm in}}
{\Delta \sigma_k^{\rm in}} \right)^2 +
\sum_n \sum^M_{k=1} \left(\frac{P_{kn}-P_{kn}^{\rm in}}
{\Delta P_{kn}^{\rm in}} \right)^2 \label{fourth}$$ where $\sigma_k^{\rm in}$ and $P_{kn}^{\rm in}$ are the input experimental values of cross sections and analyzing powers of type $n$ ($\sigma$, ${\rm i}T_{11}$, etc.) respectively. When fitting data for many energies at once, the index $k$ indicates the angle and also the energy. Data re-normalising factors can be introduced as an additional contribution to Equation \[fourth\].
We must now expand $\chi^2$ in terms of the $\alpha^{(p)}_n$. To do this we first linearize the calculated cross sections and analyzing powers, by expanding $\sigma_k$ (and $P_{kn}$) about some current point $\{ \alpha^{(p)}_n(i) \}$ (see Ref.[@zuev]): $$\sigma_k = \sigma_k(\alpha^{(p)}_n(i)) + \sum_{j,l} \left(
\frac{\partial \sigma_k}{\partial S_l(E_k)}\frac{\partial S_l(E_k)}
{\partial \alpha^{(p)}_n}\right)_{\alpha^{(p)}_n(i)}
\Delta \alpha^{(p)}_n,
\label{new}$$ which applies at each iterative step $i =0, 1, 2,$…and the correction (to be determined) for the $n$-th amplitude is $\Delta \alpha_n^{(p)}
=\alpha^{(p)}_n - \alpha^{(p)}_n(i)$. Equivalent relations are applied for the $P$’s.
Linear equations result from demanding that $\chi^2$ is locally stationary with respect to variations in the potential coefficients $\alpha_n^{(p)}$, i.e. the derivatives of $\chi^2$ with respect to the potential components $\alpha_n^{(p)}$ must vanish. Solving these linear equations is straightforward for any reasonable number of them and yields corrected values $\alpha^{(p)}_n(i)$. We then iterate the whole procedure, with wave-functions $\psi_l$ in Equation \[third\] calculated using the corrected potentials from Equation \[first\], until convergence is reached. This algorithm almost always converges very rapidly, in general diverging only when highly inconsistent or erroneous data have been used or when the iterative process involves a very unsuitable starting point. Multi-energy ${\rm (data)}\rightarrow V$ inversion is thus reduced to the solution of simultaneous equations in a series of iterative steps.
Generalisation to spin-1
------------------------
Spin-1 ${\rm (data)}\rightarrow V$ inversion is a natural generalisation of the above formalism with $S_l$ replaced by $S^J_{l'l}$ and Eq. \[third\] replaced by the analogous form derived from Eq.\[integ\]. It is shown in Ref. [@prl] that the system does indeed converge to a potential which fits the observables.
Evaluation of ambiguities for spin-1 ${\rm (data)}\rightarrow V$ inversion {#direct}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tests of ${\rm (data)}\rightarrow V$ inversion must reflect the way it will be applied; this is rather different than for $S \rightarrow V$ inversion. With the latter, one often has quite precise $S$ calculated from a theory, and one then seeks quite precise and subtle properties of $V$, often relating to modifications of the theory. Inversion from measured observables is different because the data are generally far from complete and will contain statistical and, possibly, systematic errors. For this reason, we must be less ambitious concerning the details of the potential to be extracted. The test therefore ask the following question: for a situation with few active partial waves, how well-determined can we expect the potential to be?
As in $S\rightarrow V$ inversion, one must never attempt to establish details of the potential for which the input data carries no information. We must therefore apply the smallest possible inversion bases and accept approximate solutions. The penalty for excessive inversion basis dimensionality is the occurrence of spurious oscillatory features. In effect, at low energies where the data is incomplete and featureless (reflecting the small number of partial waves), the goal of ${\rm (data)}\rightarrow V$ inversion is to find the smoothest potential compatible with the data. IP inversion affords a level of control in this respect that is not possible with other inversion procedures.
The test we describe is for low energy $\vec{\rm d}$ + $^4$He scattering. The results will be useful for interpreting previous fits to experimental data for this system. The following observables, $\sigma$, ${\rm i}T_{11}$, $T_{20}$, $T_{21}$ and $T_{22}$, were calculated at laboratory energies of 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 MeV using the same purely real, energy independent potential used in Section \[multi\]. Apart perhaps from the extremely strong ‘Dubovichenko-type’ tensor interaction, very strongly peaked at $r=0$, the general features of this potential are, we believe, similar to those of potentials which fit actual experimental data. This energy range is somewhat above the broad 2$^+$ resonances and the region of strong mixing between the 1$^+$ channels. The observables were evaluated for the six energies over a range of 20$^0$ to 170$^0$ CM, at intervals of one degree, and Gaussian noise was added as follows. For $\sigma$, 1% errors were imposed. For ${\rm i}T_{11}$, the errors were 2% of the maximum magnitude and for the three tensor observables, 5% of the maximum magnitude.
We then applied ${\rm (data)}\rightarrow V$ inversion to this multi-energy dataset, seeking a single energy independent potential. Following Section \[multi\] and Ref. [@prl], the inversion bases for the Wigner and Majorana real central components consisted of three Gaussian functions. For the other components there were just two Gaussians. As in Section \[multi\], the starting potential was zero in all but the Wigner real central and Wigner real spin-orbit components. The results are shown in Figure 4 where we compare the known (‘target’) potential (solid lines), the chosen starting potential of the iterative method (dash-dotted lines, two components only), and two inverted potentials, shown as dashed and dotted lines. The dashed lines show the potential found after a first sequence of iterations and correspond to $\chi^2/F = 15.473$ where $F$, the number of degrees of freedom, was $\sim 4500$. This number arises since we seek simultaneous fits to five observables at six energies and 150 angles. The effective number of parameters is $\sim$twelve. At this stage the reproduction of the larger components of the potential is fair, but the tensor terms are poor, with the even parity real tensor term being still almost zero. The corresponding fit to the model data is indicated by the set of dashed lines in Figure 5. The fit is of a quality which would be widely regarded as quite good when fitting experimental data, with only $T_{22}$, and perhaps $T_{20}$ around 120 degrees, fitted poorly. The quality of fit to $T_{21}$ is remarkable in view of the very poor reproduction of the tensor interaction.
A subsequent further set of iterations led to an almost perfect fit with $\chi^2/F = 1.2155$. Figure 4 shows that the potential, dotted, fits all parts of the potential except at quite small radii. In particular, the even parity real tensor is perfectly fitted for $r>1$ but not fitted at all for $r<1$. This is in accord with arguments given in Section \[multi\]. As expected from the values of $\chi^2/F$, the fits to the 10 MeV dataset, shown as dotted lines in Figure 5, are essentially perfect, being scarcely visible over the angular range of the artificial data. The same potential simultaneously fits the observables for the other five energies comparably well. We conclude that we could not expect to establish the various components of the potential to a higher degree of accuracy than shown in Figure 4 by fitting available experimental data. It is very salutary to see, in Figure 4, the profound change in the nature of the tensor interaction which follows the improvement of the fit revealed in Figure 5, comparing dashed and dotted lines. The intermediate inversion, dashed lines in Figure 5, represents a fit of a quality which is often deemed acceptible when fitting experimental data. We note without further comment that the desirability of pursuing the best possible phenomenological fits is sometimes called into question.
It should be noted that the computing time required on a modern workstation to carry out the direct inversion of the data is very modest, and certainly much less than required to carry out a model independent optical model search, particularly one involving odd and even parity $T_{\rm R}$ components and about 4500 degrees of freedom.
In Ref.[@prl58] we discussed the application of direct inversion of data as a method for phase shift analysis. It is therefore of interest to see the quality of fit to $S^J_{l'l}$ which corresponds to the two fits shown in Figure 5. The top three panels of Figure 6 show the phase shifts corresponding to the $l=J-1,\,\, l=J,\,\, l=J+1$ diagonal components of $S$, and the bottom panel presents half the argument of the non-diagonal $S$. The solid lines show the known potential, the dashed line is for the $\chi^2/N= 15.473$ fit and the solid line is for the $\chi^2/N = 1.2155$ fit. For two of the panels, the solid and dash-dot lines are nearly indistinguishable but they are clearly distinguishable in the other two, suggesting that there are limits to phase shift determination even when over some 4000 data are fitted with $\chi^2/N = 1.2155$.
We conclude that direct inversion is a practical, reliable and efficient means of determining a local potential which represents large, multi-energy datasets including tensor observables. The example presented here indicates the extent to which the results obtained by this method are meaningful at low energies where few partial waves are involved.
Summary and conclusions; survey of possible applications
========================================================
We have presented details of an inversion procedure which can be applied both to spin-1 projectiles scattering from a spin-0 target nucleus and to spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ plus spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particle scattering. The non-diagonal $S^J_{l'l}$ yield a non-diagonal potential containing a tensor term. To our knowledge, this is the first time this has been achieved, and opens up the possibility of wide range of other inversion scenarios ranging from other channel spin-1 cases (such as p + $^3$H scattering) to the inversion of $S$-sub-matrices of higher dimensionality. There are many other capabilities inherent in the underlying IP method: these include the possibility of inverting $S^J_{l'l}$ for several energies leading directly to an energy dependent potential, including bound state energies within the input data, and the ability to handle cases where parity dependence must be allowed for.
In this paper we have presented tests of IP $S\rightarrow V$ spin-1 inversion and evaluated its performance in ‘difficult’ cases. We showed that when there are sufficient active partial waves, the procedure yields very accurate potentials even quite near the nuclear centre. Where, on the other hand, there are few partial waves available to define each potential component, as is typical with light nuclei at low energies and where the potential is parity dependent, it is still possible to extract the qualitative features of a potential.
We also addressed the fact that the method is at present limited to $T_{\rm R}$ tensor interactions although it is quite probable that processes leading to $T_{\rm P}$ interactions are active. We showed that $S^J_{l'l}$ arising from $T_{\rm P}$ interactions can be fitted quite well with a $T_{\rm R}$ tensor interaction and that, moreover, this does not lead to serious errors in the non-tensor components of the potential.
The IP inversion algorithm also forms the basis of a very efficient alternative way to find a multi-component local potential which fits elastic scattering data, particularly for multi-energy datasets. This is the direct (observable) $ \rightarrow V$ inversion procedure in which the IP $S \rightarrow V$ inversion is embedded. This ‘direct inversion’ can be applied to spin-1 projectiles. We examined the ambiguity problems which arise in a ‘difficult’ (i.e. few partial waves, parity dependence) test case which is relevant to the evaluation of an analysis of low energy $\vec{\rm d}$ + $^4$He scattering, the subject of a recent [@prl] and an extended future publication. Known potentials can be very well re-fitted, but it is clear that the non-central terms cannot be well established at the nuclear centre. In the course of performing this inversion test, it became apparent that fits of widely accepted quality lead to tensor potentials which have nothing in common with those determined by pursuing ‘perfect fits’.
Finally, we remark that the method we have demonstrated here is certainly not limited in usefulness to deuteron scattering. It would certainly be worthwhile applying it the elastic scattering data for halo nuclei when these are of sufficiently substantial information content.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are most grateful to the UK EPSRC for grants supporting S.G. Cooper, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 97-02-17265) for financial assistance and to the Royal Society (UK) for supporting a visit by V.I. Kukulin to the UK. We thank Jeff Tostevin for sending us Goddard’s deuteron scattering code DDTP.
K.Chadan and P.C. Sabatier, ‘Inverse Problems in Quantum Scattering Theory’ 2nd Ed. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989) ‘Inverse and algebraic quantum scattering theory’, Ed. Apagyi [*et al*]{}, [*Lecture Notes in Physics; Vol. 488*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997) R.S. Mackintosh and A.M. Kobos, Phys. Lett. [**116B**]{}, 95 (1982); A.A. Ioannides and R.S. Mackintosh, Nucl. Phys. [**A438**]{}, 354 (1985). V.I. Kukulin and V.N. Pomerantsev, Solution of inverse scattering problem with account of incompleteness and errors in input data. In: ‘Microscopic methods in theory of few-body systems’ (ed. A.M. Gorbatov), Kalinin, 1988, v.I, p.104. V.I. Kukulin, V.N. Pomerantsev and J. Horaček, Phys. Rev. [**A 42**]{}, 2719 (1990); V.I.Kukulin and V.N.Pomerantsev, Yad. Fiz. [**51**]{}, 376(1990) (English translation: Physics of Atomic Nuclei, [**51**]{}, 240 (1990)); V.I.Kukulin and V.N.Pomerantsev, Yad. Fiz. [**60**]{}, 1228(1997) (English translation: Physics of Atomic Nuclei, [**60**]{}, 1103 (1997)). V.I. Kukulin, V.N. Pomerantsev and S.B. Zuev, Yad. Fiz., [**59**]{}, 428 (1996); English translation: Physics of Atomic Nuclei, [**59**]{}, 403 (1996). S.G. Cooper and R.S. Mackintosh, Phys. Rev. [**C 43**]{}, 1001 (1991); Nucl. Phys. [**A517**]{}, 285 (1990); Nucl. Phys. [ **A576**]{}, 308 (1994); Nucl. Phys. [**A582**]{}, 283 (1995); Phys. Rev. [**C 54**]{}, 3133 (1996) S.G. Cooper, V.I. Kukulin, R.S.Mackintosh and V.N. Pomerantsev, Phys. Rev. [**C59**]{}, 2361 (1999) S.G. Cooper, V.I. Kukulin, R.S. Mackintosh and E.V. Kuznetsova, Phys. Rev. [**C58**]{}, R31 (1998) G. R. Satchler, Direct Nuclear Reactions, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983). V.I. Kukulin, V.N. Pomerantsev, S.G. Cooper, and S.B. Dubovichenko, Phys. Rev. [**C 57**]{}, 2462 (1998) J.M. Blatt and L.C. Biedenharn, Phys. Rev. [**86**]{}, 399 (1952) G.R. Satchler, Nucl. Phys. [**21**]{}, 116 (1960) A.P. Stamp, Nucl. Phys, [**A159**]{}, 399 (1970) A.A. Ioannides and R.C. Johnson, Phys. Rev. [**C 17**]{}, 1331 (1978) P.W. Keaton, Jr. and D.D. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. [**C 8**]{}, 1692 (1973) P. W. Keaton, Jr., E. Aufdembrink and L.R. Veeser, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report No. LA-4379-MS, 1970 (unpublished) P. W. Keaton, Jr., Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report No. LA-6002, 1975 (unpublished) J. Raynal, Phys. Lett. [**29B**]{}, 93 (1969) R. Frick, H. Clement, G. Graw, P. Schiemenz and N. Seichert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**44**]{}, 14 (1980) H. Clement, R. Frick, G. Graw, P. Schiemenz and N. Seichert, Z. Phys. A - Atoms and Nuclei, [**314**]{}, 49 (1983) R. Frick, H. Clement, G. Graw, P. Schiemenz, N. Seichert and Sun Tsu-Hsun, Z. Phys. A - Atoms and Nuclei [**319**]{}, 133 (1984) M. Matoba, M. Hyakutake and I. Kumabe, Phys. Rev. [**C 32**]{}, 1773 (1985) M. Ermer, H. Clement, P. Grabmayr, G.J. Wagner, L. Friedrich and E. Huttel, Phys. Lett. [**188B**]{}, 17 (1987) R.S. Mackintosh and A.M. Kobos, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. [**5**]{},359 (1979) S.G. Cooper, Program IMAGO, Open University Report OUPD9201 (revised 1998) R.P. Goddard, code DDTP, described and specified in University of Wisconsin Report, 1997. Our version was supplied by J.A. Tostevin. K. Hatanaka, K. Imai, S. Kobayashi, T. Matsusue, M. Nakamura, K. Nisimura, T. Noro, H. Sakamoto, H. Shimizu and J. Shirai, Nucl. Phys. [**A 340**]{}, 93 (1980) S.B. Dubovichenko, Physics of Atomic Nuclei, [**61**]{}, 162 (1988). R.P. Goddard, Nucl. Phys. [**A291**]{}, 13 (1977)
[^1]: Ref [@prl] exploits the inversion formalism presented here to give an alternative analysis of d + $^4$He scattering, a theme elaborated in later papers.
[^2]: In our papers relating to spin 1/2 projectiles, the usual convention has been used.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove the mean curvature flow of the graph of a symplectomorphism between Riemann surfaces converges smoothly as time approaches infinity.'
author:
- 'Mu-Tao Wang [^1]'
date: 'Aug. 15, 2005'
title: A convergence result of the Lagrangian mean curvature flow
---
email: [email protected]
Introduction
============
Let $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ be two homeomorphic compact Riemann surfaces without boundary. We assume $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ are both equipped with Rimannian metrics of the same constant curvature $c$, $c=-1, 0,$ or $1$. Let $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ denote the volume or symplectic forms of $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$, respectively. The Riemannian product space $\Sigma_1
\times \Sigma_2$ is denoted by $M$. We take $\omega'=\omega_1-\omega_2$ to be the Kähler form of $M$ and $M$ becomes a Kähler-Einstein manifold with the Ricci form $Ric=c\omega'$. Let $\Sigma$ be the graph of a symplectomorphism $f:\Sigma_1\rightarrow \Sigma_2$, i.e. $f^*\omega_2=\omega_1$. $\Sigma$ can be considered as a Lagrangian submanifold with respect to the symplectic form $\omega'$.
The mean curvature flow deforms the initial surface $\Sigma^0=\Sigma$ in the direction of its mean curvature vector. Denote by $\Sigma^t$ the time slice of the flow at $t$. That $\Sigma^t$ remains a Lagrangian submanifold follows from a result of Smoczyk [@sm1]. The long-time existence and convergence problems of this flow were studied in [@sm2] and [@mu2].
In [@mu2], the author proved the long time existence of the flow and showed that $\Sigma^t$ for $t>0$ remains the graph of a symplectomorphism $f_t$. When $c=1$, the author proved the $C^\infty$ convergence as $t\rightarrow \infty$. However, only $C^0$ convergence was achieved in the case when $c=-1$ or $0$.
Independently, in [@sm2], Smoczyk studied the case when $c=-1$ or $0$ assuming an extra angle condition. He discovered a curvature estimate and showed that the second fundamental form is uniformly bounded under this condition, and thus established the long time existence and $C^\infty$ convergence at infinity.
In view of the above results, it is interesting to see whether the $C^\infty $ convergence of the flow does require the angle condition. In this paper, we show this assumption is unnecessary.
Let $(\Sigma_1, \omega_1)$ and $(\Sigma_2,\omega_2)$ be two homeomorphic compact Riemann surface of the same constant curvature $c=-1, 0,$ or $1$. Suppose $\Sigma$ is the graph of a symplectomorphism $f:\Sigma_1\rightarrow \Sigma_2$ as a Lagrangian submanifold of $M=(\Sigma_1\times \Sigma_2, \omega_1-\omega_2)$ and $\Sigma^t$ is the mean curvature flow with initial surface $\Sigma^0=\Sigma$. Then $\Sigma^t$ remains the graph of a symplectomorphism $f_t$ along the mean curvature flow. The flow exists smoothly for all time and $\Sigma^t$ converges smoothly to a minimal Lagrangian submanifold as $t\rightarrow \infty$.
The long time existence part was already proved in [@mu2]. The smooth convergence was established through a new integral estimate (Lemma 3.1) related to the second variation formula. This estimate is most useful when $c=-1 \,\text{or} \,0$. We remark the existence of such minimal Lagrangian submanifold was proved using variational method by Schoen [@sc] (see also Lee [@le]).
The author would like to thank Tom Ilmanen and Andre Neves for useful discussions.
Background material
===================
First we recall some formulas from [@mu2]. The restriction of the Kähler form $\omega'$ to $\Sigma^t$ gives a time-dependent function $\eta=*\omega'$. Since $\Sigma^t$ is Lagrangian, $*\omega'=2*\omega_1 $. $*\omega_1$ is indeed the Jacobian of the projection $\pi_1$ from $M$ to $\Sigma_1$ when restricted to $\Sigma$ and $\eta>0$ if and only if $\Sigma$ is locally a graph over $\Sigma_1$. $\eta$ satisfies the following evolution equation:
$$\label{eta}
\frac{d}{dt}\eta=\Delta \eta +\eta[2|A|^2-|H|^2]+c\eta(1-\eta^2)$$
along the mean curvature flow.
Notice that $0< \eta \leq 1$. By the equation of $\eta$ and the comparison theorem for parabolic equations, we get
$$\label{lowerbound}\eta(x,t)\geq \frac{\alpha e^{ct}} {\sqrt{1+\alpha^2
e^{2ct}}}$$
where $\alpha>0$ is given by $\frac{\alpha} {\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}} =\min_{\Sigma_0}\eta$. Therefore $\eta(x,t)$ converges uniformly to $1$ when $c=1$ and is nondecreasing when $c=0$. In any case, $\eta$ has a positive lower bound at any finite time and thus $\Sigma_t$ remains the graph of a symplectomorphism.
Using the fact that the second fundamental form for Lagrangian submanifold is a fully symmetric three tensor, one derives
$$|H|^2\leq \frac{4}{3}|A|^2.$$ Plug this into (\[eta\]) and we obtain
$$\frac{d}{dt}\eta\geq \Delta \eta
+\frac{2}{3}|A|^2\eta+c\eta(1-\eta^2)$$
In [@mu2], we apply blow-up analysis to this equation to show there exists a weak blow-up limit with vanishing $\int |A|^2$. This together with the lower bound of $\eta$ shows the limit is a flat space and White’s regularity theorem [@wh] implies the blow-up center is a regular point. This proves the long-time existence of the flow.
A monotonicity lemma
====================
In this section, we derive a new monotonicity formula. First $|H|^2$ satisfies the following evolution equation:
$$\label{H^2}{(\frac{d}{dt}-\Delta)}|H|^2=-2|\nabla H|^2+2\sum_{ij}(\sum_k H_k h_{kij})^2
+c(2-\eta^2)|H|^2$$
where the symmetric three-tensor $h_{ijk}$ is the second fundamental form and $H_k=h_{iik}$, the trace of the second fundamental form, is the component of the mean curvature vector after identifying the tangent bundle and the normal bundle through $J$.
We remark that both equations (\[eta\]) and (\[H\^2\]) are derived in Lemma 5.3 of [@sm2] where $p$ in [@sm2] and $\eta$ are related by $\eta^2=\frac{4}{p}$ and $S=2c$.
We claim the following differential inequality is true:
$$\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Sigma_t} \frac{|H|^2}{\eta}\leq c \int_{\Sigma_t} \frac{|H|^2}{\eta}$$
The proof is a direct computation by combining equations (\[eta\]) and (\[H\^2\]). We compute
$$\begin{split}\frac{d}{dt}\frac{|H|^2}{\eta}&=\frac{\eta \Delta
|H|^2-|H|^2\Delta \eta}{\eta^2} -2\frac{|\nabla
H|^2}{\eta}\\
&+\frac{2\sum_{ij}(\sum_k H_k
h_{kij})^2-2|H|^2|A|^2+|H|^4}{\eta}+c\frac{|H|^2}{\eta}.\end{split}$$
Now
$$\Delta \frac{|H|^2}{\eta}=\frac{\eta\Delta|H|^2-
|H|^2\Delta \eta}{\eta^2}-\frac{2\eta\nabla\eta(\eta
\nabla|H|^2-|H|^2\nabla \eta )}{\eta^4}.$$
We plug this into the previous equation and obtain
$$\begin{split}\frac{d}{dt}\frac{|H|^2}{\eta}&=\Delta \frac{|H|^2}{\eta}
+\frac{2\eta\nabla\eta(\eta \nabla|H|^2-|H|^2\nabla \eta
)}{\eta^4} -2\frac{|\nabla
H|^2}{\eta}\\
&+\frac{2\sum_{ij}(\sum_k H_k
h_{kij})^2-2|H|^2|A|^2+|H|^4}{\eta}+c\frac{|H|^2}{\eta}.\end{split}$$
Rearranging terms, we arrive at
$$\begin{split}\frac{d}{dt}\frac{|H|^2}{\eta}&=\Delta \frac{|H|^2}{\eta}
+\frac{4\eta|H|\nabla\eta \cdot \nabla|H|-2|\nabla
\eta|^2|H|^2-2\eta^2|\nabla H|^2}{\eta^3} \\
&+\frac{2\sum_{ij}(\sum_k H_k
h_{kij})^2-2|H|^2|A|^2+|H|^4}{\eta}+c\frac{|H|^2}{\eta}.\end{split}$$
Integrate this identity and we have $$\begin{split}\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Sigma_t} \frac{|H|^2}{\eta}&=\int_{\Sigma_t}\frac{4\eta |H|\nabla\eta \cdot \nabla|H|-2|\nabla
\eta|^2|H|^2-2\eta^2|\nabla H|^2}{\eta^3} \\
&+\int_{\Sigma_t}\frac{2\sum_{ij}(\sum_k H_k
h_{kij})^2-2|H|^2|A|^2}{\eta}+c\int_{\Sigma_t}\frac{|H|^2}{\eta}.\end{split}$$
We use $|\nabla |H||\leq |\nabla H|$ in the first summand on the right hand side and complete the square $$\frac{4\eta|H|\nabla\eta \cdot \nabla|H|-2|\nabla
\eta|^2|H|^2-2\eta^2|\nabla |H||^2}{\eta^3}=-2\frac{|\nabla \eta
|H|-\eta\nabla |H||^2 }{\eta^3}.$$ At last, we apply Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to the second summand and the differential inequality is proved.
Proof of the theorem
====================
The smooth convergence in the case when $c=1$, i.e. when $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ are both standard $S^2$, was proved in [@mu2].
We prove the $C^\infty$ convergence in the case $c=0$ and $c=-1$ in the following. By the general convergence theorem of Simon [@si], it suffices to show $|A|^2$ is bounded independent of time.
In the case when $c=0$, by (\[lowerbound\]), $\eta$ has a positive lower bound. We have
$$\label{H}\int_{\Sigma_t} |H|^2\leq
\int_{\Sigma_t}\frac{|H|^2}{\eta}\leq
K_1\int_{\Sigma_t}|H|^2$$
for some constant $K_1$.
Since $\int_0^\infty \int_{\Sigma_t} |H|^2 <\infty$, there exists a subsequence $t_i$ such that $\int_{\Sigma_{t_i}} |H|^2
\rightarrow 0$ and thus $\int_{\Sigma_{t_i}} \frac{|H|^2}{\eta}
\rightarrow 0$ as well. Because $\int_{\Sigma_t}
\frac{|H|^2}{\eta}$ is non-increasing, this implies $\int_{\Sigma_{t}} \frac{|H|^2}{\eta} \rightarrow 0$ for the continuous parameter $t$ as it approaches $\infty$. Together with (\[H\]) this implies $\int_{\Sigma_{t}}{|H|^2} \rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$. By the Gauss formula, $\int_{\Sigma_{t}}{|A|^2}=\int_{\Sigma_t}|H|^2 \rightarrow 0$. The $\epsilon$ regularity theorem in [@il] (see also [@ec]) implies $\sup_{\Sigma_t} |A|^2$ is uniformly bounded.
In the case when $c=-1$, we have
$$\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Sigma_t} \frac{|H|^2}{\eta}\leq -\int_{\Sigma_t}\frac{|H|^2}{\eta}$$ or
$$\int_{\Sigma_t} \frac{|H|^2}{\eta}\leq K_2 e^{-t}$$ for some constant $K_2$,
Since $\eta\leq 1$, we have $$\int_{\Sigma_t} {|H|^2}\leq K_2 e^{-t}.$$
This implies $\Sigma_t \rightarrow \Sigma_\infty$ in Radon measure. Indeed, for any function $\phi$ on $M$ with compact support, it is easy to see
$$\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Sigma_t} \phi=\int_{\Sigma_t}\nabla^M \phi
\cdot H+\int_{\Sigma_t} \phi |H|^2,$$ and thus
$$\int_{\Sigma_t} \phi\rightarrow \int_{\Sigma_\infty} \phi.$$ exponentially. Also the limit measure $\Sigma_\infty$ is unique.
The argument in [@mu2] shows the limit $\Sigma_\infty$ is smooth. It seems one can adapt the proof of the local regularity theorem of Ecker (Theorem 5.3) [@ec] or the original local regularity theorem of Brakke [@br] to get the uniform bound on second fundamental form. This does require versions of these theorem in a general ambient Riemannian manifold.
We circumvent this step by quoting a theorem in minimal surfaces. Suppose the second fundamental form is unbounded. The blow-up procedure in Proposition 3.1 of [@mu2] produces a limiting flow that exists on $(-\infty, \infty)$. The flow has uniformly bounded second fundamental form $A(x,t)$ and $|A|(0,0)=1$. It is not hard to see each slice is the graph of an area-preserving map from ${\mathbb R}^2$ to ${\mathbb R}^2$. Since $\int_{\Sigma_t} |H|^2\leq K_2
e^{-t}$, the limiting flow will satisfies
$$\int |H|^2\equiv 0$$ Therefore, we obtain a minimal area-preserving map. A result of Ni [@ni] generalizing Schoen’s theorem [@sc] shows this is a linear diffeomorphism. This contradicts to the fact that $|A|(0,0)=1$.
[99]{}
K. A. Brakke, *The motion of a surface by its mean curvature.* Mathematical Notes, 20. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1978.
K. Ecker, *Regularity theory for mean curvature flow.* Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, 57. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2004.
C. J. Earle and J. Eells, *The diffeomorphism group of a compact Riemann surface.* Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 73 1967 557–559.
T. Ilmanen, *Singularities of mean curvature flow of surfaces.* preprint, 1997.
Y.-I. Lee, *Lagrangian minimal surfaces in Kähler-Einstein surfaces of negative scalar curvature.* Comm. Anal. Geom. 2 (1994), no. 4, 579–592.
L. Ni, *A Bernstein type theorem for minimal volume preserving maps.* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 130 (2002), no. 4, 1207–1210.
R. Schoen, *The role of harmonic mappings in rigidity and deformation problems.* Complex geometry (Osaka, 1990), 179–200, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 143, Dekker, New York, 1993.
L. Simon, *Asymptotics for a class of nonlinear evolution equations, with applications to geometric problems.* Ann. of Math. (2) 118 (1983), no. 3, 525–571.
K. Smoczyk, *Der Lagrangesche mittlere Krümmungsfluß (The Lagrangian mean curvature flow).* Habilitation thesis (English with German preface), University of Leipzig, Germany (1999), 102 pages.
K. Smoczyk, *Angle theorems for the Lagrangian mean curvature flow.* Math. Z. 240 (2002), no. 4, 849–883.
M.-T. Wang, *Mean curvature flow of surfaces in Einstein four-Manifolds.* J. Differential Geom. **57** (2001), no. 2, 301-338.
M.-T. Wang, *Deforming area preserving diffeomorphism of surfaces by mean curvature flow.* Math. Res. Lett. 8 (2001), no.5-6, 651-662.
B. White, *A local regularity theorem for classical mean curvature flow.* preprint, 1999, revised 2002.
[^1]: The author is partially supported by National Science Foundation Grant DMS0104163 and DMS0306049 and an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The entropy production of a nonequilibrium system with broken detailed balance is a random variable whose mean value is nonnegative. Among the total entropy production, the housekeeping entropy production is associated with the heat dissipation in maintaining a nonequilibrium steady state. We derive a Langevin-type stochastic differential equation for the housekeeping entropy production. The equation allows us to define a housekeeping entropic time $\tau$. Remarkably, it turns out that the probability distribution of the housekeeping entropy production at a fixed value of $\tau$ is given by the Gaussian distribution regardless of system details. The Gaussian distribution is universal for any systems, whether in the steady state or in the transient state, whether they are driven by time-independent or time-dependent driving forces. We demonstrate the universal distribution numerically for model systems.'
author:
- 'Hyun-Myung Chun'
- Jae Dong Noh
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: Universal Property of the Housekeeping Entropy Production
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Recent developments of stochastic thermodynamics have made it possible to investigate thermodynamic properties of small-sized nonequilibrium systems [@Seifert:2012es]. In stochastic thermodynamics, thermodynamic quantities are defined at the level of a single trajectory realized by stochastic dynamics [@Sekimoto:1998uf]. Among them, the entropy production is of particular importance. The total entropy production consists of two contributions: change in the stochastic entropy of a system under consideration and the entropy production in the thermal environment surrounding the system [@Seifert:2005vb]. The entropy production turns out to be a measure of the extent to which the time-reversal symmetry is broken [@Schnakenberg:1976wb; @Lebowitz:1999tv; @Maes:2003tc; @Chun:2018bk].
The total entropy production is decomposed into two parts. A nonequilibrium steady state is accompanied by a heat dissipation resulting in an entropy production of the thermal environment. Such an entropy production to maintain a nonequilibrium steady state is called the housekeeping entropy production. The remaining part is called the excess entropy production [@Oono:1998uj; @Hatano:2001uc; @Lee:2013to]. While the housekeeping entropy production is associated with dissipation in a nonequilibrium steady state, the excess entropy production occurs due to extra dissipation during relaxation toward a steady state or transition between steady states. They are also interpreted as adiabatic and nonadiabatic parts, respectively, in the perspective of time-scale separation [@Esposito:2010bd].
The total entropy production exhibits intriguing universal properties. Recently, it was found that the probability distribution should satisfy the fluctuation theorem. It is a direct consequence of the relation between the total entropy production and the broken time-reversal symmetry of nonequilibrium system dynamics [@Lebowitz:1999tv; @Crooks:1999ta; @Seifert:2005vb]. The fluctuation theorem guarantees that the mean total entropy production should be nonnegative. Experimental results support the validity of the fluctuation theorem for various kinds of nonequilibrium systems [@Wang:2002hw; @Carberry:2004fk; @Wang:2005fe; @Wong:2017ge]. More recently, after a pioneering investigation of Barato and Seifert [@Barato:2015kq], it was found that the thermodynamic currents should obey the universal inequality called the thermodynamic uncertainty relation [@Gingrich:2016ip; @Gingrich:2017jm; @Pietzonka:2017iq; @Horowitz:2017ut; @Proesmans:2017ic; @Dechant:2018ga; @Dechant:2018vu]. The inequality reveals a trade-off relation between the current fluctuation and the total entropy production in a nonequilibrium steady state. Besides, extreme-value statistics of the total entropy production [@Neri:2017vs] and entropic bounds on currents based on the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality [@Dechant:2018wp] have been studied.
One of the most interesting recent investigations on the total entropy production in nonequilibrium steady state was performed by Pigolotti et al. [@Pigolotti:2017fs]. They derived a Langevin-type stochastic differential equation of the total entropy production. In the steady state, by introducing a so-called entropic time, the stochastic differential equation can be transformed into a universal form that does not depend on system details. As a consequence, the probability distribution of the total entropy production at a fixed entropic time is universally given by the Gaussian distribution. The mapping to the entropic time provides an elegant explanation for the origin of the universal properties of the total entropy production. However, it is limited to the steady state of nonequilibrium systems under time-independent driving forces [@Pigolotti:2017fs]. It raises a question whether the universal property can be found even in the transient state under the time-dependent driving forces. In this paper, we will show that the housekeeping entropy production has the universal property not only in the steady state but also in the transient state even under time-dependent driving forces.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:Theory\], we introduce a broad class of nonequilibrium thermodynamic systems described by the overdamped Langevin equation, and derive a stochastic differential equation for the housekeeping entropy production. Using the stochastic differential equation, we show that the housekeeping entropy production follows the universal distribution in Sec. \[sec:Shk\]. In Sec. \[sec:Examples\], we present numerical results for the model systems to demonstrate the theoretical results. We summarize our results in Sec. \[sec:Conclusion\].
Stochastic differential equation for the housekeeping entropy production {#sec:Theory}
========================================================================
We consider a multi-dimensional overdamped Langevin system in thermal contact with a heat bath at temperature $T$. The configuration is described by the column vector $\bm{x} = (x_1,\cdots,x_d)^{\rm T}$ for position variable with the superscript $^{\rm T}$ representing the transpose. The position variable may stand for the coordinates of a single particle in a $d$ dimensional space or those of $n$ particles in a $(d/n)$ dimensional space. The particle is applied to the force $$\label{total_force}
\bm{F}(\bm{x},\bm{\lambda}(t),\bm{\kappa}(t)) = -\bm{\nabla}_{\bm x}
V(\bm{x},\bm{\lambda}(t)) + \bm{f}(\bm{x},\bm{\kappa}(t)) ,$$ where the first term is a conservative force with a potential energy $V$ and the second term is a nonconservative force. Note that $\bm{\nabla}_{\bm x} = (\partial_{x_1},\cdots,\partial_{x_d})^{\rm T}$ denotes the gradient with respect to $\bm{x}$ and that the column vector notation is adopted for $\bm{F}$ and $\bm{f}$. In general, both forces may depend explicitly on time through sets of protocol parameters $\bm{\lambda}(t)
\equiv \{\lambda_1(t),\cdots,\lambda_p(t)\}$ and $\bm{\kappa}(t) \equiv \{\kappa_1(t),\cdots,\kappa_q(t)\}$. The Langevin equation is given by $$\label{eq:Langevin}
\dot{\bm{x}}(t) = \mathsf{M} \bm{F}(\bm{x}(t),\bm{\lambda}(t),\bm{\kappa}(t))
+ \bm{\xi}(t)$$ where $\mathsf{M}$ is the mobility matrix, $\bm{\xi}(t) = (\xi_1(t),\cdots,\xi_d(t))^{\rm T}$ is a Gaussian white noise satisfying $\langle \bm{\xi}(t)\rangle = 0$ and $\langle \bm{\xi}(t)\bm{\xi}^{\rm T}(t')\rangle = 2\mathsf{D}\delta(t-t')$ with a diffusion matrix $\mathsf{D}$. The mobility matrix and the diffusion matrix are symmetric and positive definite, and satisfy the Einstein relation $\mathsf{D} = T\mathsf{M}$ [@Risken:1996vl; @Zwanzig:2001vd]. They are assumed to be independent of $\bm{x}$ and $t$. We set the Boltzmann constant to unity throughout this paper. The Fokker-Planck equation corresponding to is given by [@Risken:1996vl; @Gardiner:2010tp] $$\label{eq:FK_equation}
\partial_t P(\bm{x},t;\bm{\lambda}(t),{\bm \kappa}(t))
= -\bm{\nabla}_{\bm x} \cdot \bm{J}(\bm{x},t;\bm{\lambda}(t),{\bm \kappa}(t))$$ with the probability current $$\label{eq:def_current}
\bm{J} = \mathsf{M} \bm{F}P - \mathsf{D} \bm{\nabla}_{\bm x} P.$$ For the sake of brevity, we omit arguments of functions unless it causes confusion.
The total energy $E$ of an overdamped Langevin system is given solely by the potential energy. When the protocol $\bm{\lambda}$ changes over time, the potential energy also changes. We define the net work $W$ done on the system as the sum of the potential energy change due to the protocol change and the work done by the nonconservative force, i.e., $W(t) = \int_0^{t} dt' \dot{W}(t')$ with $$\dot{W} = \sum_{\alpha=1}^p \dot{\lambda}_\alpha (\partial_{\lambda_\alpha}
V) + \dot{\bm{x}} \circ \bm{f}.$$ The heat dissipation is given by $Q(t)=\int_0^t dt' \dot{Q}(t')$ with [@Sekimoto:1998uf] $$\dot{Q} = \dot{\bm{x}} \circ \bm{F}.$$ The notation $\circ$ denotes the inner product in the Stratonovich sense [@Risken:1996vl; @Gardiner:2010tp]. The definitions of work and heat are consistent with the energy conservation law $\dot{E} = \dot{W} - \dot{Q}$.
The total entropy production $S_{\rm tot}(t) = S_{\rm sys}(t) + S_{\rm
env}(t)$ consists of the change in the stochastic entropy of a system ($S_{\rm sys}(t))$ and the entropy production in the heat bath ($S_{\rm
env}(t)$) [@Seifert:2005vb]. The stochastic entropy is defined by $s(t) = -\ln
P(\bm{x}(t),t;\bm{\lambda}(t),\bm{\kappa}(t))$, whose mean value is the Shannon entropy of the probability distribution function $P$ [@Seifert:2005vb]. The change in the stochastic entropy is then given by $S_{\rm sys}(t) = s(t)-s(0)$. The environmental entropy production is given by the Clausius form $S_{\rm
env}(t) = Q(t)/T$ [@Seifert:2005vb].
Recently, Pigolotti et al. derived a Langevin-type stochastic differential equation for the total entropy production [@Pigolotti:2017fs]. The resulting equation reveals the universal statistical property of the total entropy production in the nonequilibrium steady state. Due to the steady state condition, the theory applies only to systems driven by a time-independent force. We extend the theory in search for the universal property of general nonequilibrium systems even in the transient state under a time-dependent driving force.
The total entropy production can be divided into the housekeeping entropy production $S_{\rm hk}$ and the excess entropy production $S_{\rm ex}$. Each contribution satisfies the fluctuation theorem in the absence of an odd-parity variable, such as momentum, under the time reversal [@Esposito:2010bd; @Spinney:2012uw; @Lee:2013to]. When the protocol parameters $\bm{\lambda}$ and $\bm{\kappa}$ are fixed to constant values, the system ultimately relaxes to the corresponding nonequilibrium steady state. Maintaining the steady state, the system constantly dissipates the heat into the heat bath and produces the entropy. Such a contribution is called the housekeeping entropy production, while the rest is called the excess entropy production. Among them, we focus on the housekeeping entropy production. We describe below how it is defined in the single trajectory level. For more details, we refer readers to e.g. Refs. [@Speck:2005wp; @Esposito:2010bd].
Suppose that the position variable evolves along a trajectory $\bm{x}_0 \to \cdots \to \bm{x}_j \to \cdots \to \bm{x}_N$ with $\bm{x}_j = \bm{x}(t_j=j dt)$ and $dt = t/N$ while the protocols change as $\bm{\lambda}_0 \to \cdots \to \bm{\lambda}_j \to \cdots \to \bm{\lambda}_N$ with $\bm{\lambda}_j = \bm{\lambda}(t_j)$ and similarly for $\bm{\kappa}$. At each $t_j$, we can define the fictitious steady state distribution $P_{\rm ss}(\bm{x};\bm{\lambda}_j,\bm{\kappa}_j)$ to which the system would relax if the protocols were fixed to the values $\bm{\lambda}_j$ and $\bm{\kappa}_j$. It is given by the solution of $\partial_t P_{\rm ss} =
-\bm{\nabla}_{\bm x}\cdot {\bm J}_{\rm ss}(\bm{x};\bm{\lambda},\bm{\kappa}) = 0$ where $$\label{Jss}
{\bm J}_{\rm ss}(\bm{x};\bm{\lambda},\bm{\kappa}) = \mathsf{M}
\bm{F}(\bm{x},\bm{\lambda},\bm{\kappa}) P_{\rm
ss} - \mathsf{D} \bm{\nabla}_{\bm x} P_{\rm ss}$$ is the probability current in the fictitious steady state to given $\bm{\lambda}$ and $\bm{\kappa}$. The housekeeping entropy production is defined as [@Esposito:2010bd] $$\label{eq:def_Shk}
S_{\rm hk}
\simeq \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \ln \left[\frac{P_{\rm
ss}(\bm{x}_j;\bm{\lambda}_j,\bm{\kappa}_j) \Pi(\bm{x}_j \to
\bm{x}_{j+1};\bm{\lambda}_j,\bm{\kappa}_j)}
{P_{\rm ss}(\bm{x}_{j+1};\bm{\lambda}_j,\bm{\kappa}_j) \Pi(\bm{x}_{j+1} \to
\bm{x}_{j};\bm{\lambda}_j,\bm{\kappa}_j)} \right]$$ where $\Pi(\bm{x}\to\bm{x}';\bm{\lambda},\bm{\kappa})$ denotes the probability density of a transition from $\bm{x}$ to $\bm{x}'$ for given instant protocols $\bm{\lambda}$ and $\bm{\kappa}$. The equality in becomes exact in the limit of $N\to\infty$ with a fixed $t=Ndt$. The argument of the logarithm is identically equal to unity when the transition rates satisfy the detailed balance. Thus, the housekeeping entropy production measures the extent to which the detailed balance is broken. For the Langevin system described by , the housekeeping entropy production is given by [@Speck:2005wp] $$\label{eq:def_Shk2}
S_{\rm hk}(t)
= \int_0^t dt' ~ \dot{\bm{x}}(t') \circ
\frac{\mathsf{D}^{-1} \bm{J}_{\rm
ss}(\bm{x}(t');\bm{\lambda}(t'),\bm{\kappa}(t'))}
{P_{\rm ss}(\bm{x}(t');\bm{\lambda}(t'),\bm{\kappa}(t'))}.$$
Using the expression and the Langevin equation , one can obtain a Langevin-type stochastic differential equation for $S_{\rm hk}(t)$. First, we rewrite the expression for the housekeeping entropy production in terms of the It[ô]{} product instead of the Stratonovich product to obtain $$\frac{dS_{\rm hk}}{dt}
= \dot{\bm{x}}\cdot \frac{\mathsf{D}^{-1} \bm{J}_{\rm ss}}{P_{\rm ss}}
+ \bm{\nabla}_{\bm x} \cdot \left( \frac{\bm{J}_{\rm ss}}{P_{\rm ss}}
\right) .$$ Replacing $\dot{\bm{x}}$ with the right hand side of and using the property $\bm{\nabla}_{\bm x} \cdot \bm{J}_{\rm ss}=0$ of $\bm{J}_{\rm ss}$ in , one obtains that $$\label{eq:Langevin_Shk}
\frac{dS_{\rm hk}(t) }{dt}
= v(\bm{x}(t),\bm{\lambda}(t),\bm{\kappa}(t))
+ \sqrt{2v(\bm{x}(t),\bm{\lambda}(t),\bm{\kappa}(t))} \xi_{\rm hk}(t)$$ where $$\label{v_def}
v = \frac{\bm{J}_{\rm ss} \cdot ( \mathsf{D}^{-1}
\bm{J}_{\rm ss})}{P_{\rm ss}^2}$$ and $\xi_{\rm hk}(t)$ is the Gaussian white noise satisfying $\langle \xi_{\rm hk}(t) \rangle = 0$ and $\langle \xi_{\rm hk}(t) \xi_{\rm hk}(t') \rangle = \delta(t-t')$. The noise term is equal to $\bm{J}_{\rm ss} \cdot
(\mathsf{D}^{-1} \bm{\xi}(t))/P_{\rm ss}$ with the noise $\bm{\xi}(t)$ in the Langevin equation . It is a Gaussian white noise with the same statistical properties as $\sqrt{2v}\xi_{\rm hk}$. The inner product symbol $\cdot$ involving noise indicates It[ô]{} product throughout this paper.
Equation is the key result of this paper, from which one can discover the universal property of the housekeeping entropy production. Before proceeding further, it is worth comparing with the corresponding equation for the total entropy production considered in Ref. [@Pigolotti:2017fs]. The latter has the similar form to with an additional term $(-2\partial_t \ln P)$, where $v$ is defined in terms of the genuine probability distribution and the current $P$ and $\bm{J}$ instead of the fictitious steady state ones. In the steady state, which exists only when the protocols are time-independent constants, the additional term $(-2\partial_t \ln P)$ vanishes and the total entropy production satisfies with the constant $\bm{\lambda}$ and $\bm{\kappa}$. This comparison suggests that the housekeeping entropy production should display the universal statistical property even in the transient state under time-dependent driving forces.
Universal property of the housekeeping entropy production {#sec:Shk}
=========================================================
In this section, we explore the universal property of the housekeeping entropy production. The universal property is guaranteed by the form of the differential equation . We will follow the analysis in Ref. [@Pigolotti:2017fs] which was done for the total entropy production in the steady state.
The housekeeping entropy production is known to satisfy the integral fluctuation theorem $\left\langle e^{-S_{\rm
hk}(t)}\right\rangle = 1$ [@Hatano:2001uc; @Speck:2005wp]. It can be derived straightforwardly from the evolution equation . Consider a random variable $Y(t) \equiv e^{-S_{\rm hk}(t)}$ with $Y(0) =
e^{-S_{\rm hk}(0)}=1$. It satisfies $$\label{eq:Langevin_IFT}
\frac{dY}{dt} = -\sqrt{2 v} Y(t) \xi_{\rm hk}(t).$$ The ensemble average of the right hand side is identically zero due to the Itô calculus. Therefore, one has that $\langle
Y(t)\rangle = \langle Y(0) \rangle = 1$ at any $t$, which proves the integral fluctuation theorem.
In Eq. , the housekeeping entropy production has the deterministic part $v$ and the stochastic part $\sqrt{2v} \xi_{\rm
hk}$. Note that $v$ is deterministic in the sense that its value is fixed for a given position variable $\bm{x}$. Upon taking the ensemble average, the stochastic part $\langle \sqrt{2v} \xi_{\rm hk}\rangle$ vanishes in the Itô calculus. That is, the deterministic component $v$ determines the average rate of the housekeeping entropy production. Note that the deterministic part is nonnegative. Thus, it is useful to define a [*housekeeping entropic time*]{} $\tau$: $$\label{eq:def_tau_ss}
\tau(t) = \int_0^t dt' v(\bm{x}(t'),\bm{\lambda}(t'),\bm{\kappa}(t')).$$ It is a random variable depending on the stochastic trajectory of the system, whose mean is the average housekeeping entropy production. Due to the nonnegativity of $v$, the relation defines a one-to-one mapping between $t$ and $\tau$ for a given stochastic trajectory. Their differentials are related as $$\label{dtau}
d\tau = v(\bm{x}(t),\bm{\lambda}(t),\bm{\kappa}(t)) dt .$$
We now consider the evolution of $S_{\rm hk}$ in the housekeeping entropic time scale $\tau$. The differential form of is written as $$\label{dShk}
dS_{\rm hk} = v dt + d\mathcal{W}_{\rm hk}(t)$$ with the uncorrelated Gaussian distributed random variables $d\mathcal{W}_{\rm hk}(t)$ satisfying $\langle d\mathcal{W}_{\rm hk}\rangle = 0$ and $\langle
d\mathcal{W}_{\rm hk}^2\rangle = 2 v dt$. Combining and , one obtains $dS_{\rm hk} = d\tau +
\sqrt{2} d\tilde{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hk}(\tau)$ with the uncorrelated Gaussian distributed random variables $d\tilde{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hk}(\tau)$ satisfying $\langle
d\tilde{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hk}\rangle = 0$ and $\langle
d\tilde{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hk}^2\rangle = d\tau$. Equivalently, we obtain the Langevin-type equation $$\label{eq:Langevin_Shk_dimless}
\frac{dS_{\rm hk}(\tau)}{d\tau} = 1 + \sqrt{2}\eta(\tau),$$ where $\eta(\tau)$ is a Gaussian white noise satisfying $\langle \eta(\tau) \rangle = 0$ and $\langle \eta(\tau) \eta(\tau') \rangle = \delta(\tau-\tau')$. Therefore, the probability distribution of the housekeeping entropy production for a given $\tau$ is given by the Gaussian distribution $$\label{eq:Gaussian}
P(S_{\rm hk}|\tau)
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi\tau}} \exp\left[ -\frac{(S_{\rm hk} - \tau)^2}{4\tau}
\right] .$$
We emphasize that that and are valid universally for any nonequilibrium systems described by the overdamped Langevin equation, irrespectively of system details. System-specific details matter for the mapping between $t$ and $\tau$. However, once the housekeeping entropic time scale is adopted, the housekeeping entropy production always follows the Gaussian distribution whether the system is in the steady state or a transient state.
It is worth asking whether the excess entropy production can also be universal after a random time transformation. We introduce a short-hand notation $\bm{u} \equiv \bm{J}/P$, which is decomposed into the sum of $\bm{u}_{\rm hk} \equiv \bm{J}_{\rm ss} /
P_{\rm ss}$ and $\bm{u}_{\rm ex} \equiv \bm{u} - \bm{u}_{\rm hk}$. Subtracting from the differential equation for the total entropy production [@Pigolotti:2017fs], one can derive the differential equation for the excess entropy production $S_{\rm ex} = S_{\rm
tot} - S_{\rm hk}$. It is given by $$%\begin{equation}\label{eq:Langevin_Sex}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{dS_{\rm ex}}{dt}
& = -2\partial_t \ln P - \left(
\sum_{i=1}^p \dot{\lambda}_i \partial_{\lambda_i} \ln P
+\sum_{i=1}^q \dot{\kappa}_i \partial_{\kappa_i} \ln P\right) \\
& ~~~ + (2\bm{u}_{\rm hk} + \bm{u}_{\rm ex})
\cdot\mathsf{D}^{-1}\bm{u}_{\rm ex}
+ \sqrt{2{\bm{u}_{\rm ex}\cdot\mathsf{D}^{-1}\bm{u}_{\rm ex}}}\xi_{\rm ex}
\end{aligned}$$where $\xi_{\rm ex}$ is a Gaussian white noise satisfying $\langle \xi_{\rm ex}(t) \rangle = 0$ and $\langle \xi_{\rm ex}(t) \xi_{\rm ex}(t') \rangle = \delta(t-t')$. The noise term is equal to $\bm{u}_{\rm ex}\cdot\mathsf{D}^{-1}\bm{\xi}$ with the same $\bm{\xi}$ of the Langevin equation . Evidently, there is no simple proportionality relation between the deterministic part and the noise variance even when the protocol parameters are time-independent. Thus, we conclude that only the housekeeping entropy production displays the universal property in the transient state.
Meditating on the similarity between and the corresponding equation for $S_{\rm tot}$ in the steady state [@Pigolotti:2017fs], one may suspect whether the housekeeping entropy production satisfies the thermodynamic uncertainty relation even in the transient regime. Integrating , one obtains $S_{\rm hk}(t) = \tau(t) + \int_0^t dt' \sqrt{2v(t')} \xi_{\rm hk}(t')$, which yields that $\langle S_{\rm hk}(t)^2\rangle = \langle \tau(t)^2\rangle + 2 \langle
\tau(t) \rangle + 2 \Upsilon(t)$ with $\Upsilon(t) = \int_0^t dt' \int_0^t dt'' \langle v(t'')
\sqrt{2 v(t')} \xi_{\rm hk}(t') \rangle$. Thus, the Fano factor $\mathcal{F}[S_{\rm hk}(t)] =
( \langle S_{\rm hk}^2(t)\rangle -
\langle S_{\rm hk}(t)\rangle^2 ) / \langle S_{\rm hk}(t)\rangle$ for the housekeeping entropy production is given by $$\label{fano}
\mathcal{F}[S_{\rm hk}(t)] = 2 + \mathcal{F}[\tau(t)]
%\frac{\langle S_{\rm hk}^2(t)\rangle- \langle S_{\rm hk}(t)\rangle^2}{\langle
%S_{\rm hk}(t)\rangle} = 2 + \frac{\langle \tau^2(t)\rangle- \langle
%\tau(t)\rangle^2}{\langle \tau(t)\rangle}
+ \frac{2 \Upsilon(t)}{\langle \tau(t)\rangle}$$ with $\mathcal{F}[\tau(t)] = (\langle \tau^2(t)\rangle - \langle
\tau(t)\rangle^2) / \langle \tau(t)\rangle$. Following the formalism of Ref. [@Pigolotti:2017fs], one can show that $\Upsilon(t)$ is equal to zero identically when the system is in the steady state. Thus, one recovers the thermodynamic uncertainty relation $(\langle S_{\rm hk}^2(t)\rangle- \langle S_{\rm
hk}(t)\rangle^2) / \langle S_{\rm hk}(t)\rangle \geq 2$ in the steady state. In the transient state, however, does not guarantee the inequality $\mathcal{F}[S_{\rm hk}(t)] \geq 2$ with or without time-dependent protocol parameters.
Numerical studies on model systems {#sec:Examples}
==================================
We demonstrate the universal property of the housekeeping entropy production with numerical simulations. The probability distributions of $S_{\rm hk}$ are obtained numerically in the following way: (i) The initial configuration $\bm{x}$ at $t=0$ is drawn from an initial distribution $P_{\rm ini.}(\bm{x})$. (ii) The increments of $\bm{x}$, $\tau$, and $S_{\rm hk}$ are evaluated using the time-discretized equations of motion with $dt$. The Heun algorithm is adopted [@Greiner:1988tm]. We choose $dt = 0.0001$ in simulations, which is small enough. Time-dependent protocol parameters are also updated. (iii) The data are collected when $t$ or $\tau$ reaches a target value. The simulations are repeated independently for $N_{\rm samples}$ times to construct the probability distribution.
First, we reconsider a model studied in Ref. [@Pigolotti:2017fs]. A particle diffuses in a one-dimensional ring under a triangular potential $$V(x) = \begin{cases}
V_0 \left(\frac{x}{x^*}\right) & {\rm for}~0 \leq x < x^*, \\
V_0 \left(\frac{1-x}{1-x^*}\right) & {\rm for}~x^* \leq x < 1 .
\end{cases}$$ The periodic boundary condition ($x+1=x$) is applied. In addition to the conservative force $-\partial V(x)/\partial x$, an $x$-independent force $f$ is applied to drive the system into a nonequilibrium state. The whole system is embedded in a heat bath at temperature $T$. The Langevin equation is given by $$\label{eq:Langevin_triangular}
\dot{x}(t) = \mu F(x(t)) + \sqrt{2\mu T} \xi(t)$$ where $\mu$ is the mobility of the particle, $$F(x) = \begin{cases}
F_A \equiv f - \frac{V_0}{x^*} & {\rm for}~0 \leq x < x^*, \\
F_B \equiv f + \frac{V_0}{1-x^*} & {\rm for}~x^* \leq x < 1
\end{cases}$$ is the total force, and $\xi(t)$ is a Gaussian white noise satisfying $\langle \xi(t) \rangle = 0$ and $\langle \xi(t) \xi(t') \rangle = \delta(t-t')$. The protocol parameters $\bm{\lambda} = \{V_0, x^*\}$ and $\bm{\kappa} =
\{f\}$ may change over time.
The steady state probability distribution for fixed parameters is given by $$\label{eq:triangle_Pss}
P_{\rm ss}(x) = \begin{cases}
\alpha_1 + \alpha_2 e^{F_A x/T}
& {\rm for}~0 \leq x < x^*, \\
\alpha_3 + \alpha_4 e^{F_B x/T}
& {\rm for}~x^* \leq x < 1 ,
\end{cases}$$ where the explicit expressions for $\alpha_i = \alpha_i(V_0,x^*,f)$ are found in Ref. [@Pigolotti:2017fs]. The corresponding current $J_{\rm ss} = \mu F_A \alpha_1 = \mu F_B \alpha_2$ is an $x$-independent constant. With these expressions, one is ready to calculate the housekeeping entropy production and the housekeeping entropic time. We choose $P_{\rm ini.}(x) = \delta(x)$ and $N_{\rm samples} = 10^6$.
We present the probability distribution of the housekeeping entropy production in Fig. \[fig1\]. We performed the numerical simulations for three different protocol parameter sets, in which one among $V_0$, $x^*$, and $f$ varies in time while the others are kept to be constant. First of all, Fig. \[fig1\](a) shows the distributions at a fixed housekeeping entropic time $\tau = 0.1$. Despite the difference in the protocol parameters, the probability distributions follow the predicted Gaussian distribution with $\tau=0.1$. For comparison, we also present the probability distributions at fixed $t=0.1$ in Fig. \[fig1\](b). The probability distributions depend on the protocol and clearly deviate from the universal Gaussian distribution. This example confirms the universal distribution of the housekeeping entropy production even in the transient systems.
![Probability distributions of the housekeeping entropy production (a) at fixed $\tau=0.1$ and (b) at fixed $t=0.1$. They were obtained from $N_{\rm samples} = 10^6$ trajectories with $\mu=T=1$. Three different parameter sets are considered: (i) $x^*(t) = 0.5 + 0.25 \sin(20\pi t)$, $V_0 = 1$, and $f=1$ (black) (ii) $f(t) = {\rm sign}(\sin(10\pi t))$, $V_0=1$, and $x^* = 3/4$ (red) (iii) $V_0(t) = 10t$, $x^* = 3/4$, $f=1$ (blue). Also drawn is the Gaussian distribution in with $\tau=0.1$ (green).[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
In order to highlight the difference of the housekeeping entropy production and the total entropy production, we next consider a two-dimensional Brownian motion under a harmonic potential $V(\bm{x}) = \frac{1}{2}K(x_1^2 + x_2^2)$ in contact with a heat bath at temperature $T$. A linear nonconservative force $\bm{f}(\bm{x}) =
(\epsilon x_2, -\epsilon x_1)^{\rm T}$ drives the system into a nonequilibrium state. The parameter $\epsilon$ stands for the strength of the nonequilibrium driving. For simplicity, the mobility matrix is taken to be $\mathsf{M} = \mu \mathsf{I}$ with the identity matrix $\mathsf{I}$, and the initial distribution of $\bm{x}$ is taken be a Gaussian with zero mean and covariance $\sigma_0^2 \mathsf{I}$. In this model, the protocol parameters $K$ and $\epsilon$ are taken to be time-independent.
The model belongs to the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process [@Risken:1996vl], which is exactly solvable. The time-dependent probability distribution is given by $$P(\bm{x},t)
= \frac{1}{2\pi\sigma_t^2} \exp\left[ -\frac{1}{2\sigma_t^2} \left( x_1^2 + x_2^2 \right) \right]$$ where $\sigma_t = \frac{T}{K} + e^{-2\mu K t} \left( \sigma_0^2 - \frac{T}{K} \right)$. The corresponding probability current is $$\bm{J}(\bm{x},t) = \mu P(\bm{x},t) \begin{pmatrix}
(\frac{T}{\sigma_t^2} - K)x_1 + \epsilon x_2 \\
-\epsilon x_1 + (\frac{T}{\sigma_t^2} - K) x_2
\end{pmatrix} .$$ The steady state probability distribution is given by $P_{\rm ss}(\bm{x}) =
\frac{K}{2\pi T} \exp[-\frac{K}{2T}(x_1^2+x_2^2)]$ with the current $\bm{J}_{\rm ss}(\bm{x}) = \mu \epsilon P_{\rm ss}(\bm{x}) (x_2, -x_1)^{\rm
T}$. Since the probability distribution in the transient state is available, one can measure the total entropy production $S_{\rm tot}(t) = [-\ln
P(\bm{x}(t),t) + \ln P(\bm{x}(0),0)] + Q(t)/T$ as well as the housekeeping entropy production $S_{\rm hk}(t)$ numerically.
We present the numerical results for the total entropy production and the housekeeping entropy production in Fig. \[fig2\] with three different values of $K = 4$, $6$, and $8$. Initially the system is prepared in the Gaussian distribution with $\sigma_0 = 0.1 \neq \sigma_\infty \equiv
\lim_{t\to\infty} \sigma_t$ so that the system is in a transient state. Then, $S_{\rm hk}$ is measured until $\tau=0.1$. Figure \[fig2\](a) shows that the housekeeping entropy production follows the same Gaussian distribution at all values of $K$ as predicted. In contrast, the total entropy production is known to be universal to a given value of the total entropic time $\tau_{\rm tot}$ only in the steady state [@Pigolotti:2017fs]. The total entropic time $\tau_{\rm tot}$ is defined by replacing $P_{\rm ss}$ and $J_{\rm ss}$ of $v$ in with $P$ and $J$ [@Pigolotti:2017fs]. We also measured the total entropy production at $\tau_{\rm tot} = 0.1$, whose probability distribution is presented in Fig. \[fig2\](b). The probability distributions of $S_{\rm
tot}$ do not coincide with each other and do not have the Gaussian form. The time scale $\tau_{\rm tot}=0.1$ is too short for the system to relax into the steady state. This example demonstrates the universal fluctuations of the housekeeping entropy production in the transient state.
![Probability distributions of (a) $S_{\rm hk}$ at fixed housekeeping entropic time $\tau=0.1$ and (b) $S_{\rm tot}$ at fixed total entropic time $\tau_{\rm tot}=0.1$. The parameters are $\mu=T=\epsilon=1$ and $K =$ 4 (black), 6 (red), and 8 (blue). The number of samples is $N_{\rm samples} = 10^6$. Also shown is the Gaussian distribution in with $\tau=0.1$ (green).[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Summary {#sec:Conclusion}
=======
We derived a Langevin-type stochastic differential equation of the housekeeping entropy production for a broad class of overdamped Langevin systems. The stochastic differential equation in allows us to define the housekeeping entropic time $\tau$ as given in . The nonnegative contribution leads to define the housekeeping entropic time. We found that overdamped Langevin systems share the universal property regardless of system details: The housekeeping entropy production follows the Gaussian distribution in for any systems on the entropic time scale. The universal property is confirmed by numerical simulations. Our study extends the work of Ref. [@Pigolotti:2017fs] significantly. While the total entropy production displays the universal property only in the steady state under a time-independent protocols, the housekeeping entropy production does even in the transient state under a time-dependent protocol. We also remark that our formulation in and provides an easy understanding of the fluctuation theorem.
While most studies have focused on the universal property of the total entropy production, only a few studies have considered other thermodynamic quantities. It is noteworthy that Shiraishi et al. recently found a universal trade-off relation between the dynamical activity of a nonequilibrium system and the excess entropy production [@Shiraishi:2018gk]. Interestingly, similar to our results, a part of the total entropy production is shown to uncover a universal nature of nonequilibrium systems. These findings suggest that thermodynamic quantities other than the total entropy production can be useful in scrutinizing the universal properties of nonequilibrium systems. We hope that our study will promote the investigation of the universal properties of nonequilibrium systems not only in the steady state but also in the transient state.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments to improve the manuscript. This work was supported by the the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 2016R1A2B2013972).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A full selfconsistent set of equations is deduced to describe the kinetics and dynamics of charged quasiparticles (electrons, holes etc.) with arbitrary dispersion law in crystalline solids subjected to time-varying deformations. The set proposed unifies the nonlinear elasticity theory equation, a kinetic equation for quasiparticle excitations and Maxwell’s equations supplemented by the constitute relations. The kinetic equation used [@Push; @AP] is valid for the whole Brillouin zone. It is compatible with the requirement for periodicity in $k$-space and contains an essential new term compared to the traditional form of the Boltzmann equation. The theory is exact in the frame of the quasiparticle approach and can be applied to metals, semiconductors, as well as to other crystalline solids including quantum crystals and low-dimensional lattice structures.'
address: |
Institute of Solid State Physics Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia 1784, Bulgaria,\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- 'Dimitar I. Pushkarov'
title: Dynamics theory of deformable solids with quasiparticle excitations in the presence of electromagnetic fields
---
\#1[\#1 ]{} \#1[\#1 ]{}
Introduction
==============
There are two fundamental problems when dealing with quasiparticles in crystalline structures. The first one is related to the fact that the quasimomentum ${\bf k}$ and the dispersion law $\eps ({\bf k})$ of a quasiparticle are well defined only in an ideal periodic lattice. In such a lattice the dispersion law as well as all other physical quantities are periodic functions in the reciprocal space ($ k$-space). However, in any real system the crystal lattice is deformed (e.g. by impurities, elastic deformations, external fields etc.). The most complicated problems concern the quasiparticle dynamics in a time-varying deformed crystal lattice. In an exact description all physical characteristics of a quasiparticle have to be periodic functions of the quasimomentum with periods which are functions of the coordinates and the time. This leads to a dependence of the Brillouin zone boundaries not only on the deformation at a given instant, but also on the local lattice velocity [@Push; @AP].
As for the stationary (or quasistationary) case, this difficulty has usually been passed over by introducing a local dispersion law $\eps({\bf k}, u_{ik})$ and further expansion in powers of the small deformation tensor components $u_{ik}$: $$\eps({\bf k}, u_{ik}) = \eps_0({\bf k}) + \lambda_{ik}({\bf k})u_{ik}
\ee %1
where $\lambda_{ik}$ are the deformation potential components,
\begin{equation}
u_{ik}({\bf r}) = \frac {1}{2}\left( \frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_k} +
\f{\p x_i}{\p x_k} \right),
\ee %2
and $\bf u$ is the deformation vector.
Such an approach (known as the local lattice approach) is based on the
assumption that the
deformations are small and smooth functions of position and time and
possesses
all shortcomings of any linearized theory. In addition,
the kinetic equation
becomes incompatible with the requirement of the periodicity.
To avoid
any misunderstandings, note that Eqs.(1) and (2)
are written in the co-moving frame.
The second problem is related to the fact that the crystal lattice
plays the role of a privileged coordinate frame and no Galilean
transformations for quasiparticle characteristics exist.
The lack of transformation laws for such quantities as energy,
Hamiltonian and quasimomentum means, in fact, that there is no consistent
quasiparticle mechanics. The most fundamental
quantity, the dispersion law, is known in a co-moving frame attached to
the lattice and this frame is even not inertial at time-varying
deformations. On the
other hand, all fundamental physical equations, such as conservation laws,
variational principles, kinetic eqs. etc. take place in the laboratory
frame ($L$-system). However the concept of dispersion law does not exist in
$L$-system. Hence, in principle, even if the mechanics equations for
a quasiparticle were known in $C$-system, they remain unknown in $L$-system.
\par
These problems are so old as the quasiparticle approach itself is.
They
are well known, for example, in the theory of metals where many attempts have
been made to derive a complete system of dynamic equations, consisting of
equations from the theory of elasticity, a kinetic equation for the electron
gas and Maxwell's
equations (cf. Refs. \cite{KontUFN,Kontbook}
and the bibliography cited there).
\par
The attempts to deduce the equations of motion for a quasiparticle in
$L$-system can be divided into two groups corresponding to
the twofold role of the
dispersion law. In the co-moving frame it coincides with both energy and
Hamiltonian. Therefore transformations typical of energy and Hamilton function
have been proved.
\par
When considering $\eps({\bf k},u_{ik})$ as Hamiltonian a transformation
by a substitutional function of the form
\begin{equation}
\tilde \Phi({\bf r', p }, t) = ({\bf r' + u}({\bf r'}, t)){\bf p}
\ee
has been used and the following relations have been obtained
(see e.g. \cite{KontUFN,Kontbook}):
$$
{\bf k = p} + \frac{\p}{\p {\bf r'}}({\bf u p}),
\tilde H({\bf p,r}, t) =
\tilde \eps ({\bf k, r'},t) + {\bf \dot u p},
$$
where $\bf r = r' + u $ are the coordinates in $L$-system and $\, \bf p\,$
is supposed to be the corresponding quasimomentum.
However, $\tilde \Phi \, $ does not depend on the bare mass, $m$, of the
quasiparticle
and therefore does not take into account any inertial effects (e.g. the
Stewart-Tolman
effect in metals, centrifugal forces in rotating bodies etc).
\par
If $\eps ({\bf k}, u_{ik})$ is considered as quasiparticle energy then
the Galilean transformation applies as a consequence of
the requirement that energy density $\int \eps d^3 k$
(as a macroscopic quantity) has to obey Galilean transformations. This yields
\begin{equation}
\tilde {\cal E} = \eps_0 ({\bf k}) + \lambda_{ik}({\bf k})u_{ik} + m\dot{\bf u}
\frac{\p \eps_0}{\p {\bf k}}.
\ee
\par
It has been shown by many authors that such a transformation is incompatible
with the Boltzmann equation. That is why some artificial ways have been used
the most successful being that of Landau (cf the footnote in Ref.
\cite{KontUFN}). He
has suggested that (in order to take into account the noninertial properties of
the lattice frame) one has first to add to the dispersion law (1)
the term $\dx -m\dot{\bf u}\frac{\p \eps}{\p {\bf k}}$, setting
\begin{equation}
\eps({\bf k}, u_{ik}) = \eps_0({\bf k}) + \lambda_{ik}({\bf k})u_{ik}
-m {\dot {\bf u}}\f{\p \eps}{\p {\bf k}}.
\ee
and then to apply the transformation by the substitutional function (3).
The result is:
\begin{equation}
\tilde H({\bf p, r}, t) = \eps_0({\bf k}) + \lambda_{ik}({\bf k})u_{ik}
+\left({\bf p} -m \f{\p \eps}{\p {\bf k}}\right)\dot {\bf u}.
\ee
\par
This procedure has been used in the most of
recent works. However it cannot be well-grounded due to its internal
inconsistency. In fact, if we consider the expression (5)
as energy, and take a constant velocity ${\bf {\dot u}}$
then we come to the wrong conclusion that the energy in an inertial frame
could depend on the frame velocity. The same confusion follows
for the energy density which must strictly obey
the Galilean principle.
Note, that we may not consider (3) as a Hamiltonian, because the Hamilton
function in $C$-system coincides with the dispersion law in accordance with
the Hamilton equation
$ \dx
\dot {\bf r'} = {\bf v} = \frac{\p \eps}{\p {\bf k}}
$.
\par
These shortcomings have been removed in our previous works \cite{Push,AP,DSc}
(see also
\cite{Singapore,Nauka}) where
transformations to replace the Galilean ones have been deduced and the
quasiparticle mechanics equations in Hamiltonian form have been presented.
This enabled us to derive a Boltzmann-like kinetic equation valid in the whole
Brillouin zone. We have deduced
a selfconsistent set of equations for electrons in metals, taking
into
account some special features of the problem as the
quasineutrality condition and the
neglection of the displacement current in Maxwell's eqs. The magnetic
permeability $\mu$ has also been taken constant ($\mu = 1$). These
approximations were good enough to develop
the electron plasma hydrodynamics in crystalline
metals as well as to consider magnetohydrodynamic effects \cite{Klara}.
\par
The problem is more complicated in bad conductors and semiconductors, as well
as at higher frequences, when the displacement current cannot be neglected,
the quasineutrality condition does not hold and
$\epsilon$ and $\mu$ are functions of the
deformation. We give in this
work the solution of this general case.
The only assumption is
that the constitute relations are linear, i.e.
$ D_i = {\hat \epsilon}_{ik} E_k$,
$ B_i = {\hat \mu}_{ik}H_k$.
\par
In the present work we shall consider electrons
having in mind that the theory is valid for
arbitrary quasiparticles. We suppose for simplicity that the crystal considered
is isotropic in its undeformed state. This means that $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ are
taken scalars, but their derivatives with respect to coordinates are matrices
and depend on the lattice symmetry. It is easy to generalize all the
results for the case where $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ are tensors of second rank. No
essentially new results should be obtained for this case, but the corresponding
relations are more cumbersome.
\par
Finally, we would like to note that the problem considered is related
to some old questions about the electromagnetic forces acting to the body,
some specific features of electrodynamics in moving media,
the form of electromagnetic stress tensor in condensed matter,
the role of momentum and quasimomentum etc. Since we
derive the full set of dynamics equations all the forces are taken
into account in a selfconsistent way.
\par
The paper is organized in the following way. In Sec. 2. we introduce
new variables (discrete coordinates and ivariant quasimomentum),
write evolution equations for
lattice vectors in the real and reciprocal spaces and express in new notation
metrical tensors, deformation tensor etc.
In Sec. 3. we reproduce briefly some of our previous results on
the Hamilton eqs. and kinetic equation we need for this work.
In Sec. 4 we deduce the full set of equations which describes the behaviour of
quasiparticles in deformable solids in electromagnetic fields.
\section{ Notation }
\label{sec:notation}
Following our previous works \cite{Push,AP} (see also
\cite{Singapore,Nauka,DSc})
we consider a lattice with
primitive vectors ${\bf a}_\alpha,\,\, \alpha = 1,2,3$ and introduce discrete
coordinates $N^\alpha$ as the number of steps (each being equal to ${\bf
a}_\alpha$) in the lattice from the origin to a given point. In this notation
the differential coordinates $\,d {\bf r \,}$ which are considered as
physically
infinitesimal (i.e. large compared to the lattice constants but small compared
to any macroscopic distance of interest) can be written in the form:
$$
d{\bf r} = {\bf a}_\alpha d N^\alpha + {\bf {\dot u}} d t
$$
or
$$
d N^\alpha = {\bf a}^\alpha d{\bf r} - {\bf a}^\alpha {\dot {\bf u}}dt
$$
where ${\bf a}^\alpha$ are the reciprocal lattice vectors which satisfy the
relations
\begin{equation}
{\bf a}_\alpha {\bf a}^\beta = \delta^\beta_\alpha, \qquad
a_{\alpha i} a_k^\alpha = \delta_{ik}.
\ee %7
It is seen from the above equations that
\begin{equation}
{\bf a^\alpha} = \nabla N^\alpha, \qquad
{\bf a_\alpha} = \f{\p {\bf r}}{\p N^\alpha}, \qquad
{\dot {\bf u}} = - {\bf a}_\alpha {\dot N}^\alpha .
\ee %8
The time-evolution equations for the vectors $\ba_\alf$ and $\ba^\alf$
can be deduced from plain geometrical considerations (Appendix 1) and written
as follows \cite{Push}:
\begin{equation}
\dot{\bf a}_{\alpha} + (\dot{\bf u}\nabla) {\bf a}_{\alpha} -
({\bf a}_{\alpha}\nabla)
\dot{\bf u} = 0$$ $$\dot{\bf a}^{\alpha} + \nabla ({\bf a}^{\alpha}\dot{\bf u}) = 0.$$ In the notation used the metrical tensors in the real and reciprocal space are, respectively: $$g_{\alf \beta} = \ba_\alf \ba_\beta, \qquad g^{\alf \beta} = \ba^\alf
\ba^\beta.
\ee %11
Then the lattice cell volume equals $g^{1/2}$, where
$g = \det\, g_{\alf \beta} $.
\par
The relations between the components of the metrical tensors and the
deformation tensor $\, u_{ik}\,$ follow from the expression for the interval:
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = g_{\alf \beta} dN^\alf dN^\beta .
\ee %12
The squared interval between the same points in the undeformed crystal is
$$
ds_0^2 = \,\stackrel{\circ}{g}_{\alf \beta} dN^\alf dN^\beta .
$$
Hence
\begin{equation}
ds^2 - ds_0^2 = 2w_{\alf \beta} dN^\alf dN^\beta
\ee %13
where
\begin{equation}
w_{\alf \beta} = \f{1}{2}(g_{\alf \beta} - \,\stackrel{\circ}{g}_{\alf \beta})
\ee %14
plays the role of the deformation tensor in our notation. The invariance of the
interval yields:
\begin{equation}
w_{\alf \beta}dN^\alf dN^\beta = w_{ik}dx^i dx^k .
\ee %15
Taking into account relations (7) and (8) one obtains
\begin{equation}
w_{ik} = w_{\alf \beta} a_i^\alf a_k^\beta .
\ee %16
In order to obtain the components $u_{ik}$ of the tensor of small
deformations (2) as well as to find the relation between the deformation vector
${\bf u = r - r}_0$ and the discrete coordinates $N^\alf$ introduced, let us
note that the quantities $\p u_i/\p x_k$ obviously coincide with the matrix
elements $\alpha_{ik}$ which describe the coordinate transformations
\begin{equation}
x_i = \,\stackrel{\circ}{x}_i + \, \alpha_{ik}\stackrel{\circ}{x}_k
\ee %17
and, consequently, the lattice vector transformations:
\begin{equation}
a_{\alf i} = \,\stackrel{\circ}{a}_{\alf i} +
\alpha_{ik}\,\stackrel{\circ}{a}_{\alf k} .
\ee %18
If the deformations are small, then,
\begin{equation}
\ba_\alf = \,\stackrel{\circ}{\ba}_\alf + \delta \ba_\alpha, \qquad
\ba^\beta = \,\stackrel{\circ}{\ba}{\!}^\beta + \delta \ba^\beta.
\ee %19
Multiplying these two equations and taking into account relations (7)
and (17)
yield in a linear approximation with respect to $\delta {\bf a}^\beta$
\begin{equation}
\delta a_{\alf i} = -(\,\stackrel{\circ}{a}_{\beta i} \delta a^\beta_k)
\quad \stackrel{\circ}{a}_{\alf k} = \alpha_{ik}\stackrel{\circ}a_{\alpha k} .
\ee %20
\par
On the other hand the change of the discrete coordinates owing to the
deformation can be written in the form:
\begin{equation}
N^\alf = N^\alf_0 - w^\alf .
\ee %21
where $w^\alpha$ is the deviation from the value $N^\alpha_0$ in the ideal
undeformed lattice.
Taking into account (8) one obtains
\begin{equation}
\ba^\alf = \nabla N^\alf = \,\stackrel{\circ}{\ba}\!{}\!^\alf - \nabla
w^\alf \ee %22
and hence,
\begin{equation}
\delta a^{\alf}_{i} = - \f{\p w^\alf}{\p x_i} .
\ee %23
It follows from (20) and (23) that
\begin{equation}
\f {\p u_i}{\p x_k} = \alf_{ik} = \,\stackrel{\circ}{a}_{\alf i}
\f{\p w^\alf}{\p x_k} = \f{\p \stackrel{\circ}{a}_{\alf i} w^\alf}{\p x_k}
\ee %24
and therefore the deformation vector ${\bf u}$ and the deformation tensor
$u_{ik}$ in this linear case
are related to their discrete coordinate analogies, $w^\alf$ and
$\dx \,\stackrel{\circ}{w}_{\alf \beta} = \f{1}{2}\left( \f{\p w_\alf}{\p
N^\beta} + \f {\p w_\beta}{\p N^\alf}\right)$, in the following way:
\begin{equation}
{\bf u} = \,\stackrel{\circ}{\ba}_{\alf} w^\alf, \qquad
u_{ik} = \,\stackrel{\circ}{w}_{\alf \beta} \,\stackrel{\circ}{a}\!{}\!^\alf_i
\,\stackrel{\circ}{a}\!{}\!^{\beta}_k
\ee %25
where $w_\alf = \,\stackrel{\circ}{g}_{\alf \beta} w^\beta$ are the covariant
components of ${\bf w}$.
\par
In the same way one can obtain the full deformation tensor components [5]:
\begin{equation}
w_{\alf \beta} = \f {1}{2} \left( \,\stackrel{\circ}{\ba}_{\alf} \f {\p{\bf u}}
{\p N^\beta} + \,\stackrel{\circ}{\ba}_{\beta} \f {\p {\bf u}} {\p N^\alf} +
\f {\p {\bf u}} {\p N^\alf} \f {\p {\bf u}} {\p N^\beta} \right)
\ee %26
\section{ Dynamics and Kinetics of Quasiparticles}
\par
The starting point when deriving Hamilton equations for quasiparticles is that
in the co-moving frame ($C$-system) the dispersion law
$\eps ({\bf k},{g^{\alpha \beta}})$
coincides both with Hamiltonian and with energy. Hence, the equations of
motion in C-system can be written in the form
\begin{equation}
{\dot {\bf r}}'= \frac{\p \eps}{\p {\bf k}}, \qquad {\dot {\bf k}}=
-\frac{\p \eps}{\p{ \bf r}'}.
\ee %27
We have to determine Hamiltonian $H({\bf p,r},t)$ as a function of the
coordinates $\bf r$ and quasimomentum $\bf p$ in L-system in a way to have
canonical equations:
\be
{\dot {\bf r}}= \frac{\p H}{\p \bf p}, \qquad {\dot {\bf p}}=
-\frac{\p H}{\p {\bf r}} .
\ee %28
According to the general theory of Hamilton mechanics, the Hamiltonian
and the momentum can be obtained as derivatives of the action $S({\bf r},t)$
with respect to the time $t$ and the coordinates ${\bf r}$. Equations (27) show
that the variables $\bf k$ and $\bf r'$ are canonically conjugate. However,
if one
considers $\bf r'$ as a continuos variable, then the corresponding quantity
$\bf
k$ has to be considered as momentum. Quasimomentum has to be conjugate to some
discrete coordinate. Such coordinates, $\bf N$ (with components $N^\alpha$),
were
introduced in Sec.2. Hence, we are able to take the action $S({\bf N},t)$
as a function of these coordinates and
the time. Then we can determine a Hamiltonian $H(
\mbox {\boldmath $\kappa$},{\bf
N}, t)$ and a new quasimomentum {\boldmath $\kappa$} as follows:
\begin{equation}
H(\mbox {\boldmath $\kappa$},{\bf N}, t) = -\left(\frac {\partial S}{\partial
t}\right)_{\bf N} \qquad
\kappa_\alpha =
\left(\frac {\partial S}{\partial N^\alpha}\right)_t .
\ee %29
We call
{\boldmath $\kappa$} {\it the invariant
quasimomentum}, because all
physical quantities, written as functions of {\boldmath $\kappa$}, are
periodic
with a constant period $2 \pi$ (not $2\pi { \bf a}^\alpha$).
\par
Let us consider the local dispersion law $\eps (\mbox {\boldmath
$\kappa$},
g^{\alpha \beta})$ as a function of the invariant quasimomentum and the
metrical tensor $g^{\alpha \beta}$. Since it coincides with the Hamiltonian,
one has
\begin{equation}
\eps(\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$},g^{\alpha\beta}, t) = -\left(\frac {\partial
S}{\partial t}\right)_{\bf N} \qquad
\kappa_\alpha =
\left(\frac {\partial S}{\partial N^\alpha}\right)_t.
\ee %30
Now let us consider a real electron which is executing a quasiclassical
motion. Its wave function in the new variables has the form
\begin{equation}
\psi ({\bf N},t) \sim
exp\left\{\frac{i}{\hbar}S_0({\bf N},t)\right\}
\ee %31
where
$\dx S_0({\bf N},t)$ is the classical action. The transformation law for the
action follows from the transformation properties of the phase of the wave
function under Galilean transformations [9]:
\begin{equation}
S = S_0 + m{\bf \dot u r} - m{\dot u}^2/2
\ee %32
where $m$ is the mass of a free particle.
\par
The Hamiltonian and the quasimomentum in the Laboratory frame can now
be obtained as follows \cite{AP}:
\begin{equation}
{\bf p} = \left(\frac {\p S}{\p {\bf r}}\right)_t = {\bf a}^\alpha k_\alpha +
m{\bf \dot u}
\ee %33
\begin{equation}
H({\bf p,r},t) = -\left(\f{\p S}{\p t}\right)_{\bf r} = \eps + {\bf p \dot u} -
\frac{m{\dot u}^2}{2}
\ee %34
where $\eps = \eps({\bf a}_\alpha({\bf p}-m{\bf \dot u}), g^{\alpha \beta})$ is
a periodic function of $\bf p$ with periods $2 \pi \hbar {\bf a}^\alpha$
determined by the reciprocal lattice vectors corresponding to the deformed
local lattice. This is the reason to call $\bf p$ {\it the quasimomentum of the
quasiparticle in $L$-system}.
\par
It follows from (33) that
\begin{equation}
k_\alpha = {\bf a}_\alpha ({\bf p}- m{\bf \dot u}) = {\bf ka}_\alpha.
\ee %35
Hence, the invariant quasimomentum components are equal to the scalar
product of the usual quasimomentum $\bf k$ in $C$-system and the primitive
vectors of the locally deformed lattice.
\par
The energy $\cal E$ of a quasiparticle in $L$-system obeys the Galilean law:
\begin{equation}
{\cal E} = \frac{m {\dot u}^2}{2} + m {\bf \dot u}\frac{\p \eps}{\p {\bf p}} +
\eps = \frac{m {\dot u}^2}{2} + {\bf p}_0 {\bf \dot u} + \eps
\ee %36
where $\dx {\bf p}_0= m \frac{\p \eps}{\p {\bf p}}$ is the average momentum (the
mass flow) in C-system. \par
Equations (33)-(36) replace the Galilean transformations, which are not valid
for quasiparticles because of the priviged of the crystal lattice frame.
\par
We are able now to write the Boltzmann equation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\p f}{\p t} + \frac {\p f}{\p {\bf r}} \frac {\p H}{\p {\bf p}}
-\frac{\p f}{\p {\bf p}}
\left(\frac{\p H}{\p {\bf r}} - {\bf F}\right) = \hat{ I} f
\ee %37
where $\hat{I}$ is the collision operator. Note, that this equation
becomes well
defined for quasiparticles only after obtaining the Hamiltonian
and the Hamilton equations.
\par
It has been shown in \cite{AP} that this equation is compatible with the
requirement of periodicity. This can be seen also from its form if
$
f(\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}, {\bf r}, t)$ is taken as a function
of the invariant quasimomentum
{\boldmath $\kappa$} and the quantities
$\bf p$ and $H$ are substituted from (33) and (34). This yields:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\d f}{\d t} + {\bf a}_{\alpha}\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial
\kappa_{\alpha}}\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial {\bf
r}}\right)_{\mbox {\boldmath $\kappa$}} -
{\bf a}_{\alpha}\frac{\partial f}{\partial
\kappa_{\alpha}}\left\{m\frac{\d \dot{\bf u}}{\d t} +
\left(\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial {\bf r}}\right)_{\mbox {\boldmath $\kappa$}}
- m
\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial \kappa_{\beta}}{\bf a}_{\beta}\times
\curl \dot{\bf u} - {\bf F}\right\} = \hat{I}f$$ where $\dx \frac{\d}{\d t} = \frac{\partial }{\partial t} + (\dot{\bf
u}\nabla)$ and all quantities are differentiated with respect to the coordinates and the time at constant [$\kappa$]{}.
The term $m \dx \frac{\d\dot{\bf u}}{\d t}$ takes into account noninertial properties of the local frame. This is the term which is responsible for the Stewart-Tolman effect in metals.
The term $$m\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial \kappa_{\beta}}
{\bf a}_{\beta}\times \curl \dot{\bf u}$$ is of [*essentially new kind*]{} and cannot be obtained in linear theories. It is proportional to the bare mass $\,m\,$ and, hence, is also responsible for noninertial effects.
The Lorentz force in our notation has the form $${\bf F} = -e{\bf E} - \frac{e}{c}\,
\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial
\kappa_{\alpha}}{\bf a}_{\alpha}\times {\bf B} - \frac{e}{c}
\dot{\bf u} \times {\bf B}$$ where [**E**]{} and [**B**]{} are the strengths of the electric field and magnetic induction, respectively. Substituting (40) into (38) yields the kinetic equation for charged quasiparticles with a charge $-e$ ( $e>0$): $$\frac{\d f}{\d t} + {\bf a}_{\alpha}\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial
{\bf r}}\right)_{\mbox {\boldmath $\kappa$}}
\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial
\kappa_{\alpha}} -
{\bf a}_\alpha
\frac{\partial f}{\partial \kappa_{\alpha}}\left\{ \left(
\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial{\bf r}}\right)_{\mbox {\boldmath $\kappa$}} +
e\tilde {\bf E}+ \frac{e}{c}\, \frac{\partial\eps}{\partial
\kappa_{\beta}}
{\bf a}_{\beta}\times \tilde {\bf B} \right\} = \hat{I}f ,$$ where $$e \tilde{ \bf E} = e{\bf E} + \frac{e}{c}\dot{\bf u} \times {\bf B}
+ m\frac{\d\dot{\bf u}}{\d t}
, \qquad \tilde {\bf B} = {\bf B} - \frac{mc}{e}\,
\curl\dot{\bf u} .
\ee %42
\par
The first expression in (42) consists of two parts --- the electrical force
$\dx \,e \bf E'$ where $\dx{\bf E}' = {\bf E} + \frac{1}{c} {\bf \dot u \times
B}\,$ is the field in the co-moving frame, and the inertial force
$\dx\, m \frac
{\d {\bf \dot u}}{\d t}\,$.
The second relation in (42) can also be written in the form
$\dx \, \tilde {\bf B} = \curl ({\bf A} - \frac {c}{e}m \dot {\bf u})\, $
where $\, \bf A \,$ is the vector potential in an agreement with the well-known
rule of replacement of the particle momentum in a magnetic field
$\dx {\cal P} \rightarrow {\cal P} - \frac{e}{c}\bf A\,$ where now
${\cal P} = m \bf {\dot u} \,$.
\par
We shall use also another form of the kinetic equation.
The reason is that
further on we need to integrate some physical quantities over the Brillouin
zone, take integrals by parts as well as differentiate with respect to the
coordinates and the time. However, the Brillouin zone boundaries are functions
not only of the deformation at given instant, but also on the local lattice
velocity. The integration over the Brillouin zone does not commutate with the
differentiation with respect to the time and the coordinates.
As a result some fluxes appear
through the zone boundaries. This effect is important for nonequilibrium
systems, open Fermi-surfaces as well as for other cases
when the partition function or
its derivatives do not vanish on the zone boundaries.
This inconvenience can be
passed over by introducing a renormalized partition function
\begin{equation}
\varphi(\mbox {\boldmath $\kappa$}, {\bf r},t) = f/\sqrt{g} .$$
The kinetic equation for $\varphi(\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$},
{\bf
r},t)$ has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\varphi} & + & \div \left\{\left(\dot{\bf u} + {\bf
a}_{\alpha}
\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial \kappa_{\alpha}}\right)\varphi\right\}
-{\bf a}_{\alpha} \frac{\partial}{\partial \kappa_{\alpha}} \left\{\varphi
\left(\nabla\eps + m \frac{\d \dot{\bf
u}}{\d t}\right )\right. \nonumber \\
& - &\left. m\varphi \frac{\partial\eps}{\partial \kappa_{\beta}}
{\bf a}_{\beta}\times \curl\dot{\bf u} - {\bf
F}\varphi\right\} = \hat{I}\varphi .\end{aligned}$$ In this notation the differentiation with respect to $t$ and [**r**]{} is carried out at constant [$\kappa$]{} and hence commutates with $\int d^3
\kappa$. Results obtained by such a procedure can easily be rewritten in the previously adopted variables by the following substitutions $${\bf a}_\alpha \frac{\partial}{\partial \kappa_\alpha}
\leftrightarrow
\frac{\partial}{\partial{\bf k}} \leftrightarrow
\frac{\partial}{\partial{\bf p}}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle f\ldots \rangle
& \equiv &
\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}f({\bf p},
{\bf r},t)\ldots
= \frac{1}{\sqrt g} \int\frac{d^3
\kappa}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}f({\bf p},{\bf r},t)\ldots \nonumber \\
& = & \int \frac{d^3 \kappa}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}
\varphi(\mbox {\boldmath $\kappa$}, {\bf r}, t) \ldots
\equiv
\langle \langle \varphi\ldots
\rangle \rangle \, ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\int d^3 r\ldots = \int d^3 N^{\alpha} g^{1/2} \ldots$$
Conservation Laws and Dynamics Equations
=========================================
In order to avoid cumbersome expressions we shall make our consideration in three steps. First we write the conservation laws and consider the problem in a general form without taking into account the explicit form of the Maxwell’s equations and electromagnetic forces. Then we consider Maxwell’s equations and constitute relations for moving media and finally we combine the results and obtain the full selfconsistent set of equations.
We start with the conservation laws.
The continuity equation for quasiparticles is $$m\dot{n} + \div {\bf j}_0 = 0$$ where $$n =\langle\langle\varphi\rangle \rangle = \langle f\rangle ,
\quad {\bf j}_0 =
m\left\langle \frac{\partial H}{\partial {\bf p}}f\right \rangle =
m\left\langle \frac{\partial\eps}{\partial {\bf p}}f\right \rangle
+ m n {\bf \dot u}.$$
This equation follows directly from the kinetic equation [@Push].
The total mass current is $${\bf J}_0 = \rho\dot{\bf u} + {\bf j}'_0 ,$$ where $${\bf j}'_0 =
m\left\langle \frac{\partial\eps}{\partial {\bf p}}f\right \rangle$$ is the quasiparticle mass current with respect to the lattice and $\rho = \rho_0
+ mn$ is the full mass density written as a sum of the lattice mass density $\rho_0$ and the quasiparticle mass density.
The quantities $\rho$ and ${\bf J}_0$ satisfy the mass continuity equation $$\dot{\rho} + \div{\bf J}_0 = 0 .$$ The full momentum ${\bf J}$ is a sum of $ {\bf J}_0$ and the field momentum ${\bf g}$: $${\bf J} = {\bf J}_0 + {\bf g}.$$ Note, that in this case [*the full momentum does not coincide with the mass flow!*]{}
Our aim is to determine momentum and energy fluxes $\Pi_{ik}$ and $\bf Q$ in such a way as to satisfy the continuity equation (51), the momentum conservation law $$\dot{J}_i + \nabla_k\Pi_{ik} = 0,$$ and the energy conservation law $$\dot{E} + \div{\bf Q} = 0 .$$ The energy in $L$-system is given by the expression $$E = - \frac{1}{2}\rho_0\dot{\bf u}^2 + E_0(g^{\alpha\beta}) + \langle \langle
{\cal E} \varphi\rangle \rangle + W ,$$ where $E_0(g^{\alpha\beta})$ is the strain energy in $C$-system, and $W $ is the field energy.
The time derivative of the energy (55) is then $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{E} & = & \rho\dot{\bf u}\ddot{\bf u} + \frac{1}{2}\dot{\rho}\dot{u}^2
%+ \sigma_{\alpha\beta}a_i^{\alpha}a_k^{\beta}
%\frac{\partial\dot{u}_i}{\partial x_k} - \dot{\bfu}\nabla E_0
+ \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\angg{ \eps\varphi}
+ m\ddot{\bf u} {\bf
a}_{\alpha}\angg{\varphi\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial k_{\alpha}}}
\nonumber\\ & + & m\dot{\bf u}\dot{\bf a}_{\alpha}
\angg{\varphi\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial k_{\alpha}}}
+ m\dot{\bf u}{\bf a}_ {\alpha}
\angg{\varphi\frac{\partial\dot{\eps}}{\partial
k_{\alpha}} } +m\dot{\bf u}{\bf a}_ {\alpha}
\angg{\dot{\varphi}\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial
k_{\alpha}} } + \dot{W} .\end{aligned}$$ The time derivative of the elastic energy $E_0(g^{\alpha\beta})$ can be taken in the following way. $${\dot E}_0 = \frac{\p E_0}{\p g^{\alpha\beta}}{\dot g}^{\alpha\beta} =
-\sigma_{\alpha \beta} {\dot a}^\alpha_i a^\beta_i
\ee %57
where
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\alpha \beta} = -2 \frac{\p E_0}{\p g^{\alpha\beta}} .
\ee %58
Substituting $\,{\dot a}^\alpha_i\,$ from the evolution equation (10)
in (57) yields
\begin{equation}
{\dot E}_0 = \sigma_{\alpha \beta} a^\beta_i \left(
\frac{\p a^\alpha_i}{\p x_k} {\dot u}_k +
a^\alpha_k \frac {\p {\dot u}_k} {\p x_i} \right) .
\ee %59
On the other hand
\begin{equation}
\nabla_k E_0 = \frac{\p E_0}{\p g^{\alpha\beta}} \nabla g^{\alpha\beta} =
-\sigma_{\alpha \beta} a^\beta_i \frac {\partial a^\alpha_i}{\p x_k} .
\ee %60
It follows from (59) and (60) that
\begin{equation}
{\dot E}_0 =
\sigma_{\alpha\beta}a_i^{\alpha}a_k^{\beta}
\frac{\partial {\dot u}_i}{\partial x_k} - \dot{\bf u}\nabla E_0 .
\ee %61
\par
The time derivative of the full momentum (52) gives
\begin{equation}
0 = -{\bf{\dot J}}+ {\dot \rho}{\dot {\bf u}} + \rho\ddot{\bf u} +
m\dot{\bf a}_ {\alpha} \angg{ \frac{\partial\eps}{\partial
k_{\alpha}}\varphi} +m{\bf a}_{\alpha} \ang{
\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial k_{\alpha}}\dot{\varphi} } +
m{\bf a}_{\alpha} \angg{ \frac{\partial\dot{\eps}}{\partial
k_{\alpha}}\varphi } + \dot{\bf g} .$$ Multiplying (62) by $-\dot{\bf u}\,$ and adding the result to the right hand side of (56) yield $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{E} = \dot{\bf u}\dot{\bf J} - \frac{1}{2}\dot{\rho}\dot{\bf u}^2 +
\sigma_{\alpha\beta}a_i^{\alpha}a_k^{\beta} \frac{\partial\dot{u}_i}{\partial
x_k} - m\ddot{\bf u} {\bf a}_{\alpha}
\angg{
\varphi\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial k_{\alpha}}}
- \dot{\bf u}\nabla E_0
+
\dot{W} -
\dot{\bf u}\dot{\bf g} + \frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\langle \langle \eps\varphi\rangle \rangle .\end{aligned}$$ The last term is considered in Appendix 2. Substituting the time derivatives ${\dot{\bf J}}$ and ${\dot \rho}$ by means of (53) and (51) one obtains after cumbersome calculations: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{E} & + & \nabla_k\left\{\frac{1}{2}\rho \dot{u}^2\dot{u}_k +
\dot{u}_i\left(\Pi_{ik} - \rho\dot{u}_i\dot{u}_k + E_0\delta_{ik} +
\langle \langle \eps f\rangle \rangle \delta_{ik}\right) \right.
\nonumber\\ & - &\left.\frac{1}{2}m\dot{u}^2
\ang{\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial p_k}f} + \ang{\eps
\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial p_k}f} \right\} \nonumber\\ & = &
\frac{\partial\dot{u}_i}{\partial x_k}\left\{\Pi_{ik} -
\rho\dot{u}_i\dot{u}_k + \sigma_{i k}
- \langle \lambda_{i k} f\rangle +
E_0\delta_{ik} \right.\nonumber\\
& - &\left. \dot{u}_i j_{0i} -\dot{u}_kj_{0i}
\frac{}{}\right\} + \langle \eps\hat{I}f\rangle +
\ang{{\bf F}\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial {\bf p}}f} +
\dot{W} - \dot{\bf u}\dot{\bf g}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\lambda_{ik} = 2 \frac{\p \eps}{\p g^{\alpha\beta}}a^\alpha_i a^\beta_k
\qquad
\sigma_{ik} = -2 \frac{\p E_0}{\p g^{\alpha\beta}}a^\alpha_i a^\beta_k .
\ee %65
The last three terms in (64) describe the change of the field
energy, field momentum and the effect of external forces. They depend
on the concrete type of interaction.
\par
If there are no external fields then the last three terms in (64)
should be omitted and the energy and momentum fluxes are:
\begin{equation}
Q_i = E\dot{u}_i + \ang{\eps\frac{\partial H}{\partial
p_i}f}
- \frac{1}{2}\dot{u}^2 J_i + \Pi_{ik} \dot{u}_k$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{ik} =
- (\sigma_{ik} + E_0\delta_{ik})
+ \rho\dot{u}_i\dot{u}_k
%\nonumber \\
+
\langle\lambda_{ik}f\rangle
-m \left \langle f\frac{\partial \eps}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial
\eps}{\partial p_k}\right \rangle
+ m \left \langle f\frac{\partial H}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial
H}{\partial p_k} \right \rangle .\end{aligned}$$
The momentum flux tensor consists of two parts, $L_{ik}$ and $P_{ik}$, which correspond to the contributions of the lattice and quasiparticles respectively: $$L_{ik} = -(\sigma_{ik} + E_0 \delta_{ik}) + \rho_0 {\dot u}_i {\dot u}_k
\ee %68
\begin{equation}
P_{ik} = \langle \lambda^0_{ik} f\rangle +
m \left \langle f \frac{\p H}{\p p_i} \frac{\p H}{\p p_k}\right\rangle
\ee %69
where
$$
\langle \lambda^0_{ik} f\rangle =
\langle \lambda_{ik} f\rangle
- m \left \langle f \frac{\p \eps}{\p p_i}
\frac{\p \eps}{\p p_k} \right \rangle
$$
is the quasiparticle momentum flux tensor in the system of centre of mass
while $ \langle \lambda_{ik} f\rangle $ corresponds to the co-moving frame.
It can be shown (Appendix 3) that the sume $\sigma_{ik} + E_0 \delta_{ik}$
corresponds (but coinsides in linear approximation only) to the stress tensor of
the linear elasticity theory and turns into
pressure for isotropic media.
Finally, the equation of the elasticity theory for an elastic
crystalline body with quasiparticle excitations in the absence of external
fields takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}(\rho\dot{u}_i) = - \frac{\partial\Pi_{ik}}{\partial x_k}
- \frac{\partial j_{0i}}{\partial t} .$$ The last term in the right-hand side describes the force which appears when varying the quasiparticle mass current with respect to the lattice.
Let us now consider the effect of the electromagnetic field. The Maxwell’s equations are: $$\begin{aligned}
\curl{\bf E} &=& -\frac{1}{c}\, \frac{\partial{\bf B}}{\partial t}\,
,\qquad \curl {\bf H} = \frac{4\pi}{c}{\bf j}_e + \frac{1}{c}\,
\frac{\partial{\bf D}}{\partial t} \, ,
\\ %71
\div{\bf D} &=& 4\pi q, \qquad \qquad \div{\bf B} = 0,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf j}_e = {\bf j}'_e + q \dot {\bf u}$, $q = q_0 -e n $ is the charge density ($q_0$ being the lattice charge) and $$\quad {\bf j}'_e = -\frac{e}{m}{\bf j}'_0 ,\quad e > 0$$ is the electron current density in the co-moving frame.
We have now to take into account the field terms in (64) containing the densities of the field energy $W$, the field momentum $\bf g$ and the Lorentz force $\bf
F$.
Before going on we would like to mention that the extraneous charges $q_0$ have to be considered as a separate system. They are not accounted in the Boltzmann equation as well as in the Lorentz force (40). Therefore, one needs some additional equations. In metals, this additional equation is the quasineutrality condition [@AP] $q_0 = en$. This is a good approximation also for semiconductors at low frequencies. The behaviour of the systems of electrons and other charges in the crystal depends on the problem considered. This is not the aim of our work. The presence of extraneous charges makes the whole system open and conservation laws (47)-(55) do not present a full system. One has to take into account both mechanical work and that of the induced forces. If the only current carriers are electrons, then one has to put $q = 0$. However, in order to keep the general form of Maxwell’s equations we shall compensate the missing contribution [^1] to the time derivative of the field energy by a term $\dx \dot w = -\dot{\bf u}
\left( q{\bf E} + \frac{1}{c} {\bf j_e \times B}\right)$.
Therefore, the full field contribution is: $${\dot W}_f =
\ang{{\bf F}\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial {\bf p}}f} +
\dot{W} - \dot{\bf u}\dot{\bf g} + \dot w .
\ee %74
Maxwell's eqs. (71) and (72) are written in $L$-system.
They have to be supplemented
by constitute relations. However, one has to keep in mind that these
relations have their known simple form only in the co-moving frame.
In that frame one has:
\begin{equation}
{\bf D}' = \epsilon {\bf E}', \qquad {\bf B }' = \mu {\bf H}',
\ee %75
where
\begin{equation}
{\bf D}' = {\bf D} + \frac{1}{c}{\bf v \times H} ,\qquad
{\bf E }' = {\bf E } + \frac{1}{c}{\bf v \times B}
\ee %76
\begin{equation}
{\bf B}' = {\bf B} - \frac{1}{c} {\bf v} \times{\bf E} , \qquad
{\bf H }' = {\bf H } - \frac{1}{c} {\bf v} \times{\bf D}
\ee %77
and $\bf v = {\dot u}$ is introduced for convenience.
\par
It is easy to see that
\begin{equation}
{\bf v D} = {\bf v D}' = \epsilon {\bf v E}' = \epsilon {\bf v E},
\qquad
{\bf v B} = {\bf v B}' = \mu {\bf v H}' = \mu {\bf v H} .
\ee %78
\par
Relations (75)-(78)
are exact althogh (76) and (77) coincide in letter to the field
transformations with an accuracy to $v/c$.\footnote{ The exact field
transformations are
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf \tilde E} &=&
{\bf\gamma E} +(1-\gamma){(\bf E.n)n} + \gamma \frac{\bf v}{c} \times {\bf B}
,\qquad %\nonumber \\
{\bf \tilde B} =
{\bf\gamma B} +(1-\gamma){(\bf B.n)n} - \gamma \frac{\bf v}{c} \times {\bf E}
\nonumber \\
{\bf \tilde D} &=&
{\bf\gamma D} +(1-\gamma){(\bf D.n)n} + \gamma \frac{\bf v}{c} \times {\bf H}
,\qquad %\nonumber \\
{\bf \tilde H} =
{\bf\gamma H} +(1-\gamma){(\bf H.n)n} - \gamma \frac{\bf v}{c} \times {\bf D}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where
$$
{\bf n} = \frac{{\bf v}}{v}, \qquad \gamma = \left( 1- \frac{ v^2}{c^2}
\right)^{-1/2}
$$
\par
These fields obviously satisfy relations (78).
Then from the constitute relations in the co-moving frame $\dx
{\bf \tilde D} = \epsilon {\bf \tilde E}, \,\,
{\bf \tilde B} = \mu {\bf \tilde H}$
one obtains immediately relations (75)-(77) in the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf D} + \frac{1}{c}{\bf v \times H}
= \epsilon \left\{{\bf E } + \frac{1}{c}{\bf v \times B}\right\}
,\qquad
{\bf B} - \frac{1}{c} {\bf v} \times{\bf E}
= \mu \left\{ {\bf H } - \frac{1}{c} {\bf v} \times{\bf D}\right\}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
}
\par
When taking the time derivative of the field energy $\dot W$ in (74)
one has to keep in mind that the permeabilities $\mu$ and $\epsilon$
in a nonstationary deformed media are
functions of space and time. For example, the variation of the
electrical part of the field energy in the lattice frame is:
$$
\delta W'_E =\frac{1}{4 \pi}{\bf E'\delta D'} =
\frac{1}{4\pi}\left\{ {\bf E'^2 \delta\epsilon +
\epsilon E'\delta E'}\right\} = \frac {{\bf E'^2}}{8 \pi}\delta\epsilon +
\delta \frac{\epsilon {\bf E^2}}{8 \pi}.
$$
Therefore, the full variation of $W$ in time can be written
in the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot W &=& \frac{1}{4 \pi} ({\bf E \dot D + H \dot B}) =\nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{1}{4 \pi}\left( {\bf E'} - \frac {{\bf v}}{c}\times{\bf B}\right)
\left( {\bf \dot D'} - \frac {{\bf v}}{c}\times{\bf \dot H}\right)
+
\frac{1}{4 \pi}\left( {\bf H'} + \frac {{\bf v}}{c}\times{\bf D}\right)
\left( {\bf \dot B'} - \frac {{\bf v}}{c}\times{\bf \dot E}\right)
= \nonumber \\ &=&
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \frac {\epsilon E'^2 + \mu H'^2}{8 \pi} +
\frac{E'^2}{8 \pi}\dot\epsilon +
\frac{H'^2}{8 \pi}\dot\mu + {\bf v (\dot g + \dot G)} +
\nonumber \\ &+&
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\frac{\epsilon({\bf v\times E'})^2
+ \mu({\bf v \times H'})^2}{8\pi c^2} +
\frac{({\bf v \times E'})^2}{8\pi c^2}\dot \epsilon
+\frac{({\bf v \times H'})^2}{8\pi c^2}\dot \mu + 0(v^3/c^3)
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
{\bf g} = \frac {{\bf E \times H}}{4 \pi c}, \qquad
{\bf G} = \frac {{\bf D \times B}}{4 \pi c} .$$
From here on we shall restrict our consideration within an accuracy to $v/c$ (neglecting terms $0(v^2/c^2)$. Then $$\dot W - {\bf v \dot g} =
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \frac {\epsilon E'^2 + \mu H'^2}{8 \pi} +
\frac{E'^2}{8 \pi}\dot\epsilon +
\frac{H'^2}{8 \pi}\dot\mu + {\bf v \dot G} .$$
The quantities $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ are functions of the metrical tensor $g^{\alpha\beta}$. So their time derivatives $\dot \epsilon$ and $\dot \mu$ can be treated in the same way as the derivative of $E_0$ (c.f. (57)-(61)). This yields: $$\dot\epsilon =- \epsilon_{ik}\frac{\p v_i}{\p x_k} - {\bf v }\nabla\epsilon,
\qquad
\dot\mu =- \mu_{ik}\frac{\p v_i}{\p x_k} - {\bf v} \nabla\mu,
\ee %95
where
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{ik} = 2\frac{\p \epsilon}{\p g^{\alpha\beta}}a^\alpha_i a^\beta_k,
\qquad
\mu_{ik} = 2\frac{\p \mu}{\p g^{\alpha\beta}}a^\alpha_i a^\beta_k.
\ee %96
\par
Substituting (82) and (83) in (81) and making use of the Poynting
theoreme one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot W- {\bf v \dot g} &=& -\div{\bf S'} - {\bf j}'_e {\bf E}' -
\left( \frac{{\bf E}'^2}{8 \pi} \epsilon_{ik} +
\frac{{\bf H}'^2}{8\pi}\mu_{ik} \right) \frac{\p v_i}{\p x_k}\nonumber\\
&-& {\bf v} \left(\frac{{\bf E}'^2}{8 \pi}\nabla\epsilon + \frac{{\bf
H}'^2}{8\pi} \nabla \mu\right)
+{\bf v}{\bf \dot G} .
\end{eqnarray} %98
\par
Neglecting terms of the order $0(v^2/c^2)$ in (79) means
that one can replace $\dot {\bf G}$ by $\dot {\bf G}'$.
The time derivative $\dot {\bf G'}$ can be transformed using Maxwell's
equations in the co-moving frame. This yields:
\begin{equation}
{\bf v} \dot{\bf G'} = -
{\bf v} \left(q {\bf E'} +
\frac{1}{c} {\bf j}'_e \times {\bf B'}\right)
+ v_i \nabla_k t'_{ik}
+ {\bf v} \left(\frac{{\bf E}'^2}{8 \pi}\nabla\epsilon + \frac{{\bf
H}'^2}{8\pi} \nabla \mu\right)
\ee %99
where
\begin{equation}
t'_{ik} =
\frac{\epsilon}{4 \pi} \left( E'_i E'_k -
\frac {E'^2}{2} \delta_{ik}\right) +
\frac{\mu}{4 \pi} \left( H'_i H'_k -
\frac {H'^2}{2} \delta_{ik}\right)
\ee %100
is the Maxwell's stress tensor in the co-moving frame.
It is easy to show using eqs. (76)-(78) that
$$
{\bf v} \left(q {\bf E'} +
\frac{1}{c} {\bf j}'_e \times {\bf B'}\right)
=
{\bf v} \left(q {\bf E} +
\frac{1}{c} {\bf j}_e \times {\bf B}\right) =
{\bf j_e E - j'_e E'}.
$$
\par
The term which contains Lorentz force in (74) can be calculated
by means of (40):
\begin{eqnarray}
\ang{{\bf F}\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial {\bf p}}f} &=&
{\bf E}\ang{-e\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial {\bf p}}f}-
\frac{e}{c}{\bf B}\ang
{\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial {\bf p}}\times
\frac{\partial\eps}{\partial {\bf p}}
f} + \frac{1}{c} {\bf \dot u \times B}\ang{-e \frac{\partial\eps}
{\partial {\bf p}}f}
\nonumber \\ &=&
{\bf j}_e'\left( {\bf E} + \frac{\bf \dot u}{c}\times {\bf B}\right)
=
{\bf j_e' E'}.
\end{eqnarray} %101
\par
The same term, but with a negative sign exists also in (84). Therefore,
the total work related to the Lorentz force (the mechanical one
and that of
the electromotive forces) equals zero as it should be.
The terms related to the extraneous charges cancel for the same
reason.
Finally,
\begin{equation}
{\dot W}_f = -\div{\bf S}' + \nabla_k v_i t'_{ik} -
T'_{ik} \frac{\p v_i}{\p x_k}
\ee %102
where
\begin{equation}
T'_{ik} =
\frac{1}{4 \pi} \left\{\epsilon E'_i E'_k +
\frac {E'^2}{2}(\epsilon_{ik} -
\epsilon \delta_{ik})
+
\mu H'_i H'_k +
\frac {H'^2}{2}( \mu_{ik} - \mu \delta_{ik}) \right\}
\ee %103
\par
Hence, one has to add the term
\begin{equation}
Q_i^f = S_i' - v_k t'_{ik} = S_i - v_iW
\ee %104
to the energy flux density in (66), as well as the term $ \, -T'_{ik}$ to
the momentum flux tensor $\Pi_{ik}$ in (67).
\par
The elasticity theory equation takes then the form:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}(\rho\dot{u}_i) =
- \frac{\partial L_{ik}}{\partial x_k}
- \frac{\partial P_{ik}}{\partial x_k}
+ \frac{\partial T'_{ik}}{\partial x_k}
+\frac{m}{e} \frac{\partial j'_{ei}}{\partial t}
-\frac{\partial g_{i}}{\partial t} \, .
\ee %105
\par
The current and the electromagnetic
stress tensor $\hat T'$ are written
in the lattice frame.
Note, that the term
with the electrical current represents, in fact, the electron
mass-flow (the momentum, associated with the current). That part
of the electron mass current, which moves together with the latice,
is included in $\rho$ in the left-hand side of the equation.
The electromagnetic momentum flux tensor in $L$-system
has the form:
\begin{equation}
T_{ik} = \frac{1}{4 \pi}\left(\epsilon E_iE_k + \mu H_iH_k\right)
+(\epsilon_{ik} - \epsilon\delta_{ik})
\frac{E^2}{8 \pi} +(\mu_{ik} - \mu\delta_{ik})
\frac{H^2}{8 \pi} + v_iG_k + v_kG_i - v_ig_k -v_kg_i$$ Obviously, for small velocities one can replace $T'_{ik}$ by the corresponding tensor $T_{ik}$ in $L$-system.
If electrons in a good conductor (metal) are considered, then the quasineutrality condition holds and the displacement current as well as the field momenta $\bf g$ and $\bf G$ have to be put zero. Atually, the two terms in the right-hand side of the Ampere’s law can be considered as expansion with respect to the electric field frequency: $\dx {\bf j} +
\frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{\partial {\bf D}}{\partial t} \approx \sigma{\bf E} +
\frac{\omega\epsilon}{4\pi}\bf E$. In metals $\sigma \gg \omega\epsilon/(4\pi)$, and the dissplacement current can be neglected. As a result, one has $$T^{metal}_{ik} =
\frac{\mu}{4 \pi} H_iH_k
+(\mu_{ik} - \mu\delta_{ik})
\frac{H^2}{8 \pi}$$ This tensor contains an additional term $\dx \frac
{H'^2}{8\pi}\mu_{ik}$ compared to our previous works [@AP; @Singapore; @Nauka; @Klara], in which the magnetic permeability has been taken constant. As shown in Appendix 3 in case of a noncrystalline body (e.g. fluid) the quantities $\mu_{ik}$ and $\epsilon_{ik}$ have to be replaced by $\dx \left(\rho\frac{\partial\mu}
{\partial\rho}\right)_T\delta_{ik}$ and $\dx \left(\rho\frac{\partial\epsilon}
{\partial\rho}\right)_T\delta_{ik}$, correspondingly (comp. Ref. [@LLE], §56).
Conclusion
===========
In this work we have considered dynamics and kinetics of charged quasiparticles with arbitrary dispersion relations in deformable crystalline structures. We have chosen the most general case of time-varying deformations when the quasimomentum is not a good quantum number, and energy does not coinside to the Hamiltonian. We have derived a full selfconsistent set of equations which consists of the nonlinear elasticity theory equation (91) the kinetic equation (41) or (44) and Maxwell’s equations supplemented by constitute relations. The kinetic equation is valid for the whole Brillouin zone and contains a new term responsible for some inertial effects. The elasticity theory equation is derived from the conservation laws written in the most general form. The only approximation is that the electromagnetic field transformations are taken with an accuracy to $0(v^2/c^2)$. Any higher accuracy for the solid-state theory now would be pointless. In such a way the theory presented is exact in the frame of the quasiparticle approach. It can be used for any material (metal, semiconductor, quantum crystal, low-dimensional structures etc.) with linear relations between electromagnetic fields. It is easy to write the corresponding set of equations for more than one type of quasiparticles (e.g. electrons and holes).
In case of electrons in metals the results obtained fit well to those of our previous works [@AP; @Singapore].
The author is grateful to Professor F.Bassani for helpful discussions. Support from National Science Fund (Bulgaria) and Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (Italy) is acknowledged.
Appendix 1 {#sec*:A1 .unnumbered}
===========
The evolution equation (9) for the primitive vectors $\dx \bf a_\alpha$ can be deduced from the following consideration (we shall omit the subscript $\alpha$ for conveninence). The lattice vector $\bf a(r,t)$ at instant $t$ is defined by the two lattice sites $\bf r_1(t)$ and $\bf r_2(t)$: $ \bf a = r_2 - r_1$. After a time interval $\delta t$ the lattice vector changes to ${\bf a'}({\bf r'},t+\delta t) = {\bf r'_2 - r'_1}$. The new positions of the lattice sites are obviously $ {\bf r'_1 = r_1 + v(r_1)}\delta t$, and ${\bf r'_2 = r_2 + v(r_2)}\delta t$ where the velocity of the lattice site $\bf r$ in the moment $t$ is denoted by $\bf v(r)= {\dot u}(r)$. It follows from the last two equations that $${\bf a' - a = (v(r_2) - v(r_1))\delta t}.$$ Taking into account that $\bf v(r_2) = v(r_1 + a) = v(r_1) +
(a\nabla)v$, and ${\bf a' = a(r + v}\delta t, t +\delta t) = {\bf a } +
{\bf {\dot a}} + {\bf (v \nabla) a}$ one obtains $${\bf {\dot a}} + \bf (v \nabla) a - (a \nabla) v = 0. \eqno (A1.1)$$ This equation coinsides with (9) in the Notation. It conserves automatically the lattice vectors lines. In fact, the $\bf a$-vector line conservation condition consists in collinearity of $\bf a$ and the left-hand side of (A1.1),[@Kochin] i.e. in $$\left[{\bf {\dot a}} + \bf (v \nabla) a - (a \nabla) v\right]\times {\bf a} =
0. \eqno (A1.2)$$ Hence, eq. (A1.1) describes deformations which do not break or cross crystalline lines with equal $\alpha$. This means that in a crystal lattice free of dislocations the three functions $N^{\alpha}({\bf r}, t)$ are single-valued, and equation (A1.1) desdribes completely the evolution of the lattice configuration.
The evolution equation for the reciprocal lattice vectors $\bf
a^{\alpha}$ can be obtained from (A1.1) and the relation $${\bf a}^{\alpha} =
\frac{\partial N^{\alpha}}{\partial{\bf r}}.
\eqno(A1.3)$$ The later follows directly from the expression for the physically infinitisimal differential coordinates at given instant $
d{\bf r = a_{\alpha}}d N^{\alpha}
$ and relations (7). Multiplying (A1.1) by ${\bf a}^{\alpha}_k$ yields $$a^{\alpha}_k {\dot a}_{\alpha i} + a^{\alpha}_k ({\bf \dot u} \nabla)
a_{\alpha i} - a^{\alpha}_k a_{\alpha s} \nabla_s {\dot u}_i = 0
\eqno (A1.4)$$ Taking into account relations (7) one has $$a_{\alpha i} \left( {\dot a}^{\alpha}_k + ({\bf \dot u}\nabla) a^{\alpha}_k
\right) + \nabla_k {\dot u}_i = 0
\eqno(A1.5)$$ Multiplying this equation with $a^{\beta}_i$ yields $$\bf {\dot a}^{\alpha} + \nabla(a^{\alpha} {\dot u}) = 0
\eqno(A1.6)$$ In obtaining (A1.6) we have taken into account that $
\nabla_i a^{\alpha}_k - \nabla_k a^{\alpha}_i = 0
$ as a consequence of (A1.3).
Substituting (A1.3) into (A1.6) gives $$\nabla \left( {\dot N}^{\alpha} + {\bf a^{\alpha}{\dot u}}\right) = 0$$ and hence, $${\bf \dot u} = -{\bf a}_{\alpha}{\dot N}^{\alpha}, \quad
{\dot N}^{\alpha} = -{\bf \dot u a^{\alpha}}.
\eqno(A1.7)$$ It follows from (A1.3) and (A1.7) that $$d N^{\alpha} = \frac {\partial N^{\alpha}}{\partial {\bf r}}d {\bf r} +
\frac{\partial N^{\alpha}}{\partial t} d t = {\bf a^{\alpha}} d{\bf r} -
{\bf a^{\alpha} \dot u} dt
\eqno (A1.8)$$ This expression coincides with that given in Notation. It can be written also in the form used in the text: $$d{\bf r} = {\bf a}_\alpha d N^\alpha + {\bf {\dot u}} d t$$
Appendix 2 {#sec*:A2 .unnumbered}
===========
To obtain the time derivarive of the quasiparticle energy density one can use the kinetic equation (44) for $\varphi(\mbox {\boldmath $\kappa$},{\bf r},t)$. Since the fluxes through the Brillouin zone boundaries in this notation equal zero it can be written in its integrated by parts form $$\dot \varphi + \div \left\{ \left( \dot{\bf u} + {\bf a}_\alpha
\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial \kappa_\alpha} \right) \varphi \right\}
+ {\bf a}_{\alpha} \left\{ \nabla \epsilon +
m \frac{\d { \dot {\bf u}}}{\d t}
- m \frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial \kappa_{\beta}}
{\bf a}_{\beta}\times \curl\dot{\bf u} - {\bf F}\right\}\varphi
\frac{\partial}{\partial \kappa_\alpha} = \hat{I}\varphi .
\eqno(A2.1)$$
We have to transform the expresssion $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \langle \epsilon f \rangle =
\langle \langle \dot{\epsilon}\varphi\rangle \rangle +
\langle \langle \epsilon\dot{\varphi}\rangle \rangle.
\eqno(A2.2)$$ As the derivative with respect to $t$ is taken at constant [$\kappa$]{} one can use the same procedure, as when obtaining (61). This yields $$\dot{\epsilon} = \left(\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial
t}\right)_{\mbox {\boldmath $\kappa$}}
=\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{\alpha\beta}\dot{g}^{\alpha\beta} = -
\lambda_{\alpha\beta} a_i^{\alpha}a_k^{\beta}
\frac{\partial\dot{u}_i}{\partial x_k} -
\dot{u}(\nabla\epsilon)_{\mbox {\boldmath $\kappa$}} \, ,
\eqno(A2.3)$$ + where $$\lambda_{\alpha\beta} =
2\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial g^{\alpha\beta}} =
\lambda_{\beta\alpha}
\eqno(A2.4)$$
Multiplying (A2.3) by $\varphi$ and (A2.1) by $\epsilon$ one obtains after substituting into (A2.2): $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \langle \epsilon f
\rangle
& = &
\langle \langle \epsilon\hat{I}\varphi\rangle \rangle
- \div \left(\dot{\bf u}\langle \langle \epsilon\varphi\rangle \rangle
+ {\bf a}_{\alpha\beta} \angg{\epsilon
\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial k_{\alpha}}\varphi } \right) + {\bf
a}_{\alpha}
\angg{
{\bf F} \frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial k_{\alpha}}\varphi }
\nonumber\\ & - & m\ddot{\bf u}{\bf a}_{\alpha}
\angg{ \frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial
k_{\alpha}}\varphi }
-\frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_k} \left(m\dot{u}_k a_{\alpha i}
\angg{
\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial k_{\alpha}}\varphi } +
a_i^{\alpha}a_k^{\beta}
\langle \langle \lambda_{\alpha\beta}\varphi \rangle \rangle
\right) \nonumber\\
& = &
\langle \epsilon\hat{I}f\rangle - \div\left(\dot{\bf u}
\langle \epsilon f\rangle + \ang{\epsilon
\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial {\bf p}}f} \right) + \ang{
{\bf F}
\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial {\bf p}}f } - m\ddot{\bf u}
\ang{\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial {\bf p}}f} \nonumber\\
& - & \frac{\partial\dot{u}_i}{\partial x_k} \left(m\dot{u}_k
\ang{\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial p_i}f} + a_i^{\alpha}
a_k^{\beta}\langle \lambda_{\alpha\beta}f\rangle \right)\end{aligned}$$ where the rules (45) are used to replace the double brakets by single ones. This expression is used when obtaining (64).
We would like here to pointed out how easily this formula has been obtained. For comparisson, the expression which corresponds to (A2.2) in variables ${\bf p, r},t$ has the form: $$\left( \frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial t}\right)_{\bf p} =
-\lambda_{\alpha \beta}a^\alpha_i a^\beta_k \frac{\partial {\dot u_i}}
{\partial x_k} - m \ddot{\bf u}\frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial {\bf p}}
-\dot{\bf u} (\nabla \epsilon)_{\bf p} +
\left( p_i \frac{\partial \epsilon}{\partial p_k} - m \ddot u_k \right)
\frac{\partial \dot u_i}{\partial x_k}.$$
This expression is both cumbersom and nonperiodic which creates additional difficulties.
Appendix 3 {#sec:A3 .unnumbered}
===========
The lattice contribution $L_{ik}$ to the momentum flux density tensor $\Pi_{ik}$ is given by (68). The term in the brakets can be written in the form: $$\sigma_{ik} + E_0\delta_{ik} =
\left( \sigma_{\alpha\beta}
+ E_0 g_{\alpha \beta} \right)a^\alpha_i a^\beta_k
\eqno (A3.1)$$ where $E_0(g^{\alpha \beta})$ is the strain energy per unit volume.
In an isotropic medium the dependence of $E_0$ on $g^{\alpha\beta}$ is reduced to a dependence on $g = \det g_{\alpha\beta}$: $$\sigma_{\alpha\beta} = -2\frac{\partial E_0}{\partial g}
\frac{\p g}{\p g^{\alpha\beta}}.$$
By the well known formula $$d g = - g g_{\alpha\beta}dg^{\alpha\beta}$$ one obtains easily $$\sigma_{\alpha\beta} =
2g \frac{\p E_0}{\p g}a_{\alpha l}a_{\beta l}$$ and hence $$\sigma_{ik} =
2g \frac{\p E_0}{\p g}a_{\alpha l}a_{\beta l}
a^{\alpha }_i a^\beta_k =
2g \frac{\p E_0}{\p g}\delta_{ik}
\eqno(A3.2)$$
Taking into account that $g$ is the squared volume of a unit cell ($ g = V^2$) and that $V = 1/\rho$ one obtains $$\sigma_{ik} = -\rho \frac{\p E_0}{\p \rho}\delta_{ik}
\eqno(A3.3)$$
Hence, it is seen, that in an isotropic case $$2 a_{i}^\alpha a_k^{\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial g^{\alpha \beta}}
\quad \rightarrow \quad \delta_{ik} \rho\frac{\partial}{\partial \rho}.
\eqno(A3.4)$$
Let now $\tilde E_0$ and $\, s\,$ be the internal energy and entropy per unit mass $\,(\tilde E_0 = E_0 V)\,$. Making use of the thermodynamic relation $$d \tilde E_0 = T d s - P d V + \mu d N
\eqno(A3.5)$$ one can define the pressure $\,P\,$ as $$P = -\left(\frac{\p \tilde {E_0}}{\p V}\right)_{s,N} =
-\left(\frac{\p E_0 V}{\p V}\right)_{s,N} =
-E_0 + \rho\left(\frac{\p E_0}{\p \rho }\right)_{s,N}
\eqno(A3.6)$$
It follows from (A3.3) and (A3.6) that in isotropic medium $$\sigma_{ik} + E_0 \delta_{ik} = -P\delta_{ik}
\eqno(A3.7)$$
It is supposed in our consideration that the only contribution to the entropy is due to quasiparticles and this contribution comes from the kinetic equation. Therefore, the derivatives of $\, E_0 \,$ with respect to the metrical tensor components $g^{\alpha\beta}$ are assumed as taken at constant entropy.
An alternative approach can be based on the free energy thermodynamic potential per unit volume $\, F(T,P,N)\,$. In that case one obtains $$-P = F - \rho\left(\frac{\p F}{\p \rho }\right)_{T}
\eqno(A3.8)$$
D.I. Pushkarov, J.Phys.C- Solid State Phys. [**19**]{} 6873 (1986); Preprint P17-85-224, Joint Inst. Nucl. Res., Dubna, USSR (1985). A. F. Andreev and D. I. Pushkarov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**89**]{} 1883 (1985) (in Russian), (Sov. Phys.JETP [**62**]{} 1087 (1985)). V. M. Kontorovich, Usp. Fiz. Nauk [**142**]{}(2) (1984) 265. (in Russian) V. M. Kontorovich, In [*Elektroni Provodimosti*]{}, eds. M. I. Kaganov and V. S. Edelman, Moscow, Nauka, 1985. (in Russian.) D. I. Pushkarov, [*Quasiparticle Theory of Defects in Solids*]{}, World Scientific, Singapore-New Jersey-London-Hong Kong, 1991. D. I. Pushkarov, [*Defektony v Kristallakh …*]{} ( Defectons in Crystals. Quasiparticle Approach to Defects in Solids), Moscow, Nauka 1993. (in Russian.) D. I. Pushkarov, [*Quasiparticle Approach in Quantum Theory of Solids*]{}, DSc Thesis, Dubna, USSR, 1986. (in Russian.) D.I.Pushkarov, R.D.Atanasov and K.D.Ivanova, [*Phys.Rev.*]{}[**B 46**]{} (12) 7374-7378 (1992) L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Nauka, Moscow, (problem in §17), 1974. (in Russian.) L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Electrodynamics of Continuous Media*]{}, Nauka, Moscow §65, 1978. (in Russian.) English translation: Pergamon Press (1963) N. E. Kochin, [*Vector Calculus and the Rudiments of Tensor Calculus*]{}, Nauka, Moscow 1965 (in Russian).
[^1]: Actually, if one is only interested in stress-tensor components then charges and current can be omitted (c.f. Ref. [@LLE], §34).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Learning in Riemannian orbifolds is motivated by existing machine learning algorithms that directly operate on finite combinatorial structures such as point patterns, trees, and graphs. These methods, however, lack statistical justification. This contribution derives consistency results for learning problems in structured domains and thereby generalizes learning in vector spaces and manifolds.'
author:
- |
Brijnesh J. Jain and Klaus Obermayer\
Technische Universität Berlin\
Berlin, Germany\
e-mail: [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'spr.bib'
title: Learning in Riemannian Orbifolds
---
Introduction
============
Statistical data analysis and learning in Riemannian orbifolds is motivated by applications, where the data we want to learn on are naturally represented by finite combinatorial structures such as point patterns, trees, and graphs. Examples from structural pattern recognition that learn on structured data include estimating central points of a distribution on graphs such as the mean and median [@Ferrer:2007; @Jain:2009d; @Jain:2008; @Jiang:2001], central clustering of graphs [@Ferrer:2009b; @Gold:1996b; @Gunter:2002; @Hlaoui:2006; @Jain:2004a; @Jain:2008; @Schenker:2007], learning graph quantization [@Jain:2009b], and multilayer perceptrons for graphs [@Jain:2004b]. In retrospect, the structure space framework proposed by [@Jain:2009a] theoretically justifies the above approaches in the sense that they actually minimize an empirical risk function on structures. Since minimizing an empirical risk function is usually computationally intractable, the ultimate challenge consists in constructing efficient algorithms which are capable to return optimal or at least suboptimal solutions.
From the point of view of statistical pattern recognition, however, the ultimate goal is not to determine a good solution of an empirical risk function, but rather to discover the true but unknown structure of the data with respect to its distribution. According to this perspective, we may regard the solutions of empirical risk functions as estimators of the true but unknown population parameter. One gap between statistical and structural pattern recognition is the lack of consistency results of existing estimators for the population parameters. As a consequence most methods from structural pattern recognition that directly operate in the domain of graphs still have no statistical justification.
The first contribution of this paper establishes sufficient conditions for consistency of estimators defined by empirical risk functions on attributed graphs. For this we regard graphs as points of some structure space [@Jain:2009a]. A structure space is the quotient of a Euclidean space by some permutation group. The benefit of the structure space framework is that it provides enough mathematical structure for doing differential geometry and at the same time preserves the full relational information of the graphs. In comparison to [@Jain:2009a], the innovations are as follows: First, we extend the more suitable concept of generalized differentiability in the sense of Norkin [@Norkin:1986] to functions on graphs. Second, we prove the stronger result that the underlying empirical risk functions on graphs are generalized differentiable rather than locally Lipschitz. Third, equipped with these results, we apply a consistency theorem by Ermoliev and Norkin [@Ermoliev:1998] for generalized differentiable loss functions. Finally, using some examples, we show that standard methods from statistical pattern recognition can be generalized to consistent learning algorithms on graphs.
The second contribution shifts the terminology from structure spaces to the more general notion of orbifold. Informally, orbifolds are topological spaces locally modeled on quotients of manifolds by finite group actions. As such, structure spaces are the simplest examples of Riemannian orbifolds. Shifting the focus to orbifolds provides a new view on the problem with the following benefits: First, the notion of orbifold more strongly emphasizes the way we exploit differential geometric tools for graphs, namely via charting and lifting as in Riemannian geometry. Second, using the notion of orbifold integrates the structure space framework into an established mathematical field providing access to useful concepts, results, and insights. Third, the notion of orbifold indicates how the theory can be generalized to structures that locally live in a quotient of a manifold by some finite group action. Fourth, since orbifolds generalize Euclidean spaces and manifolds, this framework not only establishes consistency for stochastic generalized gradient learning but also for standard stochastic gradient learning in Euclidean spaces (see [@Bottou:2003]) under the unifying umbrella of learning on Riemannian orbifolds.
The Problem of Learning on Graphs
=================================
This section aims at outlining the problem of learning on structured data in order to motivate learning in Riemannian orbifolds. As an illustrative example, we consider the problem of estimating the mean of a distribution on attributed graphs.
#### Attributed Graphs. {#attributed-graphs. .unnumbered}
We begin with describing the structures we want to learn on. Let $\S{A}$ be a set of *attributes* and let $\varepsilon \in \S{A}$ be a distinguished element denoting the *null* or *void* element. An *attributed graph* is a tuple $X = (V, \alpha)$ consisting of a finite nonempty set $V$ of *vertices* and an *attribute function* $\alpha: V \times V \rightarrow \S{A}$. Elements of the set $E = \cbrace{(i,j)\in V \times V \,:\, i \neq j \text{ and }\alpha(i,j) \neq \varepsilon}$ are the *edges* of $X$. By $\S{G_A}$ we denote the set of all attributed graphs with attributes from $\S{A}$. The vertex set of an attributed graph $X$ is often referred to as $V_X$ and its attribute function as $\alpha_X$.
#### Alignments. {#alignments. .unnumbered}
Alignments serve to compare the common structure of two given graphs. An *alignment* of a graph $X$ is a graph $X'$ with $V_X \subseteq V_{X'}$ and $$\alpha_{X'}(i,j) = \begin{cases}
\alpha_X(i,j) & (i,j) \in V_X \times V_X\\
\varepsilon & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases} \qquad \forall \; i,j\in V_{X'}.$$ Thus, we obtain an alignment of $X$ by adding isolated vertices with null-attribute. The set $V_{X'}^\varepsilon = V_{X'}\!\setminus\! V_X$ is the set of *aligned vertices*. By $\S{A}(X)$ we denote the infinite set of all alignments of $X$. A *pairwise alignment* of graphs $X$ and $Y$ is a triple $(\phi, X',Y')$ consisting of alignments $X'\in \S{A}(X)$ and $Y'\in \S{A}(Y)$ together with a bijective mapping $$\phi : V_{X'} \rightarrow V_{Y'}, \quad i \mapsto i^{\phi}.$$ A pairwise alignment $(\phi, X',Y')$ is *minimal* if $\phi$ does not map aligned vertices onto each other, that is $\phi\args{V_{X'}^\varepsilon} \subseteq V_Y$. By $\S{A}(X,Y)$ we denote the set of all minimal pairwise alignments between $X$ and $Y$. Note that $\S{A}(X, Y)$ is finite due to the minimality condition. Sometimes we briefly write $\phi$ instead of $(\phi, X',Y')$.
#### Graph Edit Distance. {#graph-edit-distance. .unnumbered}
Dissimilarity is a fundamental concept in machine learning. Here, we consider the graph edit distance, which is a common choice for measuring structural variation of two given graphs. Several distance measures reported in the structural pattern recognition literature can be derived as special cases of the graph edit distance function. Examples are geometric graph distance functions [@Gold:1996a] and distances based on the maximum common subgraph including graph and subgraph isomorphism [@Bunke:1997].
To define the graph edit distance, we regard each minimal pairwise alignment $(\phi,X',Y') \in \S{A}(X,Y)$ as an *edit path* with *edit cost* $$d_\phi\args{X',Y'} = \sum_{i,j \in V_{X'}} d_{\S{A}}\args{\alpha_{X'}(i,j), \alpha_{Y'}(i^\phi, j^\phi)},$$ where $d_\S{A}: \S{A} \times \S{A} \rightarrow \R_+$ is a distance function defined on the set $\S{A}$ of attributes. The edit cost $d_\phi$ can be decomposed into deletion cost $d_{A}(a, \varepsilon)$, insertion cost $d_{A}(\varepsilon, a')$, and substitution cost $d_{A}(a, a')$ of vertices and edges, where $a, a'\in \S{A}\setminus \cbrace{\varepsilon}$ are non-null attributes. Since $d_{\S{A}}$ is a distance function, we have $d_{\S{A}}(\varepsilon,\varepsilon) = 0$. This can only occur for pairs of non-edges by definition of minimal pairwise alignments and therefore can safely be ignored. Observe that deletion (insertion) of vertices also deletes (inserts) all edges the respective vertices are incident to. The *graph edit distance* of $X$ and $Y$ is then defined as the edit path with minimal cost $$d(X, Y) = \min\cbrace{d_\phi\args{X',Y'} \,:\, (\phi, X', Y') \in \S{A}(X,Y)}.$$
#### The Problem of Learning. {#the-problem-of-learning. .unnumbered}
Let $\args{\S{G_A}, d}$ be a graph distance space. As an illustrative example, consider the expected risk $$R(W) = \frac{1}{2}\int_{\S{G_A}} d\!\argsS{X, W}{^2} dP_{\S{G_A}}(X),$$ where $W\in \S{W} \subseteq \S{G_A}$ is the optimization variable and $X\in \S{G_A}$ is a random variable with probability distribution $P_{\S{G_A}}$. Since the distribution on the set $\S{G_A}$ of graphs is usually unknown, the goal of learning is to minimize the risk $R(W)$ on the basis of empirical data.
To point out the problems of learning in the domain of graphs, we consider the counterpart of minimizing the risk $R(W)$ in a Euclidean vector space $\S{X}$. The goal is to minimize the expected risk $$R(\vec{w}) = \frac{1}{2}\int_{\S{X}} \normS{\vec{x}-\vec{w}}{^2} dP_{\S{X}}(\vec{x}),$$ based on independent and identically distributed random points $\vec{x}_1, \ldots, \vec{x}_N \in \S{X}$, where $P_{\S{X}}$ is a probability measure on $\S{X}$. Since the loss function $\normS{\vec{x}-\vec{w}}{^2}$ is continuously differentiable, the interchange of integral and gradient is valid, that is $$\nabla R(\vec{w}) = -\int_{\S{X}} (\vec{x}-\vec{w}) dP_{\S{X}}(\vec{x}).$$ We can minimize the risk $R(\vec{w})$ using the following stochastic gradient method $$\vec{w}_{t+1} = \vec{w}_t + \frac{1}{t+1}\args{\vec{x}_t-\vec{w}_t},$$ where $\vec{w}_1 = \vec{x}_1$ and $t \geq 1$. The elements $\vec{w}_t$ of the sequence $(\vec{w}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ are sample means $$\vec{w}_t = \frac{1}{t}\sum_{i=1}^t \vec{x}_t.$$ It is well-known that the sample mean is a consistent estimator of the population mean $\vec{\mu}$, which in turn is the unique global minimizer of the expected risk $R(\vec{w})$.
After this short digression in vector spaces, let us return to the problem of minimizing the expected risk $R(W)$ in graph spaces. As opposed to vector spaces, the following factors complicate learning on graphs in a statistically consistent way: (i) the graph edit distance $d(X, Y)$ is in general not-differentiable; and (ii) neither a well-defined addition on graphs nor the notion of derivative for functions on graphs is known.
We therefore address the following questions: (i) How can we extend gradient-based learning problems from Euclidean spaces to $\S{G_A}$? (ii) How can we minimize the expected risk of a learning problem with structured input- and/or output-space $\S{G_A}$ in a statistically consistent way?
The ansatz to answer both questions is to identify graphs as points of a Riemannian orbifold and to extend the concept of generalized differentiability in the sense of Norkin [@Norkin:1986] in order to apply methods from stochastic optimization for non-differentiable and non-convex loss functions.
Riemannian Orbifolds
====================
This section introduces Riemannian orbifolds. To keep the treatment technically as uncluttered as possible, we assume that $\S{X} = \R^{n}$ is the $n$-dimensional Euclidean space, and $\Gamma$ is a permutation group acting on $\S{X}$. In doing so, we can refer to [@Jain:2009a] for proofs of statements and claims made in this section. In a more general setting, however, $\S{X}$ can also be a Riemannian manifold. In this case, we refer to [@Borzellino:1992] for more details.
Riemannian Orbifolds
--------------------
The binary operation $$\cdot: \Gamma \times \S{X} \rightarrow \S{X}, \quad (\gamma, \vec{x}) \mapsto \gamma(\vec{x})$$ is a group action of $\Gamma$ on $\S{X}$. For $\vec{x} \in \S{X}$, the *orbit* of $\vec{x}$ is the set defined by $\bracket{\vec{x}} = \cbrace{\gamma(\vec{x}) \,:\, \gamma \in \Gamma}$. The quotient set $\S{X}_\Gamma = \S{X}/\Gamma = \cbrace{\bracket{\vec{x}} \,:\, \vec{x} \in \S{X}}$ consisting of all all orbits carries the structure of a *Riemannian orbifold*. Its *orbifold chart* is the surjective continuous mapping $$\pi: \S{X} \rightarrow \S{X}_\Gamma, \quad \vec{x} \mapsto \bracket{\vec{x}}$$ that projects each point $\vec{x}$ to its orbit $\bracket{\vec{x}}$. With $\Gamma =\cbrace{\id}$ being the trivial permutation group, $\S{X}$ is also an orbifold. Hence, orbifolds generalize the notion of Euclidean space and manifold.
In the following, an orbifold is a triple $\S{Q} = \args{\S{X}, \Gamma, \pi}$ consisting of a Euclidean space $\S{X}$, a permutation group $\Gamma$ acting on $\S{X}$ and its orbifold chart $\pi$. We call the elements of $\S{X}_\Gamma$ *structures*, since they represent combinatorial structures such as graphs. We use capital letters $X, Y, Z, \ldots$ to denote structures from $\S{X}_\Gamma$ and write $\vec{x} \in X$ if $\pi(\vec{x}) = X$. Each vector $\vec{x} \in X$ is a *vector representation* of structure $X$ and the set $\S{X}$ of all vector representation is the *representation space* of $\S{X}_\Gamma$.
The Riemannian Orbifold of Graphs
---------------------------------
Riemannian orbifolds of attributed graphs arise by considering equivalence classes of matrices representing the same graph. To identify graphs with points from some orbifold, some technical assumptions to simplify the mathematical treatment are necessary. For this, let $\args{\S{G_A}, d}$ be a graph distance space with graph edit distance $d(\cdot|\cdot)$. Then we make the following assumptions:
A1. There is a feature map $\Phi:\S{A} \rightarrow \S{H}$ of the attributes into some finite dimensional Euclidean feature space $\S{H}$ and a distance function $d_{\S{H}}: \S{H}\times \S{H} \rightarrow \R_+$ such that $\Phi(\varepsilon) = \vec{0} \in \S{H}$ and $$d_{\S{A}}(a,a') = d_{\S{H}}(\Phi(a), \Phi(a')) \quad \forall\;a, a'\in \S{A}.$$
A2. All graphs are finite of bounded order $n$, where $n$ is a sufficiently large number. A graph $X$ of order less than $n$, say $m < n$, is aligned to graph $X'$ of order $n$ by inserting $p = n-m$ isolated vertices with null attribute $\varepsilon$.
Let us consider the above assumptions in more detail. Both conditions do not effect the graph edit distance, provided an appropriate feature map for the attributes can be found. Restricting to finite dimensional Euclidean feature spaces $\S{H}$ is necessary for deriving consistency results and for applying methods from stochastic optimization. Limiting the maximum size of the graphs to some arbitrarily large number $n$ and aligning smaller graphs to graphs of oder $n$ are purely technical assumptions to simplify mathematics. For machine learning problems, this limitation should have no practical impact, because neither the bound $n$ needs to be specified explicitly nor an extension of all graphs to an identical order needs to be performed. When applying the theory, all we actually require is that the order of the graphs is bounded.
With both assumptions in mind, we construct the Riemannian orbifold of attributed graphs. Let $\S{X} = \S{H}^{n \times n}$ be the set of all $(n \times n)$-matrices with elements from feature space $\S{H}$. A graph $X$ is completely specified by a *representation matrix* $\vec{X} = \args{\vec{x}_{ij}}$ from $\S{X}$ with elements $$\vec{x}_{ij} = \begin{cases}
\phi\args{\alpha_X(i, j)} & i = j \mbox{ or } (i,j) \in E\\
\vec{0} & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ for all $i, j \in V_X$. The form of a representation matrix $\vec{X}$ of $X$ is generally not unique and depends on how the vertices are arranged in the diagonal of $\vec{X}$.
Now suppose that $\Pi^n$ be the set of all $(n\times n)$-permutation matrices. For each $\vec{P} \in \Pi^n$ we define a mapping $$\gamma_{\vec{P}} : \S{X} \rightarrow \S{X}, \quad \vec{X} \mapsto \vec{P}^{\T} \vec{X}\vec{P}.$$ Then $\Gamma = \cbrace{\gamma_{\vec{P}}\,:\, \vec{P} \in \Pi^n}$ is a permutation group acting on $\S{X}$. Regarding an arbitrary matrix $\vec{X}$ as a representation of some graph $X$, then the orbit $\bracket{\vec{X}}$ consists of all possible matrices that can represent $X$. By identifying the orbits of $\S{X}_\Gamma$ with attributed graphs, the set $\S{G_A}$ of attributed graphs of bounded order $n$ is a Riemannian orbifold.
Metric Structures
-----------------
Let $\S{Q} = \args{\S{X}, \Gamma, \pi}$ be an orbifold. We derive an intrinsic metric that enables us to do Riemannian geometry. Note that in the case of graph orbifolds, the intrinsic metric is a special graph edit distance based on a generalization of the concept of maximum common subgraph. This graph metric occurs in various different guises as a common choice of proximity measure [@Almohamad:1993; @Caetano:2007; @Cour:2007; @Gold:1996a; @Umeyama:1988; @Wyk:2002].
Any inner product $\inner{\cdot, \cdot}$ on $\S{X}$ gives rise to a maximizer $k: \S{X}_\Gamma \times \S{X}_\Gamma \rightarrow \R$ of the form $$k(X, Y) = \max \cbrace{\inner{\vec{x}, \vec{y}} \,:\, \vec{x} \in X, \vec{y} \in Y}.$$ We call the kernel function $k(\cdot | \cdot)$ *optimal alignment kernel*, induced by $\inner{\cdot, \cdot}$. Note that the maximizer of a set of positive definite kernels is an indefinite kernel in general. Since $\Gamma$ is a group, we find that $$k(X, Y) = \max \cbrace{\inner{\vec{x}, \vec{y}} \,:\, \vec{x} \in X},$$ where $\vec{y}$ is an arbitrary but fixed vector representation of $Y$.
Suppose that $X$ and $Y$ are attributed graphs where edges have attribute $1$ and vertices have attribute $0$. The optimal alignment kernel $k\args{X, Y}$ induced by the standard inner product of $\S{X}$ is the number of edges of a maximum common subgraph of $X$ and $Y$.
Suppose that $X \in \S{X}_\Gamma$. Since $k(X, X) = \inner{\vec{x}, \vec{x}}$ for all $\vec{x} \in X$, we can define the *length* of $X$ by $$l(X) = \sqrt{k(X, X)}.$$ Since the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $\abs{k(X, Y)} \leq l(X)\cdot l(Y)$ is valid, the geometric interpretation of $k(\cdot|\cdot)$ is that it computes the cosine of a well-defined angle between $X$ and $X'$ provided both are normalized.
Likewise, $k(\cdot|\cdot)$ gives rise to a distance function defined by $$d(X, Y) = \sqrt{l(X)^2 -2 k(X, Y) +\, l(Y)^2}.$$ From the definition of $k(\cdot|\cdot)$ follows that $d$ is a metric. In addition, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mcs-metric-2}
d(X, Y) = \min \cbrace{\norm{\vec{x} - \vec{y}} \,:\, \vec{x} \in X, \vec{y} \in Y}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\norm{\cdot}$ denotes the Euclidean norm induced by the inner product $\inner{\cdot, \cdot}$ of the Euclidean space $\S{X}$.
Equation (\[eq:mcs-metric-2\]) states that $d\args{\cdot|\cdot}$ is the length of a minimizing geodesic of $X$ and $Y$ and therefore an intrinsic metric, because it coincides with the infimum of the length of all admissible curves from $X$ to $Y$. In addition, we find that the topology of $\S{X}_\Gamma$ induced by the metric $d$ coincides with the quotient topology induced by the topology of the Euclidean space $\S{X}$.
Orbifold Mappings
-----------------
This section introduces mappings between orbifolds and investigates local analytical concepts of orbifold functions. We assume that $\S{Q} = \args{\S{X}, \Gamma, \pi}$ and $\S{Q}' = \args{\S{X}', \Gamma', \pi'}$ are orbifolds.
#### Mappings. {#mappings. .unnumbered}
An *orbifold mapping* between $\S{Q}$ and $\S{Q'}$ is a mapping $f:\S{X}_{\Gamma} \rightarrow \S{X}'_{\Gamma'}$ between their underlying spaces. The *lift* of $f$ is a mapping $\tilde{f}: \S{X} \rightarrow \S{X}'$ between their representation spaces such that $f\circ\pi =\pi'\circ\tilde{f}$. Since $\R$ is an orbifold of the form $\S{Q}_\R = \args{\R, \cbrace{\id}, \id_\R}$, we can define an *orbifold function* between $\S{Q}$ and $\S{Q}_\R$ as a function $f:\S{X}_{\Gamma} \rightarrow \R$. The lift of $f$ is a function $\tilde{f}: \S{X} \rightarrow \R$ satisfying $\tilde{f} = f \circ \pi$. The lift $\tilde{f}$ is invariant under group actions of $\Gamma$, that is $\tilde{f}(\vec{x}) = \tilde{f}\args{\gamma(\vec{x})}$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$.
We say, an orbifold function $f:\S{X}_{\Gamma} \rightarrow \R$ is continuous (locally Lipschitz, differentiable) at $X \in \S{X}_\Gamma$ if its lift $\tilde{f}$ is continuous (locally Lipschitz, differentiable) at some vector representation $\vec{x} \in X$. The definition is independent of the choice of the vector representation that projects to $X$.
#### Gradients. {#gradients. .unnumbered}
Suppose that $f: \S{X}_{\Gamma} \rightarrow \R$ is differentiable at $X \in \S{X}_\Gamma$. Then its lift $\tilde{f}:\S{X} \rightarrow \R$ is differentiable at all vector representations that project to $X$. The *gradient* $\nabla f(X)$ of $f$ at $X$ is defined by the projection $$\nabla f(X) = \pi(\nabla \tilde{f}(\vec{x}))$$ of the gradient $\nabla \tilde{f}(\vec{x})$ of $\tilde{f}$ at a vector representation $\vec{x} \in X$. This definition is independent of the choice of the vector representation. We have $$\nabla \tilde{f}(\gamma(\vec{x})) = \gamma(\nabla\tilde{f}(\vec{x}))$$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$. This implies that the gradients of $\tilde{f}$ at $\vec{x}$ and $\gamma(\vec{x})$ are vector representations of the same structure, namely the gradient $\nabla f(X)$ of the orbifold function $f$ at $X$. Thus, the gradient of $f$ at $X$ is a well-defined structure pointing to the direction of steepest ascent.
Generalized Gradients
=====================
This section extends the concept of generalized differentiability in the sense of Norkin [@Norkin:1986] to orbifold functions. We begin with introducing generalized differentiable functions. Let $\S{X} = \R^n$ be a finite-dimensional Euclidean space. A function $f: \S{X} \rightarrow \R$ is *generalized differentiable* at $\vec{x}\in\S{X}$ if there is a multi-valued map $\partial f: \S{X} \rightarrow 2^{\S{X}}$ in a neighborhood of $\vec{x}$ such that
1. $\partial f(\vec{x})$ is a convex and compact set;
2. $\partial f(\vec{x})$ is upper semicontinuous at $\vec{x}$, that is, if $\vec{y}_i \to \vec{x}$ and $\vec{g}_i \in \partial f(\vec{y}_i)$ for each $i\in \N$, then each accumulation point $\vec{g}$ of $(\vec{g}_i)$ is in $\partial f(\vec{x})$;
3. for each $\vec{y} \in \S{X}$ and any $\vec{g} \in \partial f(\vec{y})$ holds $f(\vec{y}) = f(\vec{x}) + \inner{\vec{g}, \vec{y}-\vec{x}} + o\args{\vec{x}, \vec{y}, \vec{g}}$, where the remainder $o\args{\vec{x}, \vec{y}, \vec{g}}$ satisfies the condition $$\lim_{i\to \infty} \frac{\abs{o\args{\vec{x}, \vec{y}_i, \vec{g}_i}}}{\norm{\vec{y}_i -\vec{x}}} = 0$$ for all sequences $\vec{y}_i \to \vec{y}$ and $\vec{g}_i \in \partial f\args{\vec{y}_i}$.
We call $f$ *generalized differentiable* if it is generalized differentiable at each point $\vec{x}\in\S{X}$. The set $\partial f(\vec{x})$ is the *subdifferential* of $f$ at $\vec{x}$ and its elements are called *generalized gradients*.
Generalized differentiable functions have the following properties [@Norkin:1986]:
1. Generalized differentiable functions are locally Lipschitz and therefore continuous and differentiable almost everywhere.
2. Continuously differentiable, convex, and concave functions are generalized differentiable.
3. Suppose that $f_1, \ldots, f_n:\S{X} \rightarrow \R$ are generalized differentiable at $\vec{x}\in \S{X}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
f_*(\vec{x}) = \min(f_1(\vec{x}), \ldots, f_m(\vec{x})) \quad \mbox{and} \quad
f^*(\vec{x}) = \max(f_1(\vec{x}), \ldots, f_m(\vec{x}))\end{aligned}$$ are generalized differentiable at $\vec{x}\in \S{X}$.
4. Suppose that $f_1, \ldots, f_m:\S{X} \rightarrow \R$ are generalized differentiable functions at $\vec{x}\in \S{X}$ and $f_0:\R^m \rightarrow \R$ is generalized differentiable at $\vec{y} = \args{f_1(\vec{x}), \ldots, f_m(\vec{x})} \in\R^m$. Then $f(\vec{x}) = f_0(f_1(\vec{x}),\ldots, f_m(\vec{x}))$ is generalized differentiable at $\vec{x} \in \S{X}$. The subdifferential of $f$ at $\vec{x}$ is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\partial f(\vec{x}) = \conv \Big\{\vec{g} \in \S{X} &:\, \vec{g} = \big[\vec{g}_1 \vec{g}_2\ldots \vec{g}_m\big]\vec{g}_0, \vec{g}_0 \in \partial f_0(\vec{y}), \vec{g}_i \in \partial f_i(\vec{x}), 1 \leq i \leq m \Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ where $\bracket{\vec{g}_1 \vec{g}_2\ldots \vec{g}_m}$ is a ($N\times m$)-matrix.
5. Suppose that $F(\vec{x}) = \E_{\vec{z}}\bracket{f(\vec{x}, \vec{z})}$, where $f(\cdot, \vec{z})$ is generalized differentiable. Then $F$ is generalized differentiable and its subdifferential at $\vec{x} \in \S{X}$ is of the form $\partial F(\vec{x}) = \E_{\vec{z}}\bracket{\partial f(\vec{x},\vec{z})}$.
Now suppose that $f: \S{X}_{\Gamma} \rightarrow \R$ is an orbifold function. We say $f$ is generalized differentiable at $X \in \S{X}_\Gamma$, if its lift $\tilde{f}:\S{X} \rightarrow \R$ is generalized differentiable at all vector representations that project to $X$. The *subdifferential* $\partial f(X)$ of $f$ at $X$ is defined by the projection $$\partial f(X) = \pi(\partial \tilde{f}(\vec{x}))$$ of the subdifferential $\partial \tilde{f}(\vec{x})$ of $\tilde{f}$ at a vector representation $\vec{x} \in X$. This definition is independent of the choice of the vector representation. We have $$\partial \tilde{f}(\gamma(\vec{x})) = \gamma(\partial\tilde{f}(\vec{x}))$$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$. This implies that the subdifferentials $\partial\tilde{f}(\vec{x}) \subseteq \S{X}$ and $\partial\tilde{f}(\gamma(\vec{x})) \subseteq \S{X}$ are subsets that project to the same subset of $\S{X}_\Gamma$, namely the subdifferential $\partial f(X)$. Proposition \[prop:gendiff\] summarizes and proves the statements.
\[prop:gendiff\] Let $f:\S{X}_{\Gamma} \rightarrow \R$ be an orbifold function. Suppose that its lift $\tilde{f}: \S{X} \rightarrow \R$ is generalized differentiable at a vector representation $\vec{x}$ that projects to $X \in \S{X}_\Gamma$. Then $\tilde{f}$ is generalized differentiable at $\gamma(\vec{x})$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$ and $$\partial \tilde{f}(\gamma(\vec{x})) = \gamma\args{\partial\tilde{f}(\vec{x})}.$$ is a subdifferential of $\tilde{f}$ at $\gamma(\vec{x})$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$.
Since $\tilde{f}$ is generalized differentiable at $\vec{x}$, there is a multi-valued mapping $\partial\tilde{f}: \S{U}_\delta(\vec{x})\rightarrow 2^{\S{X}}$ defined on some neighborhood $\S{U}_\delta(\vec{x})$. Let $\gamma \in \Gamma$ be an arbitrary permutation and $\vec{x}' = \gamma(\vec{x})$. Then $$\partial\tilde{f}: \S{U}_\delta(\vec{x}')\rightarrow 2^{\S{X}}, \quad \vec{y}' = \gamma(\vec{y}) \mapsto \gamma\args{\partial \tilde{f}(\vec{y})}$$ is a multi-valued mapping in a neighborhood of $\vec{x}'$. Since $\gamma$ is a homeomorphic linear map, we find that $\gamma(\partial\tilde{f}(\vec{x})) = \partial \tilde{f}(\vec{x}')$ is a convex and compact set. Next we show that $\tilde{f}$ is upper semicontinuous at $\vec{x}'$. Suppose that $\vec{y}'_i \to \vec{x}'$, $\vec{g}'_i \in \tilde{f}_c(\vec{y}'_i)$ for each $i\in \N$, and $\vec{g}'$ is an accumulation point of $(\vec{g}'_i)_{i \in \N}$. Then there is a $i_0 \in \N$ such that $\vec{y}'_i \in \S{U}_\delta(\vec{x}')$ for all $i \geq i_0$. From $$\S{U}_\delta(\vec{x}') = \S{U}_\delta(\gamma(\vec{x})) = \gamma\args{\S{U}_\delta(\vec{x})}$$ follows that there are vector representations $\vec{y}_i \in \S{U}_\delta(\vec{x})$ with $\gamma(\vec{y}_i) = \vec{y}_i'$ for each $i \geq i_0$. From continuity of $\gamma^{-1}$ follows that $\vec{y}_i \to \vec{x}$. By construction of $\partial \tilde{f}$ follows that $$\vec{g}_i' \in \partial\tilde{f}\args{\vec{y}_i'} = \partial\tilde{f}\args{\gamma\args{\vec{y}_i}} = \gamma\args{\partial\tilde{f}\args{\vec{y}_i}}$$ for each $i\geq i_0$. Hence, there are vector representations $\vec{g}_i \in \partial\tilde{f}(\vec{y}_i)$ with $\gamma(\vec{g}_i) = \vec{g}_i'$ for each $i \geq i_0$. Since $\tilde{f}$ is upper semicontinuous at $\vec{x}$, we find that $\vec{g} \in \partial\tilde{f}(\vec{x})$. Again by construction of $\partial \tilde{f}$ follows that $$\vec{g}' = \gamma(\vec{g}) \in \gamma\args{\partial\tilde{f}(\vec{x})} = \partial\tilde{f}\args{\gamma(\vec{x})} = \partial \tilde{f}(\vec{x}').$$ This proves upper semicontinuity of $\partial \tilde{f}$ at all vector representations projecting to $X = \pi(\vec{x})$. Finally, we prove that $\tilde{f}$ satisfies the subderivative property at $\vec{x}'$. Suppose that $\vec{y}', \vec{y} \in \S{X}$ with $\vec{y}' = \gamma(\vec{y})$. By $\Gamma$-invariance of $\tilde{f}$, we have $\tilde{f}(\vec{y}') = \tilde{f}(\vec{y})$. Since $\tilde{f}$ is generalized differentiable at $\vec{x}$, we find a $\vec{g} \in \partial \tilde{f}(\vec{y})$ such that $$\tilde{f}(\vec{y}') = \tilde{f}(\vec{y}) = \tilde{f}(\vec{x}) + \inner{\vec{g}, \vec{y}-\vec{x}} +\, o(\vec{x}, \vec{y}, \vec{g})$$ with $o(\vec{x}, \vec{y}, \vec{g})$ tending faster to zero than $\norm{\vec{y}-\vec{x}}$. Let $\vec{g}' = \gamma(\vec{g})$. Exploiting $\Gamma$-invariance of $\tilde{f}$ as well as isometry and linearity of $\gamma$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{f}(\vec{y}') &= \tilde{f}(\gamma(\vec{x})) + \inner{\gamma(\vec{g}),\gamma(\vec{y}-\vec{x})} +\, o(\vec{x}, \vec{y}, \vec{g})\\
&= \tilde{f}(\vec{x}') + \inner{\vec{g}',\vec{y}'-\vec{x}'} +\, o(\vec{x}, \vec{y}, \vec{g}).\end{aligned}$$ We define $o'(\vec{x}', \vec{y}', \vec{g}') = o\circ \gamma^{-1}(\vec{x}', \vec{y}', \vec{g}') = o(\vec{x}, \vec{y}, \vec{g})$ showing that $o'$ tends faster to zero than $\norm{\vec{y}' -\vec{x}}$. This proves the subderivative property of $\tilde{f}$ at all vector representations projecting to $X = \pi(\vec{x})$. Putting all results together yields that $\tilde{f}$ is generalized differentiable at $\gamma(\vec{x})$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$.
\[ex:gd-distortion1\] Let $(\S{G_A}, d)$ be a graph space, where $d$ is a graph edit distance.We can identify $\S{G_A}$ with a Riemannian orbifold $\S{Q} = (\S{X}, \Gamma, \pi)$ and the graph edit distance $d\args{\cdot|\cdot}$ with a distance function defined on $\S{X}_\Gamma$. Suppose that the edit costs $d_\phi\args{\cdot|\cdot}$ of all edit paths are generalized differentiable. Then the distance $d\args{\cdot|\cdot}$ is generalized differentiable.
\[ex:gd-distortion2\] Let $\S{Q}$ be a graph orbifold. Then the optimal assignment kernel $k\args{\cdot|\cdot}$, the intrinsic metric $d\args{\cdot|\cdot}$, and the squared metric $d\args{\cdot|\cdot}^{2}$ are generalized differentiable.
Stochastic Optimization
=======================
We assume that $\S{Q_W} = (\S{W}, \mathsf{H}, \rho)$ and $\S{Q_Z} = (\S{Z}, \Gamma, \pi)$ are Riemannian orbifolds and $\Omega \subseteq \S{W}_{{\mathsf{H}}}$ is some (sufficiently large) bounded convex constraint set. Learning is formulated as a stochastic optimization problem of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:erm-obj}
\min \; &R(W) = \E\bracket{L(Z,W)} = \int_{\S{Z}_\Gamma} L(Z,W) dP_{\Gamma}(Z)\\
\label{eq:erm-con}
\mbox{s.t.} \; & W \in \Omega,\end{aligned}$$ where $R(W)$ is the *expected risk function*, $W \in \Omega$ is the optimization variable, and $Z\in \S{Z}_\Gamma$ is a random variable with probability measure $P_{\Gamma}$. The *loss function* $L:\S{Z}_\Gamma\times \Omega \rightarrow \R$ measures the performance of the learning system with parameter $W$ given an observable event $Z$. We assume that the loss $L(Z,W)$ is generalized differentiable in $W$ and integrable in $Z$. The expectation $\E$ is taken with respect to some probability space $\args{\S{Z}_\Gamma, \Sigma_{\Gamma}, P_{\Gamma}}$.
Since the distribution $P_{\S{Z}}$ of the observable events $Z\in \S{Z}$ is usually unknown, the expected risk function $R(W)$ can neither be computed nor be minimized directly. In addition, the loss function $L(W,Z)$ is neither convex nor differentiable. The field of stochastic approximation provides methods to minimize $R(W)$ that are consistent under very general conditions.
Since the interchange of integral and generalized gradient is valid, that is $\partial_W R(W) = \E\bracket{\partial_W L(Z,W)}$ under mild assumptions [@Ermoliev:1998; @Norkin:1986], we can minimize the expected risk $R(W)$ according to the following *stochastic generalized gradient* (SGG) method: $$\begin{aligned}
W_{t+1} &= \Pi_\Omega\args{W_t - \eta_t S_t}, \qquad t \geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $W_0 \in \Omega$ and $\Pi_\Omega$ is a projection operator on $\Omega$. The random structures $S_t$ are *stochastic generalized gradients*, i.e. random variables defined on the probability space $\argsS{\S{Z}_\Gamma, \Sigma_{\Gamma}, P_{\Gamma}}{^\infty}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:A2}
\E\bracket{S_t \,|\, W_0, \ldots, W_t} \in \partial_W R\args{W}.\end{aligned}$$ We can take $S_t = g(Z_t, W_t)$ with iid $\argsS{Z_t}{_{t\geq 0}}$ and some single valued selection $g(Z, W) \in \partial_{W} L(Z, W)$, measurable in $(Z,W)$. We consider the following conditions for almost sure convergence of the SSG method:
A1
: The sequence $(\eta_t)_{t \geq 0}$ of step sizes satisfies $$\eta_t > 0, \; \lim_{t \to \infty} \eta_t = 0, \; \sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \eta_t = \infty, \; \sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \eta_t^2 < \infty.$$
A2
: The sequence $\args{S_t}_{t \geq 0}$ satisfies (\[eq:A2\]).
A3
: We have $\E\bracket{\normS{S_t}{^2}} < +\infty$.
Then by Ermoliev and Norkin’s Theorem [@Ermoliev:1998], the SGG method is consistent in the sense that the sequence $\argsS{W_t}{_{t\geq 0}}$ converges almost surely to points satisfying necessary extremum conditions $$\Omega^* = \cbrace{W \in\Omega \,:\; 0 \in \partial_{W} R(W) + \S{N}_{\Omega}(W)},$$ where $\S{N}_{\Omega}(W)$ is a normal cone to the constraint set $\Omega$ at $W \in \Omega$. Besides the sequence $\argsS{R(W_t)}{_{t\geq 0}}$ converges almost surely and $\lim_t R(W_t) \in R(\Omega^*)$.
Since orbifolds generalize Euclidean spaces and manifolds the consistency theorem is also valid for standard machine learning algorithms in Euclidean spaces with differentiable cost function (e.g multi-layer perceptron) and non-differentiable cost function (e.g. online k-means) [@Bottou:2003].
Examples
========
This section extends some typical examples of statistical data analysis and learning problems from vector spaces to structured domains. We assume that $\S{Q} = \args{\S{X}, \Gamma, \pi}$ is a Riemannian orbifold with optimal alignment kernel $k(\cdot|\cdot)$.
#### Orbifold-Adaline. {#orbifold-adaline. .unnumbered}
Orbifold adaline generalizes the *adaline* proposed by [@Widrow:1960].
Let $\S{W} = \S{X}_\Gamma \times R$ be the parameter space and let $\S{Z} = \S{X}_\Gamma \times \cbrace{\pm 1}$ be the space of observable data. The parameter space $\S{W}$ consists of augmented parameter structures $W' = (W, b)$, where $W \in \S{X}_\Gamma$ is the weight structure and $b \in \R$ is the bias. The observable data $Z = (X, y)$ from $\S{Z}$ consists of input structures $X \in \S{X}_\Gamma$ together with their labels $y \in \cbrace{\pm 1}$.
The loss function of the orbifold-Adaline is of the form $$L_{ada}(Z, W') = \big(y - (k(X,W) + b)\big)^2.$$ Since $k(\cdot|\cdot)$ is generalized differentiable, so is $L_{ada}(Z,W)$. Lifting the loss $L_{ada}$ to the Euclidean space gives $$\hat{L}_{ada}\args{\vec{z}, \vec{w}'} = \args{y - \max\cbrace{\inner{\vec{x}', \vec{w}}\,:\, \vec{x}'\in X} - \, b}{^2},$$ where $\vec{z} = (\vec{x}, y) \in \S{Z}$ and $\vec{w}' = (\vec{w}, b) \in \S{W}$ with vector representations $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{y}$ that project to structures $X\in\S{X}_\Gamma$ and $W\in \S{X}_\Gamma$, respectively. The update rule is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{w}_{t+1} &= \vec{w}_t - \eta_t\args{y_t - \inner{\vec{x}_t^*, \vec{w}_t}\vec{x}_t^*} \\
b_{t+1} &= b_t - \eta_t \args{y_t - b_t},\end{aligned}$$ where $(\vec{x}_t^*, \vec{w}_t)$ is an optimal alignment.
#### Learning Orbifold Maps. {#learning-orbifold-maps. .unnumbered}
This example presents a generic formulation of learning functional relationships between orbifolds in a supervised manner. Since orbifolds generalize Euclidean spaces, this setting covers various types of functional relationships that can be learned. Non-standard examples include multi-layer perceptrons for adaptive processing of graphs [@Jain:2004b] and learning to predict structured data [@Bakir:2007].
Let $\S{Q_W} = \args{\S{W}, \Omega, \psi}$, $\S{Q_X} = \args{\S{X}, \Gamma, \pi}$, and $\S{Q_Y} = \args{\S{Y}, \Lambda, \phi}$ be Riemannian orbifolds. The parameter space is represented by orbifold $\S{Q_W}$ and the space of observable data by the orbifold $\S{Q_Z} = \S{Q_X} \times \S{Q_Y}$. Suppose that $\S{F}$ is a class of generalized differentiable orbifold mappings of the form $$f:\S{X}_\Gamma \times \S{W}_\Omega \rightarrow \S{Y}_\Lambda.$$ The mean-squared-error loss function is defined by $$L_{mse}(Z, W) = \frac{1}{2}\argsS{Y - f(X,W)}{^2}.$$ Lifting this loss function yields $$\hat{L}_{mse}(\vec{z}, \vec{w}) = \frac{1}{2}\argsS{\vec{y} - \hat{f}(\vec{x}, \vec{w})}{^2},$$ where $\vec{z} = (\vec{x}, \vec{y})$ projects to structure $Z = (X, Y)$ and $\vec{w}$ projects to $W$. The update rule is then of the form $$\vec{w}_{t+1} = \vec{w}_t - \eta_t \argsS{\vec{y}_t-\hat{f}(\vec{x}_t, \vec{w}_t)}{^{\T}}g(\vec{x}_t, \vec{w}_t),$$ where $g(\vec{x}_t, \vec{w}_t) \in \partial \hat{L}_{mse}(\vec{z}_t, \vec{w}_t)$ is a stochastic generalized gradient of the lifted loss at $\vec{w}_t$.
#### Structure Quantization. {#structure-quantization. .unnumbered}
Structure quantization generalizes vector quantization to the quantization of structures. For graphs, a number of structure quantizer design techniques for the purpose of central clustering have already been proposed. Examples include competitive learning [@Gold:1996b; @Gunter:2002; @Jain:2009b] and k-means as well as k-medoids algorithms [@Ferrer:2009b; @Jain:2008; @Schenker:2007].
Let $\S{W} = \S{X}_\Gamma^k$ be the parameter space and let $\S{Z} = \S{X}_\Gamma $ be the space of observable data. The parameter space $\S{W}$ consists of $k$-tuples $W = \args{W_1, \ldots, W_k}$, called *codebook*.
The general loss function of structure quantization is defined by the distortion $$L_{sq}(X, W) = \min_{1 \leq i \leq k} d(X,W_i).$$ For generalized differentiable distance function $d(\cdot|\cdot)$, the update rule is defined by $$\vec{w}_{t+1}^{*} = \vec{w}_t^* - \eta g(\vec{x}_t, \vec{w}_t^*),$$ where $(\vec{x}_t, \vec{w}_t^*)$ is an optimal alignment of input structure $X_t$ and its closest codebook structure $W_t^*$. If $d(\cdot|\cdot)$ is the squared intrinsic metric, we have $g(\vec{x}, \vec{w}_t^*) = \vec{x}_t -\vec{w}_t^*$.
Observe that structure quantization also generalizes the problem of estimating a mean graph of Section 2.4 by fixing the number $k$ of centroids to $1$.
Conclusion
==========
This contribution proves consistency of learning in structured domains by reducing it to stochastic generalized gradient learning on Riemannian orbifolds. The proposed framework is applicable to learning on combinatorial structures such as point patterns, trees, and graphs. In retrospect, the proposed results provide a theoretical foundation and statistical justification of a number of existing learning methods that directly operate in the domain of graphs. In addition, the orbifold framework provides a generic technique to generalize gradient-based learning methods to structured domains. Future work aims at generalizing the theory to more general Riemannian orbifolds and to discontinuous graph edit distance functions.
Acknowledgments. {#acknowledgments. .unnumbered}
================
The authors are very grateful to Vladimir Norkin for his kind support and valuable comments.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Knowledge flow analysis offers a simple and flexible way to find flaws in security protocols. A protocol is described by a collection of rules constraining the propagation of knowledge amongst principals. Because this characterization corresponds closely to informal descriptions of protocols, it allows a succinct and natural formalization; because it abstracts away message ordering, and handles communications between principals and applications of cryptographic primitives uniformly, it is readily represented in a standard logic. A generic framework in the Alloy modelling language is presented, and instantiated for two standard protocols, and a new key management scheme.'
author:
- |
Emina Torlak, Marten van Dijk, Blaise Gassend, Daniel Jackson, and Srinivas Devadas\
{emina, marten, gassend, dnj, devadas}@mit.edu
---
Introduction
============
One area of major successes for formal methods has been the verification of security protocols. A number of specialized tools have been developed in the last decade that have exposed subtle flaws in existing protocols (see, e.g. [@Lowe97; @CJM00]). For the most part, however, these tools have been used by the researchers that developed them, and less attention has been paid to usability issues.
This paper presents a new approach to formulating and checking cryptographic protocols. It does not enable any new form of analysis. Instead, it makes verification more accessible to the designers of protocols. Its key contribution is a new characterization of these protocols that is both closer to how designers conceive them, and amenable to a more direct encoding in standard first-order logic. This more direct encoding allows existing tools to be applied as black boxes without modification; it requires no tweaking of parameters or issuing of special directives by the user. Moreover, because the semantic gap between informal descriptions of protocols and their formalization is smaller, there are fewer opportunities for errors to creep in.
In this paper, the Alloy modeling language is used to record the details of the protocol and its security goals, and the Alloy Analyzer is used to find flaws. The approach, however, requires no special features of Alloy or its analysis, and could be applied in the context of any formal method based on first-order logic. Its simplicity suggests that it may be useful in teaching; indeed, using the approach, we have explained cryptographic protocols to undergraduates who have had only a few weeks of experience in formal methods.
Our approach, which we call [*knowledge flow analysis*]{}, gives a uniform framework for expressing the actions of principals, assumptions on intruders, and properties of cryptographic primitives. The dynamic behaviour of the protocol is described by an initial state of knowledge, and a collection of rules that dictate how knowledge may flow amongst principals. A state is given by a relation mapping principals to the values they know; the allowable knowledge flows can thus be succinctly described as a standard transition relation on knowledge states, written as a constraint.
This simple setup allows us to model a range of intruder capabilities and to detect replay, parallel session, type flaw, and binding attacks. We have applied it to both symmetric and public-key cryptography under the Dolev-Yao [@DY83] approach. The modeling framework itself is more general, however, and can be extended to include the properties of cryptographic primitives [@ComonShmatikov03IntruderDeductionsConstraintSolvingInsecurity; @ChevalierETAL03NPDecisionProcedureProtocolInsecurityXOR; @Shmatikov04ProtocolsProductsModularExponentiation; @MillenShmatikov04SymbolicProtocolAnalysisAbelianGroup] and an unbounded number of sessions with bounded messages [@ChevalierETAL03ExtendingDolevYaoIntruderAnalyzing].
This approach grew out of an effort to check a new cryptographic scheme [@Gassend03PhysicalRandomFunctions; @GassendETAL02ControlledPhysicalRandomFunctions]. Knowledge flow analysis described here was the final result of a series of incremental attempts at formalizing and checking the protocol using the Alloy language and tool. This process helped crystallize our intuitions, and drew out a number of important assumptions. The final analysis, although only performed over a finite domain, actually establishes the correctness of the protocol for unbounded instantiations because of a special property of this protocol. The Alloy models developed for this case study were generalized into a simple framework that was subsequently applied to some standard protocols, such as Needham-Schroeder [@NS78] and Otway-Rees [@Otway-Rees87].
The contributions of this paper are:
[.]{}
the knowledge flow formalism, which characterizes the dynamic behaviour of a cryptographic protocol in terms of the increasing knowledge of the principals, avoiding the need to impose an explicit ordering on messages;
a realization in the Alloy modelling language as a generic framework with a library of primitives that can be easily instantiated for a variety of protocols;
soundness and completeness results that guarantee that (1) any counterexample generated by the analyzer to a security theorem is legitimate, and not an artifact of the modelling framework, formalism or analysis; and (2) that if a counterexample exists involving any number of message exchanges and any number of steps, it will be found, so long as the number of parallel sessions is within a prescribed bound;
case study applications of the approach to two well-known protocols, one of which (Needham-Schroeder) is explained in detail, and to a new key management scheme based on controlled physical random functions [@Gassend03PhysicalRandomFunctions; @GassendETAL02ControlledPhysicalRandomFunctions].
Section 2 explains the key intuitions underlying the approach, using Needham Schroeder as an example. Section 3 shows the complete formalization of this example, including the statement of the security goal, and a discussion of the counterexample corresponding to the well-known attack. Section 4 gives a mathematical summary of the approach without reference to any particular modeling language that might serve as a basis for implementations in other tools, and which makes precise the assumptions underlying the model. The paper closes with an evaluation and a discussion of related work.
Knowledge Flow Basics
=====================
The key idea behind knowledge flow analysis is the observation that, at the most basic level, the purpose of a security protocol is to distribute knowledge among its legitimate participants. A protocol is flawed if it allows an intruder to learn a value that is intended to remain strictly within the legitimate principals’ pool of knowledge. To gain more intuition about knowledge flows in security applications, consider the Needham-Schroeder Public Key Protocol [@NS78] shown in Figure \[ns-diagram\].
We have two principals, Alice and Bob, each of whom has an initial pool of knowledge represented with white boxes. Alice’s initial knowledge, for example, consists of her own public/private key pair $PK(A)$/$SK(A)$, identity $A$, nonce $N_A$, and Bob’s public key $PK(B)$ and identity $B$. The purpose of the protocol is to distribute the nonces between Alice and Bob in such a way that the following conditions hold at the end: (1) Alice and Bob both know $N_A$ and $N_B$, and (2) no other principal knows the nonces.
To initiate the protocol, Alice first expands her pool of knowledge to include $E_{PK(B)}(A, N_A)$, an encryption of her identity and nonce with Bob’s public key. She then sends the cipher to Bob who decrypts it using his private key, $SK(B)$. At the end of the first step of the protocol, each principal’s knowledge has increased to include the values in light gray boxes. Bob performs the second step of the protocol by adding $E_{PK(A)}(N_A, N_B)$ to his current knowledge and sending the cipher to Alice. She uses her private key to decrypt Bob’s message and extract $N_B$. By using $N_B$ and $PK(B)$, Alice can set up an authenticated and private channel with Bob as is done during the final step of the protocol in which Alice creates $E_{PK(B)}(N_B)$ and forwards it to Bob. Both Alice and Bob now know the two nonces and share all other knowledge except their secret keys.
Following the flow of knowledge in the Needham-Schroeder protocol provides a crucial insight underlying our analysis method. Namely, a principal can learn a value in one of three ways; he can
[$\cdot$]{}[ ]{}
*draw* the value at the start,
*compute* it using his current knowledge, or
*learn* it by communication.
Our analysis treats the latter two ways of obtaining knowledge as equivalent. Specifically, we can think of Alice’s computing $E_{PK(B)}(A, N_A)$ as her learning it from a principal called *Encryptor* whose initial pool of values includes all possible ciphers: Alice sends the tuple $(PK(B), (A, N_A))$ to *Encryptor* who responds by sending back the encryption of $(A, N_A)$ with $PK(B)$.
Treating cryptographic primitives as principals allows us to consider the total pool of knowledge to be *fixed*. That is, the set of all values before and after the execution of a security protocol is the same; the only difference is the distribution of those values among the principals. Since we assume that principals never forget values, the set of principals who know a value at the end of a protocol session subsumes the set of principals who drew the value at the beginning.
The goal of analyzing knowledge flows in a protocol is to verify that particular values never leak out of the honest participants’ pool of knowledge. In other words, *we are interested in analyzing the flow of knowledge from an intruder’s perspective*. This observation allows us to make sound simplifying assumptions that drastically reduce the effort needed to formalize a protocol in terms of knowledge flows:
[$\cdot$]{}[ ]{}
We need not encode the flows of knowledge among the honest principals, such as the flow which allows Alice to learn $E_{PK(A)}(N_A, N_B)$ from $Encryptor$. Rather, we may assume that each honest principal draws all values in the total knowledge pool and specify protocols solely in terms of the intruders’ knowledge flows (sections \[kf-basic-defs\] and \[initial-knowledge\]).
We may model all adversaries, including the untrusted public network, with a single opponent whom we call $Oscar$. The soundness of this approach is formally proved in section \[adversary\]. Intuitively, the approach makes sense if we note that the potential adversaries will be most effective when they collaborate and share knowledge among themselves. Hence, we can replace the (collaboration of) adversaries with a single principal who possesses all their knowledge, without excluding any intrusion scenarios.
In our example, the flow of knowledge from the intruder’s perspective starts with the protocol initialization message $E_{PK(B)}(A, N_A)$, since Oscar needs no prior knowledge to learn the first cipher that Alice sends to Bob. In general, because Oscar includes the untrusted public network, he learns the first message of the protocol for free, regardless of who its intended recipient and sender are: $$\forall_{p\in \{a,b\}, p'\in \{a,b\}\cup O} \ [\emptyset \rightarrow E_{PK(p')}(I(p),N(\epsilon,I(p)))].\label{ns1}$$ The variables $a$ and $b$ denote the honest principals (Alice and Bob), and the set $O$ stands for Oscar. The notation $N(\epsilon,I(p))$ represents the nonce that the nonce primitive $N$ generated for the principal identified by $I(p)$ using the random value $\epsilon$ as the seed. For example, Alice’s identity is $I(a)=A$ and Alice’s nonce is $N(\epsilon,I(a))=N_A$. The empty set means that Oscar does not need prior knowledge to learn $E_{PK(p')}(I(p),N(\epsilon,I(p)))$.
Once his pool of knowledge includes $E_{PK(B)}(A, N_A)$, Oscar learns the corresponding response, $E_{PK(A)}(N_A, N_B)$. More generally[^1], $$\begin{aligned}
\forall_{p'\in \{a,b\}, p\in \{a,b\}\cup O, v\in V} [c \rightarrow E_{PK(p)}(v,N(c,I(p')))] \label{ns2} \\
\mbox{where } c = E_{PK(p')}(I(p),v). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The variable $V$ denotes the set of all values, or the fixed pool of knowledge. Note that our formalization constrains the seed of Bob’s nonce to be Alice’s initialization message. This is needed to establish that Bob’s nonce was generated in the context of the protocol session started by Alice with $E_{PK(B)}(A, N_A)$. The resulting correspondence between the nonces prevents our analysis from sounding false alarms when Oscar legitimately obtains two nonces from Alice and Bob by running a valid protocol session with each.
Oscar learns the final message, $E_{PK(B)}(N_B)$, as a consequence of knowing $E_{PK(A)}(N_A, N_B)$. Formally, $$\begin{aligned}
\forall_{p\in \{a,b\}, p'\in \{a,b\}\cup O, v\in V} \nonumber \\
\left [\{E_{PK(p)}(N(\epsilon,I(p)),v))\} \rightarrow E_{PK(p')}(v) \right].\label{ns3}\end{aligned}$$
Example
=======
The Needham-Schroeder protocol is vulnerable to a parallel session attack discovered by Gavin Lowe [@Lowe96]. This section presents a knowledge flow analysis of the protocol that reproduces Lowe’s results, and gives a flavor of the expressiveness and simplicity of our method. We have encoded the knowledge flows in the Alloy modelling language [@Jackson02AlloyTOSEM] and used the Alloy Analyzer [@Jackson00AutomatingFOL] to find the attack. However, the modelling pattern presented here is applicable to any first-order logic with relations and transitive closure.
Encoding Basic Entities and Relations
-------------------------------------
The basic components of a knowledge flow model are the sets $Principal$ and $Value$, and the relations $draws$, $learns$, and $knows$ (Model Excerpt \[basicdeclarations\]).
[ ]{}
module kf/basicdeclarations
[**abstract sig**]{} Value {} \[Value\]
[**sig**]{} CompositeValue [**extends**]{} Value {} \[CompositeValue\]
[**sig**]{} AtomicValue [**extends**]{} Value {} \[AtomicValue\]
[**abstract sig**]{} Principal { \[Principal\]
draws: [**set**]{} Value, \[draws\]
owns: [**set**]{} draws \[owns\]
}{ [**no**]{} owns & (Principal - this).@owns } \[owns-constraint\]
[**sig**]{} HonestUser [**extends**]{} Principal { \[HonestUser\]
}{ draws = Value } \[draws-constraint\]
[**one sig**]{} Oscar [**extends**]{} Principal { \[Oscar\]
knows: [**set**]{} Value, \[knows\]
learns: knows->knows \[learns\]
}{ [**no**]{} `^`learns & iden } \[learns-constraint\]
[**pred**]{} InitialKnowledge() { \[InitialKnowledge\]
no CompositeValue & Oscar.draws }
[**pred**]{} FinalKnowledge() { \[FinalKnowledge\]
[**all**]{} v: Value |
v [**in**]{} (Oscar.draws).\*(Oscar.learns) [**iff**]{}
v [**in**]{} Oscar.knows }
The set $Principal$ includes all principals in a protocol – the legitimate protocol participants, represented by the subset $HonestUser$, and the intruders, represented by $Oscar$. The set $Value$ models the fixed pool of knowledge on which a protocol operates. We distinguish between $AtomicValue$s, which are uninterpreted, and $CompositeValue$s, which may consist of other values and are learned by communicating with cryptographic primitives. In the example from Figure \[ns-diagram\], Alice and Bob are members of $HonestUser$; $Value$ consists of the union of values enclosed in the boxes ‘Alice’ and ‘Bob’; the identifiers $A$ and $B$ are $AtomicValue$s, and the ciphers are $CompositeValue$s.
The relation $draws$ (line \[draws\]) maps each principal to the set of values known by that principal at the beginning of the protocol. For example, both Alice and Bob draw Alice’s identity $A$ at the start of the protocol session shown in Figure \[ns-diagram\]. The declaration of $owns$ (line \[owns\]) together with the constraint on line \[owns-constraint\] relate a principal to the set of drawn values which uniquely identify him. Bob, for instance, $owns$ his identity, $B$, even though both he and Alice draw it.
The field $knows$ (line \[knows\]) defines the set of all values that Oscar can learn by using the knowledge flows available to him; this includes the knowledge obtainable from both the protocol rules and the cryptographic primitives. The acyclic relation $learns$ (lines \[learns\]-\[learns-constraint\]) encodes the partial ordering on Oscar’s maximal knowledge, enforced by the flows from which the knowledge was acquired. For example, the protocol rule \[ns2\] specifies that Oscar learns $E_{PK(A)}(N_A, N_B)$ from $E_{PK(B)}(A, N_A)$. Hence, [Oscar.knows]{} contains both ciphers and [Oscar.learns]{} includes the mapping $$\langle E_{PK(B)}(A, N_A), E_{PK(A)}(N_A, N_B)\rangle.$$
The predicate `InitialKnowledge` states that Oscar may not draw any composite values. Rather, he must learn them from the protocol rules or the primitives. The predicate `FinalKnowledge` specifies that Oscar’s maximal knowledge contains a value $v$ if and only if Oscar draws $v$ or he learns it from a knowledge flow originating in his initial knowledge.
Modelling Cryptographic Primitives
----------------------------------
The Needham-Schroeder protocol requires the use of cryptographic primitives to encrypt/decrypt messages and generate nonces. Our encoding of the knowledge flows and values associated with these primitives is shown in Model Excerpt \[primitives\]. Note that we do not explicitly model primitives as principals. Instead, we define the pools of values drawn by the primitives as signatures and encode their input/output behavior as predicates. For example, the initial knowledge of $Encryptor$ is given by the set $Ciphertext$, and $Encryptor$’s operation is encoded in the predicates `Encryptor` and `Decryptor`.
[ ]{}
module kf/primitives/encryption
open kf/basicdeclarations
[**sig**]{} Ciphertext [**extends**]{} CompositeValue {
plaintext: [**some**]{} Value, \[plaintext\]
key: Value } \[key\]
[**pred**]{} PublicKeyCryptography() { \[PublicKeyCryptography\]
Ciphertext.key [**in**]{} Principal.owns & AtomicValue }
[**pred**]{} Encryptor(x: [**set**]{} Value, v : Value) {
v [**in**]{} Ciphertext && x = v.key + v.plaintext }
[**pred**]{} Decryptor(x: [**set**]{} Value, v : Value) {
[**some**]{} c : plaintext.v | x = (c.key + c) &&
(PublicKeyCryptography() => \[sk-constraint\]
c.key [**in**]{} Oscar.owns) }
[**pred**]{} PerfectCryptography() {
([**all**]{} [**disj**]{} c1,c2: Ciphertext | c1.plaintext !=
c2.plaintext || c1.key != c2.key)
([**all**]{} c : Ciphertext | c != c.key &&
c != c.plaintext) }
module kf/primitives/nonces
open kf/basicdeclarations
[**sig**]{} Nonce [**extends**]{} CompositeValue {
seed : Value,
id : Value }
[**pred**]{} NonceGenerator(x: [**set**]{} Value, v : Value) {
v [**in**]{} Nonce && v.id [**in**]{} Oscar.owns && x = v.seed }
A $Ciphertext$ represents an encryption of a non-empty $plaintext$ (line \[plaintext\]) with a given $key$ (line \[key\]). The predicate `Encryptor` formalizes the encryption knowledge flow from Oscar’s perspective. It states that, in order to learn the cipher $v$ from the Encryptor, Oscar must provide the input $x$ consisting of the plaintext and the key associated with $v$. Similarly, the predicate `Decryptor` stipulates that Oscar can learn the plaintext $v$ after he presents the input $x$ consisting of an encryption of $v$ and the corresponding decryption key.
Note that this model of ciphers accommodates both public and symmetric key encryption. Symmetric key encryption is the default; invoking the predicate `PublicKeyCryptography` switches on public key encryption. Any atomic value owned by a principal can serve as his public/private key pair. The public portion of any principal’s key is accessible to Oscar through the $draws$ relation. The decryption constraint on line \[sk-constraint\] ensures that Oscar can decrypt a message only if he $owns$ the value representing the public/private key pair.
Nonces are encoded as composites with two fields, $seed$ and $id$. The field $id$ stores the identity of the principal to whom the nonce was issued. The predicate `NonceGenerator` says that, from Oscar’s point of view, the generator will issue a nonce labeled with Oscar’s identifier when presented with the input seed $x$.
Modelling Protocol Rules
------------------------
The models presented so far are a part of a generic Alloy framework developed for analyzing knowledge flows. This section describes the values and rules specific to the Needham-Schroeder protocol.
[ ]{}
module kf/needham\_schroeder
open kf/basicdeclarations
open kf/primitives/encryption
open kf/primitives/nonces
[**sig**]{} Identity [**extends**]{} AtomicValue {}\[identity\]
[**pred**]{} IdentitiesAreKeys() {
[**all**]{} p : Principal | [**some**]{} p.owns & Identity && \[unique-ids\]
Ciphertext.key [**in**]{} Identity } \[id-keys\]
[**pred**]{} PrimitiveRules(x : [**set**]{} Value, v : Value) {
Encryptor(x,v) || Decryptor(x,v) ||
NonceGenerator(x,v) }
[**pred**]{} ProtocolRules(x : [**set**]{} Value, v : Value) { \[ns-rules\]
v [**in**]{} Ciphertext && {
(x : [**some**]{} Oscar.draws &&
[**let**]{} text = v.plaintext, n = text & Nonce |
\#text = 2 && [**one**]{} n && n.seed [**in**]{} AtomicValue &&
n.id = text & Identity) ||
(x : [**one**]{} Ciphertext && ([**some**]{} n : seed.x |
\#x.plaintext = 2 && v.key [**in**]{} x.plaintext &&
n.id = x.key &&
v.plaintext = (x.plaintext - v.key) + n)) ||
(x : [**one**]{} Ciphertext &&
([**some**]{} n : id.(x.key) & Nonce |
\#x.plaintext = 2 && n [**in**]{} x.plaintext &&
v.plaintext = x.plaintext - n)) }}
[**pred**]{} ApplyRules() {
[**all**]{} v : Value | [**let**]{} x = Oscar.learns.v |
[**some**]{} x <=> PrimitiveRules(x, v) ||
ProtocolRules(x, v) }
Principals’ identifiers are modelled as atomic values contained in the set $Identity$ (Model Excerpt \[protocol-rules\], line \[identity\]). Each principal $owns$ an $Identity$ (\[unique-ids\]), which also doubles as its owners’ public/private key pairs (\[id-keys\]).
The `ProtocolRules` predicate (line \[ns-rules\]) embeds the knowledge flow rules given by equations \[ns1\]-\[ns3\] into first-order logic. The predicate `ApplyRules` states that the $learns$ relation may map the set of values $x$ to the value $v$ if and only if the protocol or primitive rules define a knowledge flow from $x$ to $v$.
Checking Security
-----------------
The predicate `SecurityAssumptions` in Model Excerpt \[security-theorem\] models our assumptions about the properties of cryptographic primitives and principals. We assume perfect public key cryptography (line \[perfect-pk-crypto\]) and the use of identifiers as public/private key pairs (line \[ids-as-keys\]).
The security property that the protocol should satisfy is given by the predicate `SecurityTheorem`. It states that Oscar’s maximal knowledge never contains two nonces, $nA$ and $nB$, such that $nB$ is generated by Bob in response to a protocol initialization message sent by Alice (a cipher containing Alice’s identity and one of her nonces). The assertion `Security` stitches the model together to stipulate that the security property should hold if Oscar obtains his maximal knowledge by applying the knowledge flow rules to the values he draws.
[ ]{}
[**pred**]{} SecurityAssumptions() {
PerfectCryptography() && PublicKeyCryptography()\[perfect-pk-crypto\]
IdentitiesAreKeys() } \[ids-as-keys\]
[**pred**]{} SecurityTheorem() {
[**no**]{} [**disj**]{} Alice, Bob : HonestUser,
nA, nB : Oscar.knows & Nonce |
nA.id [**in**]{} Alice.owns && nB.id [**in**]{} Bob.owns &&
([**some**]{} c : Ciphertext | nB.seed = c &&
c.key = nB.id &&
c.plaintext = nA.id + nA) }
[**assert**]{} Security {
InitialKnowledge() && FinalKnowledge() &&
SecurityAssumptions() && ApplyRules() =>
SecurityTheorem() }
The Alloy Analyzer generates a counterexample to the `Security` assertion (Figure \[lowe-attack\]) that is a knowledge flow representation of the parallel session attack discovered by Lowe [@Lowe96]. Alice uses $cipher0$ to initiate the protocol with Oscar, who extracts $nA$ and forwards it to Bob in $cipher1$. Thinking that he is authenticating with Alice, Bob responds with $cipher2$ which Oscar simply forwards to Alice. She completes the session with Oscar by sending him $nB$, which she believes is his nonce, in $cipher3$. Oscar now knows both $nA$ and $nB$, contrary to our claim.
Knowledge Flow Analysis
=======================
Knowledge flow analysis is based on a simple mathematical foundation. This section formalizes the ideas outlined in the discussion of knowledge flow basics. We describe how *communication rules* direct knowledge flows (\[kf-basic-defs\]), show that our treatment of primitives ensures a fixed pool of values (\[initial-knowledge\]), formulate the analysis problem in terms of Oscar’s knowledge flows (\[adversary\]), and present a small-model theorem which makes our analysis complete for a bounded number of parallel protocol sessions (\[kf-completeness\]).
Communicating Knowledge {#kf-basic-defs}
-----------------------
We denote the sets of all [*principals*]{} and [*values*]{} by $P$ and $V$. A subset of $P\times V$ is a [*state of knowledge*]{} drawn from $K=2^{P\times V}$, the set of all possible states of knowledge. For a given state of knowledge $k\in K$, we say that “$p$ knows $v$” if $(p,v)\in k$.
A tuple $(R,k_0)$ is a [*knowledge flow*]{} for $(P,V)$ directed by the [*communication rules*]{} $R\subseteq P\times V\times P\times K$ and originating from the state $k_0\in K$.
A communication rule describes the conditions under which one principal may gain knowledge from another. For example, the rule $(e, E_{PK(p_b)}(v), p_a, \{(p_a, PK(p_b)), (p_a, v)\})$ states that the encryptor $e$ will tell the cipher $E_{PK(b)}(v))$ to the principal $p_a$ if $p_a$ knows $p_b$’s public key and the plaintext $v$.
Note that our definition of a communication rule limits the class of protocols expressible in the knowledge flow framework. In particular, our rules cannot be used to specify conditions under which information is [*withheld*]{} from a principal, such as “$a$ will [*not*]{} tell $v$ to $b$ if $b$ knows $x$”. Although many practical protocols do not require this form of expressiveness, withholding of knowledge is an essential concept in systems that use certificates: revoking a certificate requires withholding of information. We are working on reformulating the certificate revocation problem using valid and invalid certificate sets, which should allow us to circumvent this limitation.
Given a set of communication rules $R$, we say that $k'\in K$ is reachable from $k\in K$ via $R$ if $k'$ is the result of applying all rules in $R$ to $k$ at most once; i.e. $k'=f_R(k)$ where
$f_R: K \longrightarrow K$ such that $$f_R(k)=k\cup \left\{ (p_a,v) : \begin{array}{l}
(p_b,v) \in k, k_a \subseteq k, \mbox{ and } \\
(p_b,v,p_a,k_a) \in R,\\
\mbox{for some } p_b\in P \mbox{ and } k_a\in K \end{array} \right\}.$$ \[fR-def\]
A state of knowledge $k_n$ is reachable in the context of a knowledge flow $(R,k_0)$ if $k_n=f_R^n(k_0)$. The [*maximal state of knowledge*]{} $f^*_R(k_0)$ is the limit of $k_n=f_R^n(k_0)$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$. A state of knowledge $f^*_{R_\kappa}(\kappa)$ is [*valid*]{} for a knowledge flow $(R,k_0)$ if $R_\kappa \subseteq R$ and $\kappa\subseteq k_0$. Since $f_R(k_0)$ is monotonically increasing[^2] in $R$ and $k_0$, any valid state of knowledge is a subset of the maximal state of knowledge. Hence, the maximal state of knowledge is also the smallest fixed point of $f_R$ which subsumes $k_0$.
Initial Knowledge
-----------------
For each value $v$, $Source(v)=\{p: (p,v)\in k_0\}$ defines the set of principals who draw $v$. In the knowledge flow framwork, a principal $p$ outside of $Source(v)$ can learn $v$ only by communicating with principals who know $v$. We therefore treat cryptographic primitives, and other computationally feasible algorithms, as principals. For example, suppose that, in practice, $p$ can compute $v$ by applying the algorithm ${\cal A}$ to inputs $i_1, i_2, \ldots, i_n$. We model ${\cal A}$ by adding the principal $A$ to $P$, the tuple $(A,v)$ to $k_0$, and the rule $(A,v,p,\{(p,i_1),(p,i_2), \ldots (p, i_n)\})$ to $R$.
Our treatment of primitives ensures that $Knowledge(k_0)=\{v: (p,v)\in k_0 \mbox{ for some } p\in P\}$ consists of [*all*]{} learnable values. Hence, $V$ is the same in the initial and the maximal state of knowledge, $$Knowledge(k_0) = Knowledge(f^*_R(k_0)), \label{v0}$$ which implies that we can safely restrict our analysis to the subset of $R$ applicable to $k_0$. Formally, $$(\ref{v0}) \implies f_R(k_0)=f_{R(k_0)}(k_0) \mbox{ and } f^*_R(k_0)=f^*_{R(k_0)}(k_0),$$ where $R(k_0) = \left\{ (p_b,x,p_a,k_a)\in R : \begin{array}{l}\{x\}\cup \{v:(p_a,v)\in k_a\} \\ \subseteq Knowledge(k_0) \end{array}\right\}.$
Adversaries’ Knowledge {#adversary}
----------------------
Let $O\subseteq P$ be a group of collaborating adversaries. We collapse $O$ into a single principal $o$ using the following merging function: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
Merge(p) &=& \left\{\begin{array}{l}o \mbox{ if } p\in O, \\ p \mbox{ if } p\not\in O
\end{array}\right.\\
Merge(k) &=& \{(Merge(p),v) : (p,v) \in k \}\\
Merge(r) &=& (Merge(p_b),v,Merge(p_a),Merge(k_a))\\
&&\mbox{where } r = (p_b,v,p_a,k_a) \in R
\end{array}$$ The merging of adversaries does not rule out any attacks because $Merge(f^*_R(k_0))\subseteq f^*_{Merge(R)}(Merge(k_0))$. We subsequently assume that $Merge$ is implied and use $P$, $R$, and $k_0$ to refer to $Merge(P)$, $Merge(R)$, and $Merge(k_0)$.
Security properties of protocols are expressed as predicates on the values known to Oscar in the maximal state of knowledge. We therefore restrict our analysis of knowledge flows to finding all the values in the projection of $f^*_{R(k_0)}(k_0)$ on Oscar. Specifically, we introduce the projection function $g_{R,k_0}$ and show that its smallest fixed point is the image of Oscar under $f^*_{R(k_0)}(k_0)$.
\[defarrow\] Let $X \rightarrow x$ denote the existence of a rule $(p,x,o,k_\sigma)\in R(k_0)$ for some $p\in P-\{o\}$ and $k_\sigma\in K$ with $X=\{v :(o,v)\in k_\sigma\}$. We define $g_{R,k}: 2^V \longrightarrow 2^V$ as $$g_{R,k_0}(X)=X\cup \left\{ x : X_\sigma \rightarrow x
\mbox{ for some } X_\sigma\subseteq X \right\}.$$ The set of values reachable from $X$ is given by $g^*_{R,k_0}(X)$, which is the limit of $g_{R,k_0}^n(X)$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$.\[gR-def\]
Since $f_R(k_0)$ is monotonically increasing in $R$ and $k_0$, Oscar’s pool of values under $f^*_R(k_0)$ is maximized if (a) Oscar tells everything he knows to the honest principals and (b) the honest principals tell everything they know to each other. Therefore, $(P-\{o\})\times Knowledge(k_0)$ should be included in the maximal state of knowledge. This is equivalent to assuming that each honest principal draws $Knowledge(k_0)$ because $k\subseteq f^*_R(k_0)$ implies that $f^*_R(k_0)=f^*_R(k_0\cup k)$.
\[arrow\] Let $[(P-\{o\})\times V_0]\subseteq k_0$ with $V_0=Knowledge(k_0)$ and let $k_n=f^n_R(k_0)$. Then there exists a unique set $X_n\subseteq V$ such that $$k_n=[(P-\{o\})\times V_0] \cup [\{o\}\times X_n].\label{xn}$$ The set $X_n$ has the property that $X_n=g^n_{R,k_0}(X_0)$.
[*Proof.*]{}
We use induction on $n$. For $n=0$, $X_n=X_0=g^n_{R,k_0}(X_0)$. Since $(P-\{o\})\times V_0\subseteq k_0$ and $V_0=Knowledge(k_0)$, there exists a unique $X_0$ such that $k_0$ satisfies (\[xn\]).
Let $X_n=g^n_R(X_0)$ be a unique solution to (\[xn\]) and\
$Knowledge(k_n)=V_0$ (our induction hypothesis). We know that $k_{n+1}=f_R(k_n)$ and, therefore, $Knowledge(k_{n+1})=Knowledge(k_n)=V_0$. Together with $[(P-\{o\})\times V_0] \subseteq k_n\subseteq k_{n+1}$, this implies the existence a unique $X_{n+1}$ for which $k_{n+1}$ satisfies (\[xn\]). We now need to prove that $X_{n+1}=g^{n+1}_{R,k_0}(X_0)$.
Definition (\[xn\]) lets us infer that $x\in X_{n+1} \Longleftrightarrow (o,x)\in k_{n+1}=f_R(k_n)$. According to Definition (\[fR-def\]), $(o,x)\in f_R(k_n)$ if and only if i) $(o,x)\in k_n$, which is, by (\[xn\]), equivalent to $x\in X_n$, or ii) there exists a $p\in P$ and $k_\sigma\in K$ such that $(p,x)\in k_n$, $k_\sigma\subseteq k_n$, and $(p,x,o,k_\sigma)\in R$. Since there are no self-rules $(o,v,o,k_\sigma)\in R$, we know that $p\in P-\{o\}$. This, together with $x\in X_{n+1}\subseteq V_0$, implies that $(p,x)\in [(P-\{o\})\times V_0] \subseteq k_n$. Given $[(P-\{o\})\times V_0] \subseteq k_n$ and $V_0=Knowledge(k_n)$, the condition $k_\sigma\subseteq k_n$ is equivalent to $$\begin{array}{l} X_\sigma=\{v: (o,v)\in k_\sigma\} \subseteq \{v: (o,v)\in k_n\} =X_n \mbox{ and}\\ \{v:(o,v)\in k_\sigma\}\subseteq V_0.\end{array}$$ Since $x\in X_{n+1}\subseteq V_0$, $\{v:(o,v)\in k_\sigma\}\subseteq V_0$ gives us $(p,x,o,k_\sigma)\in R(k_0)$. Therefore, case ii) holds if and only if there exists a set $X_\sigma\subseteq X_n$ such that $X_\sigma\rightarrow x$. By Definition (\[gR-def\]), case i) or case ii) holds if and only if $x\in g_{R,k_0}(X_n)$. Hence, $X_{n+1}=g_{R,k_0}(X_n)$ and the lemma follows by induction on $n$.
$\Box$
Detecting Intruders {#kf-completeness}
-------------------
Let $m$ be the total number of values used in a single protocol session, including the subterms of each composite value. Suppose that Oscar can use only the primitives which [*compose*]{} or [*decompose*]{} inputs and for which the composition rules have no collisions (e.g encryptor/decryptor). Then, the theory in [@RT2001] implies the following: if there exists an attack in which Oscar uses $w$ parallel protocol sessions, then such an attack need not involve more than $w\cdot m$ values. From (\[v0\]) we infer that this corresponds to a valid state of knowledge $f_R^*(k_\sigma)$ derived from the set $k_\sigma\subseteq k_0$ of cardinality $|Knowledge(k_\sigma)|\leq wm$. By Lemma \[arrow\], we can conclusively [*decide*]{} whether there is an attack which uses $w$ parallel protocol sessions by computing $$\left\{v\in g^*_{R,k_\sigma}(X_\sigma) :
\begin{array}{l} \mbox{for }
[\{o\}\times X_\sigma] \subseteq k_\sigma \subseteq k_0\\
\mbox{with } |Knowledge(k_\sigma)|\leq wm
\end{array}
\right\}. \label{comp}$$
Evaluation
==========
We have applied the theory developed in the previous section to check the security of the original [@NS78] and modified [@Lowe96] Needham-Schroeder Public Key Protocol, the Otway-Rees Mutual Authentication Protocol [@Otway-Rees87], and the bootstrapping and renewal protocols based on Controlled Physical Random Functions (CPUFs) [@Gassend03PhysicalRandomFunctions; @GassendETAL02ControlledPhysicalRandomFunctions].
The knowledge flows of the protocols were embedded into Alloy using the pattern presented in section \[example\]. The pattern is embodied in a general Alloy framework for knowledge flow analysis which includes definitions of basic concepts (Model Excerpt \[basicdeclarations\]), a library of primitives, and a model outline for specifying protocol rules and security theorems. For example, Model Excerpt \[primitives\] shows portions of Alloy modules that encode generic encryption/decryption and nonce generator primitives, and Model Excerpts \[protocol-rules\] and \[security-theorem\] comprise an instantiation of the modelling outline for the Needham-Schroeder protocol.
We have found that the Alloy framework and its associated tool support make the process of knowledge flow modelling fast, simple, and accurate. Our analysis is sound and, since most cryptographic primitives used in practice are composing/decomposing, we can make it complete for a bounded number of parallel sessions by applying the results from section \[kf-completeness\]. In the case of the modified Needham-Schroeder protocol, for example, we have proved that it is secure against all attacks that use two parallel sessions. The analysis of the Otway-Rees protocol (\[otway-reese-protocol\]) produced the type flaw attack described in [@BurrowsETAL90LogicAuthentication]. We found the CUPFs protocols (\[cpuf-protocol\]) to be secure for a single protocol session and, therefore, for an unlimited number of sessions.
The main limitation of our approach is that it is not fully general. As pointed out in section \[kf-basic-defs\], protocols that [*withhold*]{} information under certain conditions cannot be formulated as knowledge flows. However, this limitation does not significantly detract from practical usefulness of knowledge flow analysis: as far as we know, few practical protocols contain information-withholding rules.
Related Work
============
The first formalisms designed for reasoning about cryptographic protocols are belief logics such as BAN logic [@BurrowsETAL90LogicAuthentication], used by the Convince tool [@LichotaETAL96VerifyingCryptographicProtocolsElectronicCommerce] with the HOL theorem prover [@GordonMelham93HOL], and its generalizations (GNY [@GNY90], AT [@AT91], and SVO logic [@SO94] which the C3PO tool [@Dekker00C3PO] employs with the Isabelle theorem prover [@NipkowETAL02IsabelleHOLTutorial]). Belief logics are difficult to use since the logical form of a protocol does not correspond to the protocol itself in an obvious way. Almost indistinguishable formulations of the same problem lead to different results. It is also hard to know if a formulation is over constrained or if any important assumptions are missing. BAN logic and its derivatives cannot deal with security flaws resulting from interleaving of protocol steps [@BM93] and cannot express any properties of protocols other than authentication [@MB93]. To overcome these limitations, the knowledge flow formalism has, like other approaches [@Lowe97; @MMS97; @CJM00; @SongETAL01AthenaNovelApproachEfficientAutomatic; @Meadows94NRLProtocolAnalyzer], a concrete operational model of protocol execution. Our model also includes a description of how the honest participants in the protocol behave and a description of how an adversary can interfere with the execution of the protocol.
Specialized model checkers such as Casper [@Lowe97], Mur$\phi$ [@MMS97], Brutus [@CJM00], TAPS [@Cohen04TAPS], and ProVerif [@AB] have been successfully used to analyze security protocols. Like knowledge flow analysis in Alloy, these tools are based on state space exploration which leads to an exponential complexity. Athena [@SongETAL01AthenaNovelApproachEfficientAutomatic] is based on a modification of the strand space model [@FabregaETAL98StrandSpaces]. Even though it reduces the state space explosion problem, it remains exponential. Multiset rewriting [@DurginETAL04MultisetRewritingSecurity] in combination with tree automata is used in Timbuk [@timbuk]. The relation between multiset rewriting and strand spaces is analyzed in [@MR-SP]. The relation between multiset rewriting and process algebras [@pi; @spi] is analyzed in [@MR-PA].
Proof building tools such as NRL, based on Prolog [@Meadows94NRLProtocolAnalyzer], have also been helpful for analyzing security protocols. However, they are not fully automatic and often require extensive user intervention. Model checkers lead to completely automated tools which generate counterexamples if a protocol is flawed. For theorem-proving-based approaches, counterexamples are hard to produce.
For completeness, we note that if the initial knowledge of the intruder consists of a finite number of explicit (non-parameterized, non-symbolic) values, then a polynomial time intruder detection algorithm can be shown to exist using a generalization of the proof normalization arguments [@McAllester93AutomaticRecognitionTractabilityInferenceRelations; @BasinGanzinger01AutomatedComplexityAnalysisBasedOrderedResolution; @GivanMcallester02PolynomialInference], which were employed in [@BodeiETAL02FlowDolevYao; @NielsonETAL01CryptographicAnalysisCubicTime] and have been implemented in the framework [@NielsonETAL04SuccinctSolverSuite]. However, in practice, the initial knowledge of an intruder is unbounded and represented by a finite number of parameterized sets, each having an infinite number of elements.
The key advantage of the knowledge flow approach over other formalisms is its simplicity and flexibility. It is simple in the sense that the underlying mathematics is straightforward and elementary; it does not require any specialized background (in logic). It is flexible in the sense that the same library of cryptographic primitives can be used to model different protocols and that the security of a complex scheme involving multiple protocols can be verified. Knowledge Flow Analysys allows modeling of confidentiality and authenticity via a wide range of primitives such as pairing, union, hashing, symmetric key encryption, public key encryption, MACs and digital signatures.
Our formalism derives its simplicity from being just sufficiently expressive to enable modelling of practical cryptographic protocols. In particular, existentials [@DurginETAL04MultisetRewritingSecurity] cannot be encoded as knowledge flows; existentials are implicitly modeled in Oscar’s initial knowledge. As mentioned in Section (\[kf-basic-defs\]), NP-hardness proofs which use (existential) Horn clause reduction [@DurginETAL04MultisetRewritingSecurity] or SAT3 reduction [@RT2001] are not applicable to Knowledge Flow Analysis.
Conclusion
==========
This paper introduces a new method for formalizing and checking security protocols. Our approach enables natural encoding of protocol rules, simple treatment of primitives, direct embedding into first order logic, and sound analysis that is also complete for many practical protocols.
We have developed a general framework for analyzing knowledge flows using the Alloy Analyzer. The framework has been used to generate easily understandable knowledge flow representations of parallel session and type flaw attacks on the Needham-Schroeder and Otway-Rees protocols. We have also instantiated it with the rules for CPUFs key management protocols and verified the protocols’ correctness for an unlimited number of parallel sessions.
We believe that knowledge flow analysis may be polynomial-time decidable for some protocols. Future work will involve identifying the class of protocols whose knowledge flows are analyzable in polynomial time and developing a specialized tool for checking them.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Viktor Kuncak, Ishan Sachdev, and Ilya Shlyakhter for their contributions to and comments on earlier versions of this work.
[10]{}
M. Ababi and B. Blanchet. Analyzing security protocols with secrecy types and logic programs. , 52(1):102–146, 2005.
M. Abadi and A. D. Gordon. Reasoning about cryptographic protocols in the spi calculus. In [*Proc. of CONCUR ’97: Concurrency Theory, 8th International Conference, LNCS 1243*]{}, pages 59–73, 1997.
M. Abadi and M. Tuttle. A semantics for a logic of authentication. In [*Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing*]{}, pages 201–216, 1991.
D. Basin and H. Ganzinger. Automated complexity analysis based on ordered resolution. , 48(1):70–109, 2001.
S. Bistarelli, I. Cervesato, G. Lenzini, and F. Martinelli. Relating process algebras and multiset rewriting for immediate decryption protocols. In [*2nd Int. Workshop on Mathematical Methods, Models and Architectures for Computer Networks Security (MMM-ACNS), LNCS 2776*]{}, pages 86–99, 2003.
C. Bodei, P. Degano, F. Nielson, and H. R. Nielson. Flow logic for dolev-yao secrecy in cryptographic processes. , 18(6):747–756, 2002.
C. Boyd and W. Mao. On a limitation of ban logic. In [*Advances in Cryptology: Eurocrypt ’93, Springer-Verlag*]{}, pages 240–247, 1993.
M. Burrows, M. Abadi, and R. Needham. A logic of authentication. , 8(1):18–36, 1990.
I. Cervesato, N. Durgin, J.Mitchell, P. Lincoln, and A. Scedrov. A comparison between strand spaces and multiset rewriting for security protocol analysis. In [*Software Security Theories and Systems, Mext-NSF-JSPS International Symposium, ISSS 2002, LLNCS 426*]{}, 2003.
Y. Chevalier, R. Kuesters, M. Rusinowitch, and M. Turuani. An np decision procedure for protocol insecurity with xor. In [*LICS’03*]{}, 2003.
Y. Chevalier, R. Küsters, M. Rusinowitch, M. Turuani, and L. Vigneron. Extending the dolev-yao intruder for analyzing an unbounded number of sessions. Technical Report RR-4869, Rapport de recherche de l’INRIA-Lorraine, Equipe : CASSIS, July 2003.
E. Clarke, S. Jha, and W. Marrero. Verifying security protocols with brutus. , 9(4):443–487, 2000.
E. Cohen. : A first-order verifier for cryptographic protocols. In [*Computer Security Foundations Workshop*]{}, 2004.
H. Comon-Lundh and V. Shmatikov. Intruder deductions, constraint solving and insecurity decision in presence of exclusive or. In [*18th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’03)*]{}, pages 271–280, 2003.
A. H. Dekker. C3po: A tool for automatic sound cryptographic protocol analysis. In [*13th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW’00)*]{}, 2000.
D. Dolev and A. Yao. On the security of public key protocols. , 29(2):198–208, 1983.
N. A. Durgin, P. D. Lincoln, J. C. Mitchell, and A. Scedrov. Multiset rewriting and the complexity of bounded security protocols. , 1:677–722, 2004.
F. J. T. Fabrega, J. C. Herzog, and J. D. Guttman. Strand spaces: Why is a security protocol correct? In [*Proceedings of 1998 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy*]{}, 1998.
G. Feuillade, T. Genet, and V. V. T. Tong. Reachability analysis of term rewriting systems. , 2004.
B. Gassend, D. Clarke, M. van Dijk, and S. Devadas. Controlled physical random functions. In [*Proceedings of the 18th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference*]{}, 2002.
B. L. P. Gassend. Physical random functions. Master’s thesis, MIT, 2003.
R. Givan and D. Mcallester. Polynomial-time computation via local inference relations. , 3(4):521–541, 2002.
L. Gong, R. Needham, and R. Yahalom. Reasoning about belief in cryptographic protocols. In [*Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy*]{}, pages 234–248, 1990.
M. J. C. Gordon and T. F. Melham. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1993.
D. Jackson. Automating first-order relational logic. In [*Proc. ACM SIGSOFT Conf. Foundations of Software Engineering / European Software Engineering Conference (FSE/ESEC ’00)*]{}, 2000.
D. Jackson. Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. , 11(2):256–290, 2002.
R. W. Lichota, G. L. Hammonds, and S. H. Brackin. Verifying cryptographic protocols for electronic commerce. In [*Proceedings of the Second USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce*]{}, pages 53–65, 1996.
G. Lowe. Breaking and fixing the needham-schröder public-key protocol using csp and fdr. In [*2nd International Workshop on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems*]{}, 1996.
G. Lowe. Casper: A compiler for the analysis of security protocols. In [*Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy*]{}, pages 18–30, 1997.
W. Mao and C. Boyd. Towards formal analysis of security protocols. In [*Proceedings of the Computer Security Foundation Workshop VI*]{}, pages 147–158, 1993.
D. McAllester. Automatic recognition of tractability in inference relations. , 40(2), 1993.
C. A. Meadows. The nrl protocol analyzer: An overview. In [*Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on the Practical Applications of Prolog*]{}, 1994.
J. Millen and V. Shmatikov. Symbolic protocol analysis with an abelian group operator or diffie-hellman exponentiation. , 2004.
R. Milner. . Cambridge University Press, 2000.
J. Mitchell, M. Mitchell, and U. Stern. Automated analysis of cryptographic protocols using mur$\phi$. In [*Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy*]{}, pages 141–153, 1997.
R. Needham and M. Schröder. Using encryption for authentication in large networks of computers. , 21(12):993–999, 1978.
F. Nielson, H. R. Nielson, and H. Seidl. Cryptographic analysis in cubic time. In [*TOSCA’01*]{}, volume 62 of [*ENTCS*]{}, 2001.
F. Nielson, H. R. Nielson, H. Sun, M. Buchholtz, R. R. Hansen, H. Pilegaard, and H. Seidl. The succinct solver suite. In [*10th TACAS*]{}, volume 2988 of [*LNCS*]{}, 2004.
T. Nipkow, L. Paulson, and M. Wenzel. , March 8 2002.
D. Otway and O. Rees. Efficient and timely mutual authentication. , 21:8–10, January 1987.
M. Rusinowitch and M. Turuani. Protocol insecurity with finite number of sessions is np-complete. In [*Proceedings of the 14th Computer Security Foundations Workshop*]{}, pages 174–187, 2001.
V. Shmatikov. Decidable analysis of cryptographic protocols with products and modular exponentiation. In [*ESOP’04*]{}, volume 2986 of [*LNCS*]{}, 2004.
D. Song, S. Berezin, and A. Perrig. Athena, a novel approach to efficient automatic security protocol analysis. , 9(1), 2001.
P. Syverson and P. van Oorschot. On unifying some cryptographic protocol logics. In [*Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on Security and Privacy*]{}, 1994.
The Otway-Rees Protocol {#otway-reese-protocol}
=======================
[ ]{}
[**module**]{} kf/otwayreese
[**open**]{} kf/basicdeclarations
[**open**]{} kf/primitives/encryption
[**open**]{} kf/primitives/nonces
[**sig**]{} Message [**extends**]{} CompositeValue {
contents: [**some**]{} Value }
[**sig**]{} Identity [**extends**]{} AtomicValue {}
[**pred**]{} PrimitiveRules(x : [**set**]{} Value, v : Value) {
Encryptor(x,v) || Decryptor(x,v) || NonceGenerator(x,v) ||
(x : Message && v [**in**]{} x.contents) }
[**pred**]{} idCipher(cipher: Value) {
cipher : Ciphertext &&
[**some**]{} cipher.key.id & cipher.plaintext &&
cipher.plaintext [**in**]{} Identity &&
[**one**]{} cipher.plaintext - cipher.key.id }
[**pred**]{} keyCipher(cipher: Value) {
cipher : Ciphertext &&
[**some**]{} cipher.key.id }
[**pred**]{} message1(m: Value) {
m : Message &&
[**let**]{} cipher = m.contents & Ciphertext | {
idCipher(cipher) &&
m.contents = cipher + cipher.plaintext }}
[**pred**]{} message2(m: Value) {
m : Message &&
[**some**]{} cipher1 : Ciphertext |
[**let**]{} cipher2 = m.contents & Ciphertext - cipher1 | {
idCipher(cipher1) &&
idCipher(cipher2) &&
cipher1.plaintext = cipher2.plaintext &&
m.contents = cipher1 + cipher2 + cipher1.plaintext }}
[**pred**]{} message3(m: Value) {
m : Message &&
[**some**]{} cipher1 : Ciphertext |
[**let**]{} cipher2 = m.contents & Ciphertext - cipher1 | {
keyCipher(cipher1) &&
keyCipher(cipher2) &&
cipher1.plaintext = cipher2.plaintext &&
m.contents = cipher1 + cipher2 }}
[**pred**]{} message4(m: Value) {
m : Message &&
keyCipher(m.contents) }
[**pred**]{} ProtocolRules(x : [**set**]{} Value, v : Value) {
(x : [**some**]{} Oscar.draws && message1(v)) ||
(message1(x) && message2(v) && x.contents [**in**]{} v.contents) ||
(message2(x) && message3(v) && x.contents.key = v.contents.key) ||
(message3(x) && message4(v) && v.contents [**in**]{} x.contents) }
[**pred**]{} ApplyRules() {
[**all**]{} v : Value | [**let**]{} x = Oscar.learns.v |
[**some**]{} x <=> PrimitiveRules(x, v) || ProtocolRules(x, v) }
[**pred**]{} SecurityAssumptions(){
PerfectCryptography() &&
[**all**]{} p : Principal | [**some**]{} p.owns & Identity }
[**pred**]{} SecurityTheorem() {
[**no**]{} oldResp, newResp : PUFResponse,
renew : param.(oldResp.isRespTo) & HonestUser,
cipher : Ciphertext |
[**let**]{} oldChall = oldResp.isRespTo, newChall = newResp.isRespTo |
oldChall.isHashOf : [**some**]{} (AtomicValue - Oscar.draws) &&
cipher.key.isHashOf = oldResp + renew.hash &&
cipher.plaintext = newResp &&
newChall.isHashOf = oldChall + renew.hash &&
newResp [**in**]{} Oscar.knows }
[**assert**]{} Security {
InitialKnowledge() && FinalKnowledge() &&
SecurityAssumptions() && ApplyRules() => SecurityTheorem() }
[**pred**]{} SecurityTheorem() {
[**no**]{} m1, m2, m3, m4: Oscar.knows & Message,
A, B: HonestUser.owns & Identity | {
message1(m1) && message2(m2) &&
message3(m3) && message4(m4) &&
m1.contents.key.id = A &&
m2.contents.key.id = A + B &&
m3.contents.key.id = A + B &&
m4.contents.key.id = A &&
m4.contents.plaintext [**in**]{}
(HonestUser.draws - Oscar.draws) & AtomicValue &&
m4.contents.plaintext [**in**]{} Oscar.knows }}
[**assert**]{} Security {
InitialKnowledge() && FinalKnowledge() &&
SecurityAssumptions() && ApplyRules() => SecurityTheorem() }
The CUPF Renewal Protocol {#cpuf-protocol}
=========================
[ ]{}
[**module**]{} kf/primitives/hashing
[**open**]{} kf/basicdeclarations
[**sig**]{} Hash [**extends**]{} CompositeValue {
isHashOf: [**some**]{} Value }
[**pred**]{} CollisionFreeHashing() {
[**all disj**]{} h1, h2: Hash | h1.isHashOf != h2.isHashOf }
[**pred**]{} Hasher(x : [**set**]{} Value, v : Value) {
v [**in**]{} Hash && x = v.isHashOf }
[ ]{}
[**module**]{} kf/cpufs
[**open**]{} kf/basicdeclarations
[**open**]{} kf/primitives/encryption
[**open**]{} kf/primitives/hashing
[**sig**]{} PUFResponse [**extends**]{} CompositeValue {
isRespTo: Value }
[**pred**]{} UniquePUFResponses() {
[**all**]{} r: PUFResponse | r.isRespTo ![**in**]{} (PUFResponse - r).isRespTo }
[**sig**]{} RenewProg [**in**]{} Principal {
param : Value,
hash : AtomicValue & owns
}{ param + hash [**in**]{} draws + knows }
[**pred**]{} SecretsNotLeaked() {
[**no**]{} (RenewProg & HonestUser).param.isHashOf & PUFResponse &&
(RenewProg & HonestUser).param [**in**]{} Hash }
[**pred**]{} GetResponsePrimitive(x : [**set**]{} Value, v : Value) {
v [**in**]{} PUFResponse &&
v.isRespTo.isHashOf = Oscar.hash + Oscar.param &&
x = v.isRespTo }
[**pred**]{} GetSecretPrimitive(x : [**set**]{} Value, v : Value) {
v [**in**]{} Hash &&
v.isHashOf = isRespTo.(Oscar.param) + Oscar.hash &&
x = v.isHashOf }
[**pred**]{} PrimitiveRules(x : [**set**]{} Value, v : Value) {
Encryptor(x,v) || Decryptor(x,v) ||
GetResponsePrimitive(x,v) || GetSecretPrimitive(x,v) }
[**pred**]{} ProtocolRules(x : [**set**]{} Value, v : Value) {
x : [**some**]{} Oscar.draws && {
(v [**in**]{} (RenewProg & HonestUser).(param + hash)) ||
(v [**in**]{} Ciphertext &&
[**some**]{} renew: RenewProg & HonestUser |
[**let**]{} renewHash = renew.hash |
v.key.isHashOf = isRespTo.(renew.param) + renewHash &&
v.plaintext.isRespTo.isHashOf = renewHash + renew.param) }}
[**pred**]{} ApplyRules() {
[**all**]{} v : Value | [**let**]{} x = Oscar.learns.v |
[**some**]{} x <=> PrimitiveRules(x, v) || ProtocolRules(x, v) }
[**pred**]{} SecurityAssumptions(){
UniquePUFResponses() && PerfectCryptography() &&
SingleValueEncryption() && CollisionFreeHashing() &&
SecretsNotLeaked() }
[**pred**]{} SecurityTheorem() {
[**no disj**]{} oldResp, newResp : PUFResponse,
renew : param.(oldResp.isRespTo) & HonestUser,
cipher : Ciphertext |
[**let**]{} oldChall = oldResp.isRespTo, newChall = newResp.isRespTo |
oldChall.isHashOf : [**some**]{} (AtomicValue - Oscar.draws) &&
cipher.key.isHashOf = oldResp + renew.hash &&
cipher.plaintext = newResp &&
newChall.isHashOf = oldChall + renew.hash &&
newResp [**in**]{} Oscar.knows }
[**assert**]{} Security {
InitialKnowledge() && FinalKnowledge() &&
SecurityAssumptions() && ApplyRules() => SecurityTheorem() }
[^1]: We use the parameter $v$ in $c$ instead of $N(\epsilon,I(p))$ because $p'$, the recipient of $c$, cannot conclusively determine that $v$ is, in fact, the nonce $N(\epsilon,I(p))$.
[^2]: It is evident from Definition \[fR-def\] that self-rules such as $r=(p,v,p,k_p)\in R$ do not affect the flow of knowledge: $f_R(k)=f_{R-\{r\}}(k)$. We therefore assume that $R$ does not contain any self-rules.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have performed an angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy study of the BiS$_{2}$-based superconductor Nd(O,F)BiS$_{2}$. Two small electron-like Fermi surfaces around X ($\pi$, 0) are observed, which enclose 2.4$\%$ and 1.1$\%$ of the Brillouin zone area, respectively, corresponding to an electron doping of 7$\%$ per Bi site. The low-energy spectrum consists of a weakly-dispersing broad hump and a dispersive branch, which follows well the calculated band dispersion. This hump is drastically suppressed with increasing temperature, while the dispersive branch is essentially unaffected. The anomalous thermal effect indicates a highly interacting electronic state, in which the superconducting pairing develops.'
author:
- 'L. K. Zeng$^{1}$'
- 'X. B. Wang$^{1}$'
- 'J. Ma$^{1}$'
- 'P. Richard$^{1,2}$'
- 'S. M. Nie$^{1}$'
- 'H. M. Weng$^{1}$'
- 'N. L. Wang$^{1,2}$'
- 'Z. Wang$^{3}$'
- 'T. Qian$^{1}$'
- 'H. Ding$^{1,2}$'
title: 'Observation of anomalous temperature dependence of spectrum on small Fermi surfaces in a BiS$_{2}$-based superconductor'
---
The recent discovery of superconductivity with *T*$_{c}$ up to $\sim$ 10 K in the BiS$_{2}$-based compounds has attracted a lot of attentions [@M1; @M2; @M3; @M4; @M5; @M6; @M7; @M8; @M9; @M10]. As in the cuprate and iron-based high-*T*$_{c}$ superconductors, the BiS$_{2}$ family has a layered crystal structure consisting of superconducting BiS$_{2}$ layers intercalated with various block layers. Band structure calculations show that the parent compound of the BiS$_{2}$-based superconductors is a band insulator with an energy gap of $\sim$ 0.8 eV [@C11; @C12; @C13; @C14], and bulk superconductivity induced by electron doping is derived from the Bi 6*p*$_{x}$/*p*$_{y}$ orbitals, in which correlation effects are expected to be weaker than those in the 3*d* orbitals of the cuprate and iron-based superconductors. The superconducting transition temperature *T*$_{c}$ reaches a maximum at a nominal doping level $\delta$ $\sim$ 0.5 for many compounds [@M1; @M2; @M3; @M4; @M5; @M6; @M7; @M8; @M9; @M10], where strong nesting between the large parallel Fermi surface (FS) segments is suggested in band calculations [@C11; @C12; @C13; @C14]. Therefore, most of the theoretical models for the pairing mechanism are based on the nesting scenario.
However, there is a large bifurcation regarding the consequences of the nesting. On the one hand, the nesting is proposed to enhance the electron-phonon coupling, thus favoring a conventional BCS superconductivity [@C11; @C12; @C13; @C14]. On the other hand, as widely believed for the iron-based superconductors, the strong FS nesting could enhance charge or spin fluctuations, and thus electronic correlations may play a major role in the superconducting pairing [@C15; @C16; @C17; @C18]. Magnetic penetration depth and muon-spin rotation spectroscopy measurements support a conventional *s*-wave superconductivity in the strong electron-phonon coupling limit [@P19; @P20], whereas the absence of phonon anomaly in neutron scattering measurements suggests that the electron-phonon coupling may be much weaker than theoretically expected [@P21]. Recent scanning tunneling spectroscopy measurements show that the ratio 2$\Delta$/*k*$_{B}$*T*$_{c}$ is much larger than the BCS value [@P22; @P23]. Giant superconducting fluctuations and an anomalous semiconducting normal state are also observed, suggesting that the superconductivity might be different from that of a conventional BCS superconductor [@P23].
In this Letter, we present angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) results of the BiS$_{2}$-based superconductor Nd(O,F)BiS$_{2}$ (*T*$_{c}$$^{zero}$ = 4 K). Two small electron-like FSs around X ($\pi$, 0) are observed, corresponding to an electron doping of 7$\%$ of itinerant carriers per Bi site. As a result, the measured electronic structure is far from the proposed FS nesting. Furthermore, we reveal that the low-energy spectrum consists of a broad hump around -0.3 eV, which is drastically suppressed with increasing temperature, and a dispersive branch, which is essentially unaffected by the temperature. This exotic spectral behavior suggests that the low-temperature normal state of this superconductor is a highly interacting electronic state.
Single crystals with a nominal composition of NdO$_{0.7}$F$_{0.3}$BiS$_{2}$ were grown by a flux method with KCl/LiCl as the flux. Energy dispersion spectrum (EDS) measurements were performed on several pieces of samples, which give an averaged composition of Nd$_{0.95\pm0.02}$O$_{y}$F$_{0.44\pm0.1}$Bi$_{0.94\pm0.02}$S$_{2}$. ARPES measurements were performed at the Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, using the He I$\alpha$ (*h*$\nu$ = 21.218 eV) resonance lines. The angular and energy resolutions were set to 0.2$^{\circ}$ and 14 $\sim$ 32 meV, respectively. Samples with a typical size of $\sim$ 1 $\times$ 1 mm$^{2}$ were cleaved *in situ* at 30 K and measured between 30 and 230 K in a working vacuum better than 4 $\times$ 10$^{-11}$ Torr. The Fermi level (*E*$_{F}$) of the samples was referenced to that of a gold film evaporated onto the sample holder.
{width="3.3in"}
Figure 1 shows the band dispersions along the high-symmetry lines $\Gamma$-M-X-$\Gamma$ in an energy range within 4 eV below *E*$_{F}$. We observe several dispersive bands below -1.2 eV and an electron-like band dispersion with a bottom of -0.3 eV near X. There is an energy gap of $\sim$ 0.9 eV between them. To understand the multiband electronic structure, we superimpose the local-density approximation (LDA) band structure on top of our data. The calculated band structure reflects some main features in the experiment data, especially for the direct gap between the conduction and valence bands. In LDA calculations, the undoped parent compound is a band insulator and its *E*$_{F}$ is located within the energy gap. The experimentally obtained *E*$_{F}$ is situated in the conduction bands, indicating that electron carriers are introduced in the superconducting samples due to the substitution of O with F.
Figure 2 shows the FS mapping data in the *k*$_{x}$-*k*$_{y}$ plane. We extract two FS pockets centered at X, which come from the near-*E*$_{F}$ electron-like dispersion shown in Fig. 1. The two extracted FSs exhibit a significantly anisotropic separation, which is a result of the cooperative effects from spin-orbit coupling (SOC) and interlayer coupling, as explained below. We have performed LDA calculations using the following models. In a one-BiS$_{2}$-layer model (same as the surface layer after cleave) with SOC \[Fig. 2(d)\], the near-*E*$_{F}$ bands are split along both XM and $\Gamma$X with comparable magnitudes. In a two-BiS$_{2}$-layer model (same as the bulk) without SOC \[Fig. 2(e)\], the bands are doubly-degenerate along XM, but split along $\Gamma$X due to the interlayer coupling. In the presence of SOC, the Rashba term lifts the degeneracy along XM but the splitting magnitude along XM is much smaller than along $\Gamma$X \[Fig. 2(f)\], in agreement with our observations.
{width="3.3in"}
The two FS pockets enclose 1.1$\%$ and 2.4$\%$ of the Brillouin zone area, respectively. Counting the Luttinger volume of two-dimensional FS sheets, the two observed FSs correspond to an electron doping of 7$\%$ per Bi site. The value for doped itinerant carrier density is much less than those inferred from the nominal composition and the EDS data. The discrepancy can be explained in several ways. Firstly, the possibility of charge polarization at the terminal layer cannot be completely excluded, though this scenario is unlikely since the cleavage occurs between two symmetrical BiS$_{2}$ layers. Moreover, the plasma frequency calculated using the experimental doping level is $\sim$ 2.1 eV, in agreement with the optical data [@P24], suggesting that the ARPES data reflect the intrinsic carrier density in the bulk. Secondly, as both oxygen and fluorine are light elements, their concentrations given from the EDS data may not be reliable [@P23]. Thirdly, part of the carriers may be localized and thus do not contribute to the conduction band. In this case, the localized carriers could form flat bands within the energy gap.
{width="3.3in"}
We find that at low temperature, the low-energy spectrum near *E*$_{F}$ consists of a large hump around -0.3 eV and a dispersive branch, which tracks well the calculated conduction band dispersion. Figure 3 shows ARPES data of the conduction bands taken along XM at 30 K. Two electron-like bands are resolved in Figs. 3(b) and 3(d). As mentioned above, the band splitting along XM originates from the SOC. The band dispersion, extracted by tracking the peak positions of the momentum distribution curves (MDCs), follows well the LDA bands calculated with SOC. On the other hand, the energy distribution curves (EDCs) are characterized by a broad hump, whose maximum does not cross *E*$_{F}$ but tends to bend back beyond *k*$_{F2}$ \[Fig. 3(c)\]. As shown in Fig. 3(e), the EDC at *k*$_{F2}$ shows a sharp Fermi cutoff, indicating a metallic behavior. There is a change of the slope on the lower binding energy side of the hump at $\sim$ -0.05 eV. The linear extrapolation suggests that the hump contributes vanishingly small spectral weight at *E*$_{F}$, indicating that the finite low-energy spectral weight at *E*$_{F}$ is dominated by the dispersive branch.
![(Color online) (a) and (b) ARPES intensity plots through the X point (cut 2 from Fig. 2(a)) taken at 30 and 230 K, respectively. (c) *E*-*k* plot of the positions of the EDC and MDC peaks taken at 30 and 230 K, respectively. To approximately remove the effect of the Fermi function on the EDC peak position near *E*$_{F}$, the EDC peak positions are extracted from the symmetrized curve with respect to *E*$_{F}$. (d) and (e) MDCs at *E*$_{F}$ and EDCs at *k*$_{F}$ of the left branch taken at various temperatures between 30 and 230 K, respectively. Thermal broaden effect on the EDCs in (e) is removed (see text for details). Inset of (e) plots the EDCs (raw data) in a energy window of \[-0.05, 0.05 eV\]. (f) Spectral weight (left axis) and binding energy of the maximum (right axis) of the broad hump against temperature. The spectral weight is obtained by subtracting the integration of the EDC at 230 K from that taken at the corresponding temperature.](Fig4.eps){width="3.3in"}
The low-energy spectrum shows anomalous temperature dependence characterized by a rapid suppression of the spectral weight of the broad hump with increasing temperature that, nevertheless, leaves the dispersive branch little changed. The temperature dependent ARPES results along cut 2 are shown in Fig. 4. A sharp contrast between the intensity contours at 30 K \[Fig. 4(a)\] and 230 K \[Fig. 4(b)\] is clearly visible. To further clarify the evolution of the spectrum with temperature, we plot the MDCs at *E*$_{F}$ and the EDCs at *k*$_{F}$ of the left branch at various temperatures between 30 and 230 K in Figs. 4(d) and 4(e), respectively. All the spectra are normalized by the photon flux. To remove the thermal broadening effect due to the Fermi-Dirac statistics, the EDCs in Fig. 4(e) are divided by the resolution-convoluted Fermi functions at corresponding temperatures and then multiplied by that of 10 K. The MDCs almost collapse onto a single curve, whereas the lineshape of the EDCs changes dramatically with temperature. The spectral weight of the broad hump is suppressed rapidly with increasing temperature. The hump can no longer be clearly resolved above 150 K and the spectra at 180 K and 230 K nearly coincide. In sharp contrast to the loss of spectral weight below *E*$_{F}$, the Fermi cutoff of all the EDCs (raw data) taken at various temperatures crosses exactly at *E*$_{F}$ \[inset of Fig. 4(e)\], which is consistent with the collapse of the MDCs shown in Fig. 4(d), indicating a negligible temperature effect on the spectral weight at *E*$_{F}$ that is dominated by the dispersive branch. As shown in Fig. 4(c), with the suppression of the broad hump, the dichotomy between the dispersions of EDC and MDC peaks is almost eliminated at 230 K. The dispersions at 230 K are in good consistence with the one extracted from the MDCs at 30 K that corresponds to the dispersive branch. Therefore, in sharp contrast to the strong temperature dependence of the broad hump, the dispersive branch is essentially unaffected with temperature.
A conventional explanation for temperature-induced loss of spectral weight is through the effect of lattice vibrations. Such an effect in photoemission spectra is similar to that found in X-ray and neutron scattering, where the intensities of diffraction peaks are multiplied by the Debye-Waller factor *e*$^{-2W}$ (*W* $\propto$ *T*) [@E25]. Indeed, the integrated spectral weight as a function of temperature can be approximately fitted to a function of *A* + *Be*$^{-CT}$, as shown in Fig. 4(f). However, the extracted Debye temperature from the fitting is about only 3 K [@E26], two orders of magnitudes smaller than the estimated values from the specific heat data [@M6; @M7; @D1; @D2; @D3]. Therefore, the effect of conventional lattice vibrations cannot explain the giant temperature effects in our data.
Loss of spectral weight over a large energy scale has been observed in a polaronic state of the colossal magnetoresistant manganites La$_{2-2x}$Sr$_{1+2x}$Mn$_{2}$O$_{7}$ [@E27; @E28; @E29; @E30]. In the polaronic state induced by strong electron-phonon coupling, the spectral function consists of a low-energy “zero-phonon" quasiparticle peak and a hump-like high-energy incoherent resonance. Our observation of a high-energy hump as well as a sharp Fermi cutoff bears some resemblance to the signature of polarons. In the manganites, the incoherent branch loses its partial spectral weight over an energy range of up to 0.8 eV, which is accompanied by a disappearance of the quasiparticle peaks around the metal-insulator transition temperature. This could be associated with either the loss of polaron coherence [@E29] or a decreased fraction of metallic regions in the scenario of phase separation [@E28]. Assuming that the polaron picture could be applied to the BiS$_{2}$ system, the spectral weight of the incoherent branch, *i.e.* the broad hump, is drastically suppressed with increasing temperature, while the low-energy coherent branch, which dominates the spectral weight at *E*$_{F}$, is not affected. The behavior looks very unusual in the framework of polarons because the strong suppression of the incoherent branch indicates significant changes of the polaronic states, which seems not to be perceived by the coherent part. Our spectra exhibit distinctly different temperature dependence from those in the manganites, indicating that the giant thermal effects observed in the two systems might have different origins.
The disorder-induced self-traping of polarons in Na$_{0.025}$WO$_{3}$ also shows nontrivial temperature dependence of the spectral function [@E31; @E32]. The Na$_{x}$WO$_{3}$ and BiS$_{2}$ systems bear an interesting resemblance in their electronic structures. Their undoped parent compounds are band insulators with energy gaps of an order of eV between the valence and conduction bands. The introduction of electron carriers by element substitutions or intercalations leads to an insulator-metal transition on small electron-like FSs. The conduction electrons in Na$_{0.025}$WO$_{3}$ are self-trapped due to strong disorder induced by the randomly distributed Na$^{+}$ ions, forming a weakly dispersive polaron band near the top of valence bands. The breakdown of polarons at high temperature leads to a large decrease in the intensity of the polaron band, while the spectrum of the conduction band is not significantly changed. These properties are quite similar to what we have observed in BiS$_{2}$ except that the polaron band would be localized near the bottom of the conduction bands in our case. We note that the polaronic self-trapping of carriers could also explain the small FS pockets observed in our experiment. It is expected that as the polarons become more delocalized, the spectral weight should be transferred to other *k*-points. However, such a spectral weight transfer is not observed at least along the measured momentum cut.
In summary, our ARPES results show two small electron-like FSs around X ($\pi$, 0) instead of large hole-like FSs centered at $\Gamma$ (0, 0) and M ($\pi$, $\pi$) proposed in recent theoretical models. The anomalous temperature dependence of the low-energy spectrum indicates that the superconducting pairing develops in a highly interacting electronic state. Our results provide detailed information on the low-energy electronic structures and valuable insights for further experimental and theoretical studies of the pairing mechanism in the BiS$_{2}$-based superconductors.
We acknowledge X. Dai and Z. Fang for valuable discussions. This work was supported by grants from CAS (2010Y1JB6), MOST (2010CB923000, 2011CBA001000, 2011CB921701, 2013CB921700, 2011CBA00108, and 2012CB821403), NSFC (11004232, 11050110422, 11274362, 11234014, 11120101003, 11074291, 11274359, and 11104339), and DOE (DE-FG02-99ER45747 and DE-SC0002554).
Y. Mizuguchi, H. Fujihisa, Y. Gotoh, K. Suzuki, H. Usui, K. Kuroki, S. Demura, Y. Takano, H. Izawa, and O. Miura, Phys. Rev. B **86**, 220510(R) (2012). S. K. Singh, A. Kumar, B. Gahtori, Shruti, G. Sharma, S. Patnaik, and V. P. S. Awana, J. Am. Chem. Soc. **134**, 16504 (2012). Y. Mizuguchi, S. Demura, K. Deguchi, Y. Takano, H. Fujihisa, Y. Gotoh, H. Izawa, and O. Miura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **81**, 114725 (2012). S. Demura, Y. Mizuguchi, K. Deguchi, H. Okazaki, H. Hara, T. Watanabe, S. J. Denholme, M. Fujioka, T. Ozaki, H. Fujihisa, Y. Gotoh, O. Miura, T. Yamaguchi, H. Takeya, and Y. Takano, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **82**, 033708 (2013). J. Xing, S. Li, X. Ding, H. Yang, and H. H. Wen, Phys. Rev. B **86**, 214518 (2012). X. Lin, X. X. Ni, B. Chen, X. F. Xu, X. X. Yang, J. H. Dai, Y. K. Li, X. J. Yang, Y. K. Luo, Q. Tao, G. H. Cao, and Z. A. Xu, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 020504(R) (2013). D. Yazici, K. Huang, B. D. White, I. Jeon, V. W. Burnett, A. J. Friedman, I. K. Lum, M. Nallaiyan, S. Spagna, and M. B. Maple, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 174512 (2013). K. Deguchi, Y. Mizuguchi, S. Demura, H. Hara, T. Watanabe, S. J. Denholme, M. Fujioka, H. Okazaki, T. Ozaki, H. Takeya, T. Yamaguchi, O. Miura, and Y. Takano, Europhys. Lett. **101**, 17004 (2013). S. Demura, K. Deguchi, Y. Mizuguchi, K. Sato, R. Honjyo, A. Yamashita, T. Yamaki, H. Hara, T. Watanabe, S. J. Denholme, M. Fujioka, H. Okazaki, T. Ozaki, O. Miura, T. Yamaguchi, H. Takeya, and Y. Takano, arXiv:1311.4267 R. Jha and V. P. S. Awana, arXiv:1401.4811 H. Usui, K. Suzuki, and K. Kuroki, Phys. Rev. B **86**, 220501(R) (2012). X. G. Wan, H. C. Ding, S. Y. Savrasov, and C. G. Duan, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 115124 (2013). B. Li, Z. W. Xing, and G. Q. Huang, Europhys. Lett. **101**, 47002 (2013). T. Yildirim, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 020506(R) (2013). T. Zhou and Z. D. Wang, J. Supercond. Novel Magn. **26**, 2735 (2013). G. B. Martins, A. Moreo, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 081102(R) (2013). Y. Yang, W. S. Wang, Y. Y. Xiang, Z. Z. Li, and Q. H. Wang, Phys. Rev. B **88**, 094519 (2013). Y. Liang, X. X. Wu, W. F. Tsai, and J. P. Hu, arXiv:1211.5435 G. Lamura, T. Shiroka, P. Bonfa, S. Sanna, R. De Renzi, C. Baines, H. Luetkens, J. Kajitani, Y. Mizuguchi, O. Miura, K. Deguchi, S. Demura, Y. Takano, and M. Putti, Phys. Rev. B **88**, 180509(R) (2013). Shruti, P. Srivastava, and S. Patnaik, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **25**, 339601 (2013). J. Lee, M. B. Stone, A. Huq, T. Yildirim, G. Ehlers, Y. Mizuguchi, O. Miura, Y. Takano, K. Deguchi, S. Demura, and S. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 205134 (2013). S. Li, H. Yang, D. Fang, Z. Wang, J. Tao, X. Ding, and H. H. Wen, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. **56**, 2019 (2013). J. Z. Liu, D. L. Fang, Z. Y. Wang, J. Xing, Z. Y. Du, X. Y. Zhu, H. Yang, and H. H. Wen, arXiv:1310.0377 X. B. Wang and N. L. Wang (unpublished) S. Hüfner, *Photoelectron Spectroscopy: Principles and Application* (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995). In the calculation, $\Delta$*k* is defined to be (0, 0, 2$\pi$/*c*). H. Takatsu, Y. Mizuguchi, H. Izawa, O. Miura, and H. Kadowaki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **81**, 125002 (2012). R. Jha, A. Kumar, S. K. Singh, and V. P. S. Awana, J. Appl. Phys. **113**, 056102 (2013). D. Yazici, K. Huang, B. D. White, A. H. Chang, A. J. Friedman, M. B. Maple, Philos. Mag. **93**, 673 (2013). S. de Jong, Y. Huang, I. Santoso, F. Massee, R. Follath, O. Schwarzkopf, L. Patthey, M. Shi, and M. S. Golden, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 235117 (2007). Z. Sun, J. F. Douglas, A. V. Fedorov, Y. D. Chuang, H. Zheng, J. F. Mitchell, and D. S. Dessau, Nature Phys. **3**, 248 (2007). N. Mannella, W. L. Yang, X. J. Zhou, H. Zheng, J. F. Mitchell, J. Zaanen, T. P. Devereaus, N. Nagaosa, Z. Hussain, and Z. X. Shen, Nature **438**, 474 (2005). N. Mannella, W. L. Yang, K. Tanaka, X. J. Zhou, H. Zheng, J. F. Mitchell, J. Zaanen, T. P. Devereaux, N. Nagaosa, Z. Hussain, and Z. X. Shen, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 233102 (2007). S. Raj, D. Hashimoto, H. Matsui, S. Souma, T. Sato, T. Takahashi, D. D. Sarma, P. Mahadevan, and S. Oishi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 147603 (2006). S. Raj, T. Sato, S. Souma, and T. Takahashi, Mod. Phys. Lett. B **23**, 2819 (2009).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report the production and benchmarking of several refinements of the power method that enable the computation of multiple extremal eigenpairs of very large matrices. In these refinements we used an observation by Booth that has made possible the calculation of up to the 10$^{th}$ eigenpair for simple test problems simulating the transport of neutrons in the steady state of a nuclear reactor. Here, we summarize our techniques and efforts to-date on determining mainly just the two largest or two smallest eigenpairs. To illustrate the effectiveness of the techniques, we determined the two extremal eigenpairs of a cyclic matrix, the transfer matrix of the two-dimensional Ising model, and the Hamiltonian matrix of the one-dimensional Hubbard model.'
author:
- 'J. E. Gubernatis'
- 'T. E. Booth'
title: Multiple Extremal Eigenpairs by the Power Method
---
Introduction
============
Computing eigenpairs of large matrices is a ubiquitous problem in computational physics. In this paper, we present several refinements of the basic power method that enable the efficient and accurate computation of multiple extremal eigenvalues of very large matrices. Ultimately, our objective is producing Monte Carlo versions of such methods for matrices whose orders are so large that even the eigenvectors cannot be stored in computer memory. For such problems, the computation of a basic vector quantity as the inner product is generally either very inefficient or impractical. It can be impractical, for instance, because the nature of Monte Carlo sampling means most components of these vectors are unknown. Here, we focus on the basic algorithms developed to date, noting they work well when used deterministically. Novel will be the illustration of how the power method can be expanded to compute several extremal eigenpairs simultaneously rather than just one at a time. While various versions of the power method often compute very well the dominant eigenvalue $\lambda _1 $, the one with largest absolute value, computing subdominant eigenvalues $ \lambda _2 ,\lambda _{3,} \ldots $ has often proven much more difficult and is much less frequently attempted.
The algorithms to be presented use some recent insights of Booth [@booth1; @booth2] that were developed for Monte Carlo simulations of steady state neutron transport in nuclear reactors. Initially, he proposed a novel modification of the power method that has produced up to 10 eigenpairs for simple test problems. Here, we present refinements of these insights and focus on determining just $\lambda _1 $ and $ \lambda _2 $, plus their eigenvectors. The convergence of the power method is well known to slow as the ratio $\lambda _2 /\lambda _1$, sometimes called the dominance ratio, approaches unity. As such, this ratio is an indicator of solution difficulty and acceptability. As we will illustrate, an advantage of computing two dominant eigenpairs simultaneously is often improved convergence to the first one. An advantage of the present techniques is the ease in getting both eigenfunctions along with their eigenvalues.
It is important to note that various areas of science and engineering seek multiple eigenpairs for reasons other than algorithmic gains. In nuclear engineering, a dominance ratio distinct from unity is an acceptance qualifier for various nuclear criticality safety assessments and nuclear reactor designs [@spanier]. In statistical physics, a dominance ratio nearing unity, on the other hand, is often a condition sought. Near a continuous phase transition, $ \lambda _2 \to \lambda _1 $, and $ \lambda_2/\lambda_1 $ controls the microscopic spatial correlations among [*physical*]{} degrees of freedom [@thompson]. Today, an important topic in quantum statistical mechanics is quantum critical phenomena, phase transitions driven by zero-point motion at zero temperature [@sachdev]. Here, it is the two smallest eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian matrix describing the physical system that are of interest. The quantum critical phenomenon construct, while supplemented by a few exact solutions to some very simple problems, is largely phenomenological in part because of the inability to compute $\lambda_2$ for models of direct physical relevance.
In the next section, Section II, we summarize some basic notions about the power method and our refined procedures. For simplicity, we will assume the two largest extremal eigenpairs are sought. Also we restrict attention to systems with real eigenvectors and eigenvalues, but our methods can be applied to complex systems as well. In Section III, we apply these techniques to determination of a few eigenpairs of three problems. The first is the cyclic matrix that results from the discretization of the gradient operator on a circle, the second is the transfer matrix of the two-dimensional Ising moel, and the third is the Hamiltonian matrix of the one-dimensional Hubbard model. For the first and third problems, we determine the smallest two eigenpairs (ground-state and first excited state) instead of the largest ones to illustrate the flexibility of the techniques. The second and third problems counterpose in their computational challenges in a number of ways: The transfer matrix for the Ising model is non-symmetric, positive, and dense. Its eigenvalues are known analytically and all its matrix elements follow a single simple analytic expression. The Hamiltonian matrix for the Hubbard model is symmetric, indefinite, and sparse. Its two smallest eigenvalues are not known analytically, and its matrix elements, while easy to compute, lack a simple expression. In Section IV, the final section, we will discuss extensions of the techniques to broader classes of problems, including those involving continuous operators.
Methodology
===========
We first summarize the power method, and then we discuss ways to refine it so convergence is to the two largest extremal eigenpairs simultaneously. We conclude this section with two refinements of the power method: one is necessary for the reduction of round-off error and the other improves the convergence rate to the dominant eigenpair while simultaneously calculating the second extremal eigenpair.
Power Method Basics
-------------------
For some real-valued $N\times N$ matrix $A$, not necessarily symmetric, we will be concerned with the $N$ eigenpairs $(\lambda_i,\psi_i)$ satisfying $$A\psi_i = \lambda _i \psi_i
\label{eq:eigenvalue}$$ In the simplest application of the power method [@wilkinson], an iteration is started with some $\psi$, normalized in some convenient, but otherwise relatively arbitrary, manner and consists of iterating two steps $$\begin{array}{c}
\phi = A\psi \\
\psi = \phi / \|\phi\|\\
\end{array}
\label{eq:power_method}$$ If we write $$\psi= \sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {\alpha _i \psi_i }$$ then after $n$ iterations $$A^n\psi = \lambda _1^n \left[ {\alpha _1 \psi_1 + \sum\limits_{i = 2}^N {\alpha _i \left( {\frac{{\lambda _i }}
{{\lambda _1 }}} \right)^n \psi_i } } \right]
\label{eq:pm}$$ If $\left| {\lambda _1 } \right| > \left| {\lambda _2 } \right| \ge \left|{\lambda _3 } \right| \ge \cdots \ge \left| {\lambda _N } \right|$, then for $\alpha_1 \neq 0$, $$\begin{array}{c}
\psi \to \psi_1 /\|\psi_1\| \\
\|\phi\| \to \lambda _1 \\
\end{array}$$ Hence, the dominant eigenpair is simultaneously determined. For the norm of the vector $\phi$ whose components are $\phi_i$, a frequent choice is $$\parallel \phi \parallel \equiv \parallel \phi \parallel_\infty = \max_i |\phi_i|$$ This is the choice adopted here.
Clearly, if $\left| {\lambda _2 /\lambda _1 } \right| \simeq 1$ convergence of the iteration is slow. Often it can be improved by the replacement $A \to A - \sigma I$ which shifts the value of each eigenvalue by a constant amount $\sigma$ but does not change the associated eigenvector. Besides potentially accelerating convergence, the shift also enables the determination of the smallest, instead of the largest, eigenpair. In particular, if $A$ and all the $\lambda_i$ are real, no matter how $\sigma$ is chosen, either $\lambda_1-\sigma$ or $\lambda_N-\sigma$ will be the converged eigenvalue. Most often, $\sigma$ is chosen to be independent of iteration step. In this case, for convergence to $\lambda_1$, the optimal choice for $\sigma$ is $\frac{1}{2}\left( {\lambda _2 + \lambda _N } \right)$; for convergence to $\lambda_N$, the choice is $\frac{1}{2}\left( {\lambda _1 + \lambda _{N-1} } \right)$ [@wilkinson].
If the dominant eigenvalue is degenerate, for example, doubly degenerate with $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$, or degenerate in magnitude, for example, doubly degenerate with $|\lambda_1|=|\lambda_2|$, then the power method, as most iterative methods, cannot determine a unique eigenvector. As can be seen from Eq. (\[eq:pm\]), in these situations the iteration converges to $$A^n\psi = \lambda _1^n \left[ {\alpha _1 \psi_1 + {\rm sign}\left(\frac{\lambda_2}{\lambda_1}\right)\alpha_2\psi_2 + \sum\limits_{i = 3}^N {\alpha _i \left( {\frac{{\lambda _i }}
{{\lambda _1 }}} \right)^n \psi_i } } \right]$$ The eigenvalue estimators will converge to the correct values of $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ but the eigenvector estimate corresponding to the dominant eigenvalue will be some linear combination of $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$. A similar situation will can occur for convergence to the first subdominant eigenvalue if for example $|\lambda_2|=|\lambda_3|$. In this case $\psi_1$ can be determined but $\psi_2$ cannot.
If a few dominant eigenpairs, say $M$, are desired, one of two approaches are tried. One approach is to use the power method to determine the dominant eigenpair, use deflation to project out this state out of the matrix, and then reuse the power method on the deflated matrix. To determine several eigenpairs simultaneously, the power method can be generalized to $$\Phi = A\Psi$$ where $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are $M\times N$ matrices whose columns are orthogonalized to each other. This orthogonality needs maintenance throughout the computation or else all $M$ vectors, represented by the columns of the initial $\Psi$, will converge to the same one. This algorithm is called the simultaneous iteration method [@golub].
Observation
-----------
Booth’s refinement of the power method [@booth1; @booth2] uses the observation that for any eigenpair $(\lambda,\psi)$ and for each non-zero [*component*]{} of the eigenvector, the eigenvalue equation $A\psi = \lambda\psi$ can be rewritten as $$\lambda = \frac{{\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \psi _\beta } }}{{\psi _\alpha }}
\label{eq:eigenvalue_estimator}$$ and that similar equations can also be written for any number of groupings of components, $$\lambda = \frac{{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \psi _\beta } } }}{{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\psi _\alpha } }}
= \frac{{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \psi _\beta } } }}{{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\psi _\alpha } }}
= \cdots
= \frac{{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_N } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \psi _\beta } } }}{{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_N } {\psi _\alpha } }}
\label{eq:groupings}$$ where the $R_i$ are rules for different groupings. The groups can overlap. In addition, any two groupings, say 1 and 2, imply $$\sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\psi _\alpha } \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \psi _\beta } } = \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\psi _\alpha } \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R2} {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \psi _\beta } }
\label{eq:cross_product}$$ The eigenvalue estimator (\[eq:eigenvalue\_estimator\]) is a special case of what is often called a mixed estimator [@hammond] $$\lambda= \frac{\langle\phi|A|\psi\rangle}{\langle\phi|\psi\rangle}$$ In the present case, the component $\phi_i$ of the vector $\phi$ is unity if $i\in R$; otherwise, it is zero. From $N$ groupings of the components, Booth constructs $N$ estimators for the $N^{th}$ eigenvalue and forces them to become equal by adjusting certain parameters at each iteration step. Several ways to do this have been devised, and we will now sketch the most recent ones for obtaining two extremal eigenpairs simultaneously.
For almost any starting point $\psi = \sum\nolimits_i {\alpha _i \psi _i } $, the power method will converge to $ \left( {\lambda _1 ,\psi _1 } \right)$. The same would be true for almost any other two normalized, but not necessarily orthogonal, starting points $\psi' = \sum\nolimits_i {b _i \psi _i } $ or $\psi'' = \sum\nolimits_i {a _i \psi _i } $. We will in fact choose two such starting points and at each step apply $A$ to them individually, but at each step we will adjust the relationship between them to prevent the collapse of their [*sum*]{} to the dominant eigenfunction.
Formally, we start the iteration with $\psi=\psi'+\eta\psi''$ and assume that after a large number of steps just the two dominant eigenpairs remain significant. Then we have $$A^n \psi = A^n \sum\limits_{i = 1}^2 {\alpha _i \psi _i } =
\sum\limits_{i = 1}^2 {\left( {a_i + \eta b_i } \right)
\lambda_i^n \psi _i}
\label{eq:nth_step}$$ To determine $\eta$, we define two groupings of the components of $A^n \psi$, $R_1$ and $R_2$, and let $ \kappa_j $ be the eigenvalue estimate for the $j^{th}$ grouping. Then from Eq. (\[eq:groupings\]) we find that $$\begin{array}{c}
\kappa _1 = \frac{\displaystyle {\left( {a_1 + \eta b_1 } \right)\lambda _1^n \sum_{\alpha \in {R_1 }} \psi_{1,\alpha} + \left( {a_2 + \eta b_2 } \right)\lambda _2^n \sum_{\alpha \in {R_1 }} \psi_{2,\alpha} }}{\displaystyle{\left( {a_1 + \eta b_1 } \right)\lambda _1^{n - 1} \sum_{\alpha \in {R_1 }} \psi_{1,\alpha} + \left( {a_2 + \eta b_2 } \right)\lambda _2^{n - 1} \sum_{\alpha \in {R_1 }} \psi_{2,\alpha} }} \\
\kappa _2 = \frac{\displaystyle{\left( {a_1 + \eta b_1 } \right)\lambda _1^n \sum_{\alpha \in {R_2 }} \psi_{1,\alpha} + \left( {a_2 + \eta b_2 } \right)\lambda _2^n \sum_{\alpha \in {R_2 }} \psi_{2,\alpha} }}{\displaystyle{\left( {a_1 + \eta b_1 } \right)\lambda _1^{n - 1} \sum_{\alpha \in {R_2 }} \psi_{1,\alpha} + \left( {a_2 + \eta b_2 } \right)\lambda _2^{n - 1} \sum_{\alpha \in {R_2 }} \psi_{2,\alpha} }} \\
\end{array}$$ If we require $\kappa_1 = \kappa_2 $, a quadratic equation for $\eta$ results. If one solution of this equation is chosen to guide the iteration to $a_1+\eta b_1=0$, then $\kappa_1=\kappa_2=\lambda_2$. If the solution on the other hand is chosen to guide the iteration towards $a_2+\eta b_2=0$, then $\kappa_1=\kappa_2=\lambda_1$.
In practice, we find the coefficients of this quadratic equation in the following manner: Suppose at the $n^{th}$ step, $\psi'$ and $\psi''$ have iterated to $\hat\psi'$ and $\hat\psi''$, then at the $(n+1)^{th}$ step we require $$\frac{{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \hat \psi '_\beta } } + \eta \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \hat \psi ''_\beta } } }}{{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\hat \psi '_\alpha } + \eta \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\hat \psi ''_\alpha } }} = \frac{{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \hat \psi '_\beta } } + \eta \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R2} {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \hat \psi ''_\beta } } }}{{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\hat \psi '_\alpha } + \eta \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\hat \psi ''_\alpha } }}
\label{eq:balance}$$ which leads to $q_2\eta^2+q_1\eta+q_0=0$ with $$q_2 = \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\hat \psi ''_\alpha } \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \hat \psi ''_\beta } } - \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\hat \psi ''_\alpha } \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R2} {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \hat \psi ''_\beta } }$$ $$\begin{aligned}
q_1 &=& \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\hat \psi ''_\alpha } \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \hat \psi '_\beta } } - \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\hat \psi ''_\alpha } \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \hat \psi '_\beta } } \nonumber \\
&+& \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\hat \psi '_\alpha } \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \hat \psi ''_\beta } } - \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\hat \psi '_\alpha } \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \hat \psi ''_\beta } }
\label{eq:q210} \end{aligned}$$
$$q_0 = \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\hat \psi '_\alpha } \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \hat \psi '_\beta } } - \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_1 } {\hat \psi '_\alpha } \sum\limits_{\alpha \in R_2 } {\sum\limits_\beta {A_{\alpha \beta } \hat \psi '_\beta } }$$ The strategy is to apply $A$ repeatedly until two real solutions for $\eta$ exist. One solution will then guide the iteration to $(\lambda_1,\psi_1)$; the other, to $(\lambda_2,\psi_2)$. Typically, this procedure would be used only if the simultaneous convergence to two pairs is desired or if the convergence to just the second eigenpair is desired. In some cases, however, accelerated convergence to the first pair occurs.
First Refinement
----------------
For simplicity, we focus on the determination of the [*second largest*]{} eigenpair [@booth2] and note that one additional improvement is necessary for finite precision computers. As both $\hat\psi'$ and $\hat\psi''$ are converging to the first eigenfunction, only their sum, for proper choices of $\eta$, is converging to the second one. Eventually, when $\eta$ is the root, say $\eta_2$, guiding $\hat\psi''$ toward the second eigenvector $\psi_2$, the determination of $\psi_2$ is limited by the accuracy of the sum of $\hat\psi'$ and $\eta_2\hat\psi''$. To mitigate this situation, we modify the iteration by making the replacements $\hat\psi'\leftarrow \hat\psi'$ and $\hat\psi''\leftarrow \hat\psi''+\eta_2\hat\psi'$ before moving to the $(n+1)^{th}$ step, and then in the $(n+1)^{th}$ step we find the new $\eta$ from the quadratic equation and subtract from it the $\eta_2$ from the $n^{th}$ step. Formally, this is equivalent to rewriting the coefficients of the $\psi_i$ in Eq. (\[eq:nth\_step\]) as $$a_i + b_i \eta =(a_i+b_i \eta_2) + b_i (\eta-\eta_2)
\label{eq:further_refinement}$$ making the replacements $$a_i \leftarrow (a_i+b_i \eta_2)$$ $$\eta \leftarrow \eta-\eta_2$$ and then in the next iteration solving the quadratic equation for the shifted $\eta$.
What does this procedure accomplish? We note that near convergence, when only $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ remain significant, the current best estimate of $\psi_1$ is contaminated with $\psi_2$ and vice versa. Denoting these estimates by $\psi_1 +\epsilon\psi_2$ and $\psi_2 + \delta\psi_1$ and introducing the adjustable parameter $\eta$, we can write another estimate of $\psi_2(\eta)$ as $$\hat \psi_2(\eta) = (\psi_2 + \delta \psi_1) + \eta (\psi_1 + \epsilon \psi_2)$$ and so with the application of $A$ to move to the $(n+1)^{th}$ step, the new estimate of the second eigenfunction becomes $$\psi_{2new}=A \hat \psi_2(\eta) = (\lambda_2 \psi_2 + \delta \lambda_1\psi_1) + \eta (\lambda_1 \psi_1 + \epsilon \lambda_2 \psi_2)$$ If at this step $\eta_2$ is the choice that guides to $\psi_2$, then we define $\eta''$ by $$\eta=\eta''+\eta_2$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{2new}(\eta') &=&
(\lambda_2 \psi_2 + \delta \lambda_1 \psi_1) + (\eta''+\eta_2) (\lambda_1 \psi_1 + \epsilon \lambda_2 \psi_2) \\
&=&
\Bigl[
(\lambda_2 \psi_2 + \delta \lambda_1 \psi_1)
+\eta_2 (\lambda_1 \psi_1 + \epsilon \lambda_2 \psi_2)
\Bigr]
+ \eta'' (\lambda_1 \psi_1 + \epsilon \lambda_2 \psi_2)\end{aligned}$$ We observe that $\lambda_1 \psi_1 + \epsilon \lambda_2 \psi_2$ is this step’s power iteration estimate for the first eigenfunction so that the second eigenfunction, the term in brackets, is essentially being corrected by an attempt to remove the remaining contamination $\delta \lambda_1 \psi_1$ from the first eigenfunction. If we define the new eigenfunction iterates as $$\psi_{2new}=\lambda_2 \psi_2 + \delta \lambda_1 \psi_1$$ $$\psi_{1new}=\lambda_1 \psi_1 + \epsilon \lambda_2 \psi_2$$ then $$\psi_{2new}(\eta) \leftarrow
\Bigl(
\psi_{2new}
+\eta_2 \psi_{1new}
\Bigr)
+ \eta \psi_{1new}$$ Thus, the effect of Eq. (\[eq:further\_refinement\]) is promoting the convergence of $\hat\psi'$ to the first eigenfunction in the normal power method way whereas $\hat\psi''$ (the second eigenfunction estimate) is being corrected at each step by adding (removing) a little of the first eigenfunction estimate. Convergence is reached when $\eta_2 \to 0$; that is, when the second eigenfunction needs no correction from the first eigenfunction.
The above analysis leads to a simple numerical algorithm. The basic steps are
Step 1:
: Initialize
1. Set convergence parameter $\epsilon$ to a small value.
2. Choose initial estimates $\psi' \approx \psi_1$ and $\psi'' \approx \psi_2$
Step 2:
: Reset
1. Normalize $\psi'\leftarrow \psi' / \|\psi'\|$ and $\psi''\leftarrow \psi'' / \|\psi''\|$
Step 3:
: Execute power step
1. Apply $A$ to $\psi'$ and $\psi''$ and solve resulting quadratic balance condition (Eq. (\[eq:balance\]) )
2. If the roots are real, assign the roots $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ to correspond to the largest and smallest (in magnitude) eigenvalue estimates respectively and then update via $$\begin{aligned}
\psi' &\leftarrow& A \psi' \\
\psi'' &\leftarrow& A \psi''+\eta_2 A \psi'\end{aligned}$$ else update via $$\begin{aligned}
\psi' &\leftarrow& A \psi' \\
\hat\psi'' &\leftarrow& A \hat\psi''\end{aligned}$$
Step 4:
: Test for convergence
1. If $|\eta_2| > \epsilon$, go to Step 2
Step 5:
: Terminate
Eigenvalue estimates can be made by placing $\psi'$ and $\psi''$ in Eq. (\[eq:groupings\]) for the same or different $R_i$. These $R_i$ can be the same or different from the two used to compute the $q_i$. When the roots are complex, an alternative to Step 3.2 is the use of complex arithmetic. If it is used, then the $\psi'$ and $\psi''$ estimates in Step 3.2 are updated with complex $\eta_i$.
Second Refinement
-----------------
Because Eq. (\[eq:nth\_step\] ) will be almost true for large $n$, it yields a way to estimate the $\psi_i$. If $C_i$ are normalizing constants and $\eta_2$ is the root that gives $\lambda_2$, then from Eq. (\[eq:nth\_step\]) the $(n+1)^{th}$ guess at $\psi_2$ is $$\psi_2 \approx \psi_2^{(n+1)} = C_2 \Bigr[A^n \psi \Bigl]{_{\eta=\eta_2}}$$ If $\eta_1 \approx -a_2/b_2$ is the root that gives $\lambda_1$, then from Eq. (\[eq:nth\_step\]) the $(n+1)^{th}$ guess at $\psi_1$ is $$\psi_1 \approx \psi_1^{(n+1)} = C_1 \Bigr[A^n \psi \Bigl]{_{\eta=\eta_1}}$$ These two estimates suggest using $$\psi^{(n+1)} = \psi_2^{(n+1)} + \eta \psi_1^{(n+1)}$$ as the next iteration guess. Next, we insert $$\hat \psi' = \psi_2^{(n+1)}$$ $$\hat \psi'' = \psi_1^{(n+1)}$$ into Eq. (\[eq:balance\]) and solve it for the two $\eta$ roots. Now we take for new estimates (with the $C_i$ providing normalization) $$\psi_2 \approx \psi_2^{(n+2)} = C_2 \Bigr[A \psi^{(n+1)} \Bigl]{_{\eta=\eta_2}}
\label{eq:t6}$$ $$\psi_1 \approx \psi_1^{(n+2)} = C_1 \Bigr[A \psi^{(n+1)} \Bigl]{_{\eta=\eta_1}}
\label{eq:t7}$$ We note that Eq. (\[eq:t6\]) is the same adjustment to the second eigenfunction estimate as in the first refinement, which uses the best estimate of $\psi_2$. Equation (\[eq:t7\]) uses the best estimate of $\psi_1$ instead of the power iterated estimate used in first refinement. Empirically, this second refinement simultaneously produces estimates of $\psi_1$ converging as $\lambda_3 / \lambda_1$ and estimates of $\psi_2$ converging as $\lambda_3 / \lambda_2$. In the appendix we demonstrate these rates of convergence for non-degenerate states.
Incorporating this refinement requires only replacing Step 3 of the algorithm for the previous with
Step 3:
: Execute power step
1. Apply $A$ to $\psi'$ and $\psi''$ and solve resulting quadratic balance condition (Eq. (\[eq:balance\]))
2. If the roots are real, assigning the roots $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ to correspond to the largest and smallest (in magnitude) eigenvalue estimates respectively and then update via $$\begin{aligned}
\psi' &\leftarrow& A \psi'' + \eta_1 A \psi'\\
\psi'' &\leftarrow& A \psi'' + \eta_2 A \psi'\end{aligned}$$ else update via $$\begin{aligned}
\psi' &\leftarrow& A \psi' \\
\hat\psi'' &\leftarrow& A \hat\psi''\end{aligned}$$
Step 4:
: Test for convergence
1. If $|\eta_2| > \epsilon$, go to Step 2
Step 5:
: Terminate
Practical Algorithm
-------------------
In an actual implementation of these algorithms, monitoring convergence by $|\eta_2|<\epsilon$ is not the only choice. The more common way would be monitoring successive estimates of the $\lambda_i$ plus monitoring the residuals $\parallel A\psi'-\lambda_1\psi'\parallel$ and $\parallel A\psi''-\lambda_2\psi''\parallel$. We also note the following alternative: As $\psi'$ converges to $\psi_1$ and $\psi''$ converges to $\psi_2$, $q_0$ and $q_2$ converge to zero. In short, multiple criteria exist, leading to cross checks. Some recycle already computed quantities and are consequently quite efficient. Here is an algorithm for the second refinement suitable for implementation:
Step 1:
: Initialize
1. Set convergence parameters $\epsilon_0$ and $\epsilon_2$ to small values.
2. Initialize iteration index $n=0$,
3. Choose initial estimates for $\psi'$ and $\psi''$,
4. Choose the rules $R_1$ and $R_2$ for grouping of iterated vector components.
Step 2:
: Reset
1. Normalize $\psi'\leftarrow \psi' / \|\psi'\|$ and $\psi'' \leftarrow \psi'' / \|\psi''\|$
Step 3:
: Execute power step
1. Apply $A$ to $\psi'$ and $\psi''$,
2. Solve resulting quadratic balance condition (Eq. \[eq:balance\]),
3. Estimate eigenvalues using either rule (region) $R_1$ or $R_2$,
4. If the roots are real, assign the roots $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ to correspond to the largest and smallest (in magnitude) eigenvalue estimates. For example, we will have $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_1 &=& \frac{ \sum\limits_{\alpha\in R_1}\sum\limits_\beta A_{\alpha\beta}\psi_\beta'
+\eta_1 \sum\limits_{\alpha\in R_1}\sum\limits_\beta A_{\alpha\beta}\psi_\beta'' }
{ \sum\limits_{\alpha\in R_1}\psi_\alpha''
+\eta_1\sum\limits_{\alpha\in R_1}\psi_\alpha'' }\\
\lambda_2 &=& \frac{ \sum\limits_{\alpha\in R_1}\sum\limits_\beta A_{\alpha\beta}\psi_\beta'
+\eta_2 \sum\limits_{\alpha\in R_1}\sum\limits_\beta A_{\alpha\beta}\psi_\beta'' }
{ \sum\limits_{\alpha\in R_1}\psi_\alpha''
+\eta_2\sum\limits_{\alpha\in R_1}\psi_\alpha'' }\\\end{aligned}$$ then update via $$\begin{aligned}
\psi' &\leftarrow& A \psi'' + \eta_1 A \psi'\\
\psi'' &\leftarrow& A \psi'' + \eta_2 A \psi'\end{aligned}$$ else update via $$\begin{aligned}
\psi' &\leftarrow& A \psi' \\
\hat\psi'' &\leftarrow& A \hat\psi''\end{aligned}$$
Step 4:
: Test for convergence
1. If either $|q_0|> \epsilon_0$ or $|q_2| > \epsilon_2$, increment the iteration index, $n \leftarrow n+1$ and go to Step 2.
Step 5:
: Terminate.
When the roots are complex, an alternative to Step 3.2 is the use of complex arithmetic. If it is used, then the eigenvector estimates in Step 3.2 are updated with complex $\eta_i$. The choice of rules is quite flexible. A rule may use one vector component selected randomly, a small number of components selected randomly, all odd or even components, the first or second half of the vector, etc. We note that $q_2$ goes to zero faster than $q_0$, and when $q_2$ becomes very small, then the quadratic equation numerically reduces to $q_1\eta + q_0=0$ which is solved to get $\eta_2$. Essentially $q_2=0$ means that the dominant eigenpair is known to machine accuracy, so it cannot be improved on further iteration.
Applications
============
Cyclic Matrix
-------------
To illustrate the effectiveness of the [*first*]{} refinement, we applied it to the symmetric $N \times N$ matrix $$A=\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}r}
2 & { - 1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & { - 1} \\
{ - 1} & 2 & { - 1} & \ddots & {} & 0 \\
0 & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\
0 & {} & \ddots & { - 1} & 2 & { - 1} \\
{ - 1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & { - 1} & 2 \\
\end{array}} \right]$$ whose eigenvalues for any $N$ are $$\gamma_n = 2 - 2\cos k_n = 4\sin^2 \frac{{k_n }}{2}$$ where $k_n = \frac{{2\pi n}}{N}$ with $n = 0, 1, 2, \ldots , N-1 $. Physically, the matrix represents the $N$ point discretization of the second derivative defined on a circle. We note that for $N$ odd, all but the minimal eigenstate $(n=0)$ are doubly degenerate, while for $N$ even, all but the minimal $(n=0)$ and maximal $(n=N/2)$ ones are doubly degenerate. Accordingly for even $N$, $$0 = \gamma_0 < \gamma_1=\gamma_{N-1} < \cdots < \gamma_{N/2-1}=\gamma_{N/2+1} < \gamma_{N/2}=4$$
Table 1 reports the results of a deterministic computation of the second smallest eigenpair for a sequence of even $N$. To generate it, all the eigenvalues of the matrix were shifted by subtracting four times the identity matrix and then getting the two largest magnitude eigenvalues of $A-4I$. For the shifted matrix $\lambda_1=\gamma_0=-4$ and $\lambda_2=\gamma_1=-4\cos^2(\pi/N)$. $\lambda_1$ is thus seen as being independent of $N$ and is not reported. The $\lambda_2$’s in Table 1 are 4 plus the power method’s computation of second largest magnitude eigenvalue of $A-4I$. The iteration was stopped when the absolute value of the maximum difference between any component of the eigenvector in successive iterations was less than $10^{-10}$. We see remarkable agreement between the values determined by the power method and the exact analytic value is obtained even for largest possible $N$ on our desktop computer. We converged accurately to the second smallest eigenvalue even though it is approaching the smallest one as $N$ is increased and is itself degenerate. By it being degenerate, our eigenvector estimate is a linear combination of two eigenstates that depends on the starting conditions for the iteration. It is not something we can benchmark but it does approximate well $A\psi=\lambda_2\psi$. For $R_1$ and $R_2$, we used the first and second half of the vector components. For N up to about 1000, starting vectors whose components were set randomly worked well. For starting vectors at $N>1000$ we used the eigenvectors found at $N/2$ injected into the higher dimension via $a(2j) \leftarrow 0.75b(j)+0.25b(j+1)$ and $a(2j+1)\leftarrow 0.25b(j)+0.75b(j+1)$. The coefficients were chosen to adjust for the fact that a(2j) is 1 unit from b(j) and 3 units from b(j+1) and a(2j+1) is 1 unit from b(j+1) and 3 units from b(j).
--------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------
N Exact PM1 Difference
100 0.0039465433630297 0.0039465431649277 1.98E-10
200 0.0009868793234571 0.0009868792721619 5.13E-11
400 0.0002467350504105 0.0002467351362063 -8.58E-11
800 0.0000616847138537 0.0000616847980273 -8.42E-11
1600 0.0000154212379171 0.0000154212887717 -5.09E-11
3200 0.0000038553131951 0.0000038553389818 -2.58E-11
6400 0.0000009638285310 0.0000009638405936 -1.21E-11
12800 0.0000002409571473 0.0000002409625672 -5.42E-12
25600 0.0000000602392878 0.0000000602416170 -2.33E-12
51200 0.0000000150598221 0.0000000150608281 -1.01E-12
102400 0.0000000037649555 0.0000000037654755 -5.20E-13
204800 0.0000000009412389 0.0000000009414407 -2.02E-13
409600 0.0000000002353098 0.0000000002353788 -6.91E-14
819200 0.0000000000588274 0.0000000000589155 -8.82E-14
1638400 0.0000000000147069 0.0000000000148614 -1.55E-13
3276800 0.0000000000036766 0.0000000000036855 -8.88E-15
--------- -------------------- -------------------- ------------
: For the cyclic matrix, the exact and first refinement calculations for the sub-dominant eigenvalue $\lambda_2$, plus their difference. \[table1\]
Two-Dimensional Ising Model
---------------------------
The two-dimensional Ising model is one of the few two-dimensional models of a system of many interacting degrees of freedom that has an exact solution for its thermodynamic properties. This solution, first constructed by Onsager [@onsager], shows that in the thermodynamic limit the model has a phase transition between an magnetically ordered (ferromagnetic) state at low temperatures and a magnetically disordered state (paramagnetic) at high temperatures. Onsager succeeded in calculating many of the properties of the model exactly, including the temperature $T_c$ at which the transition occurs. Key to his calculations was expressing the partition function of the model in terms of its transfer matrix [@montroll], finding the dominant eigenvalue of this matrix, and showing in the thermodynamic limit (letting the area of the model approach infinity) that this eigenvalue implies the onset of long-range ordering among the spin variables of the model.
We will consider the model for finite area, that is, an $m\times n$ model defined with periodic boundary conditions in one direction and open boundary conditions in the other. Because of the one open boundary, the transfer matrix will thus be non-symmetric. In the absence of an applied magnetic field, the model’s energy is $$E\left\{ \mu \right\} = - J\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{m-1} {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^n {\mu _{i,j} \mu _{i,j - 1} } } -
J\sum\limits_{i = 1}^m {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^n {\mu _{i,j} \mu _{i,j + 1} } }$$ Here, $(i,j)$ are the coordinates of a lattice site. The Ising spin variable $\mu_{i,j}$ on each site has the value of $ \pm 1$, $J>0$, and $\mu _{i,n + 1} = \mu _{i,1}$. A column configuration of Ising spins will be denoted by $$\sigma _j = \left( {\mu _{1,j} ,\mu _{2,j} , \ldots ,\mu _{m,j} } \right)$$ and there are $2^m$ possible configurations for each column.
The definition of the transfer matrix follows from the expression for the partition function [@thompson] $$\begin{array}{rcl}
Z\left( {m,n} \right) & = &\sum\limits_{\left\{ \mu \right\}} {\exp \left[ { - \beta E\left( {\left\{ \mu \right\}} \right)} \right]} \\
& = &\sum\limits_{\sigma _1 , \ldots ,\sigma _n } {\exp \left[ { - \beta \left( {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^n
{\left\{ {V_1 \left( {\sigma _j } \right) + V_2 \left( {\sigma _j ,\sigma _{j + 1} } \right)} \right\}} } \right)} \right]} \\
& = & \sum\limits_{\sigma _1 , \ldots ,\sigma _n } {L(\sigma _1 ,\sigma _2 )} L(\sigma _2 ,\sigma _3 )
\cdots L(\sigma _{n - 1} ,\sigma _n )L(\sigma _n ,\sigma _1 ) \\
& = &\sum\limits_{\sigma _1 } {L^n (\sigma _1 ,\sigma _1 )} \\
\end{array}$$ where $$V_1 \left( {\sigma _j } \right) = - \nu \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{m - 1} {\mu _{i,j} \mu _{i + 1,j} }$$ is the interaction energy of the $j^{th}$ column and $$V_2 \left( {\sigma _j ,\sigma _{j + 1} } \right) = - \nu \sum\limits_{i = 1}^m {\mu _{i,j} \mu _{i,j + 1} }$$ is the interaction energy between the $j^{th}$ and $(j+1)^{th}$ columns, $\nu=J/k_B T$, $k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant, and $L(\sigma,\sigma')$ is the transfer matrix of order $N=2^m \times 2^n$ whose elements are $$L \left( \sigma ,\sigma'\right) = \exp \left(\nu \sum\limits_{k = 1}^{m -1}
\mu _k \mu _{k + 1} \right) \exp \left( \nu \sum\limits_{k = 1}^m
\mu _k \mu _k^{'} \right)$$ More succinctly, $$Z(m,n) = {\rm{Tr}}\left( {{\rm{L}}^{\rm{n}} } \right) = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{2^m } {\lambda _j^n }$$
Onsager found analytic expressions for all the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix. Since we needed to form this matrix, we found it as convenient to compute them numerically. Spot checks produce excellent agreement between the the two approaches. In the thermodynamic limit, when $T\rightarrow T_c$, $\lambda_2\rightarrow \lambda_1$. Here, although we chose $T=T_c$ and the order of or matrix became quite large, we were still reasonably far away for this critical point. Table \[table2\] presents a comparison of the two largest eigenvalues of the transfer matrix as determined by our second refinement of the power method and those determined by the EISPACK eigensolver RG [@eispack]. For cases except $m=11$, we simply used as the solution the results after 100 iterations. For $m=11$, we used 1000 iterations. The larger number of iterations was necessary to obtain the same level of accuracy.
---- --------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -----------
m N RG PM2 FD
1 4 3.41421355573626E+00 3.41421355573626E+00 0.00E+00
1.41421355573626E+00 1.41421355573626E+00 0.00E+00
2 16 7.46410158611908E+00 7.46410158611907E+00 3.57E-16
4.82842709270073E+00 4.82842709270073E+00 -1.29E-15
3 64 1.78770541980345E+01 1.78770541980345E+01 -7.95E-16
1.35518083939891E+01 1.35518083939891E+01 3.93E-16
4 256 4.41298558292434E+01 4.41298558292434E+01 4.83E-16
3.60398703210879E+01 3.60398703210878E+01 5.91E-16
5 1024 1.10192319565854E+02 1.10192319565854E+02 9.03E-16
9.38962258961220E+01 9.38962258961221E+01 -4.54E-16
6 4096 2.76599914093667E+02 2.76599914093667E+02 -8.22E-16
2.42266413140723E+02 2.42266413140723E+02 0.00E+00
7 16384 6.96269201662783E+02 6.96269201662782E+02 1.47E-15
6.21748520715910E+02 6.21748520715909E+02 1.65E-15
8 65536 1.75565374661531E+03 1.75565374661531E+03 1.30E-16
1.59043428137424E+03 1.59043428136461E+03 6.05E-12
9 262144 4.43180239838645E+03 4.43180239838646E+03 -1.44E-15
4.05958858259757E+03 4.05958858259756E+03 1.79E-15
10 1048576 1.11957434253463E+04 1.11957434253463E+04 1.46E-15
1.03466429299731E+04 1.03466429299731E+04 8.79E-16
11 4194304 2.82985308867953E+04 2.82985308867954E+04 -3.60E-15
2.63419326613631E+04 2.63419326613632E+04 -3.87E-15
---- --------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -----------
: Comparison of the two largest eigenvalues of the transfer matrix for the 2D Ising model as a function of the lattice edge size $m$ computed by the EISPACK routine RG and the second refinement. $N=2^m$ is the order of the matrixAlso shown is the fractional difference $(\lambda_{RG}-\lambda_{PM2})/\lambda_{RG}$ between the different estimates. We choose $m=n$ and $T=T_c$.\[table2\]
One Dimensional Hubbard Model
-----------------------------
The Hubbard Hamiltonian was originally proposed as a model for metallic ferromagnetism [@hubbard]. Most recently, its two-dimensional version has been the subject of intense scrutiny as a possible model for electronic superconductivity. In one-dimension, a variant of it, called the Pariser-Parr-Popple Hamiltonian is frequently used to model conjugated cyclic molecules. Other variants model one-dimensional organic conductors. Because of the enormous amount of computer memory required by deterministic methods, precise specification of the ground state (zero temperature) properties of these models has often been hampered by techniques limited to relatively small system sizes. The memory requirements scale as $4^N$, where $ N $ is the number of lattice sites.
The Hamiltonian operator for the Hubbard model is $$\hat H = - t\sum\limits_{\left\langle {i,j} \right\rangle ,\sigma } {\left( {\hat c_{i,\sigma }^\dag \hat c_{j,\sigma } + \hat c_{j,\sigma }^\dag \hat c_{i,\sigma } } \right)}
+ U\sum\limits_i {\hat n_{i, \uparrow } \hat n_{i, \downarrow } }$$ where the summation is over nearest-neighbor pairs of lattice sites $i$ and $j$ and electron spin $\sigma$; $t$ and $U$ are the hopping amplitude and repulsive Coulomb parameters; ${\hat c_{i,\sigma }^\dag }$, ${\hat c_{i,\sigma } }$ and $\hat n_{i,\sigma} =\hat c_{i,\sigma }^\dag \hat c_{i,\sigma}$ are the creation, destruction, and number operators for an electron at site $i$ with spin $\sigma$. Usually a Fock basis is used to represent the Hamiltonian operator as a matrix $$h_{ij} = \left\langle i \right|\hat H\left| j \right\rangle$$ where $$\left| i \right\rangle = \left| {n_{1,\uparrow} ,n_{2,\uparrow} , \ldots ,n_{N,\uparrow} } \right\rangle \left| {n_{1,\downarrow} ,n_{2,\downarrow} , \ldots ,n_{N,\downarrow} } \right\rangle$$ with $n_i^\sigma = 0,1$ being the eigenvalues of the number operator. As a representative of an Hermitian operator whose matrix elements are real, the resulting matrix is symmetric. Various symmetries are usually used to block diagonalize the matrix and then obtain the ground state for each block. We will consider only blocks that have a specific value of the z-component of the total electron spin. The size of the Hilbert space and hence the order of the matrix is $$N=\frac{N!}{N_\uparrow!(N-N_\downarrow)!}$$ where $N_\uparrow$ is the number of up spin electrons and being and $N_\downarrow$ is the number of down spin electrons.
For a given lattice site $i$ the maximum number of non-zero values of $h_{ij}$ is $2zN$ where $z$ is the number of nearest neighbors of the chosen lattice. Typically, $z \ll N$; hence, the matrix is very sparse. Here, we will consider the model in one-dimension where $z=2$. In one-dimension the model has an exact solution. Obtaining the ground or first excited state for these solution is not as straightforward as for the two previous test cases. We chose to obtain them numerically and compare the effectiveness of our second refinement of the power method to that of several standard eigenpair methods. Our emphasis is on how well degenerate states are captured.
We will compute the two largest and two smallest eigenvalues of the sparse, potentially hugely dimensioned, matrix $H$ representing the operator $\hat H $ in one dimension with periodic boundary conditions. In this case and if $N_\uparrow=N_\downarrow$ and $N_\uparrow$ is odd, the model satisfies the following version of the Perron-Frobenius Theorem [@wilf]: If a matrix is irreducible and all off-diagonal elements are non-positive, the state corresponding to smallest eigenvalue is real and non-degenerate. We will study the model on a 10 site lattice with $U=4$ and $t=1$. For this lattice size and filling half or less, the theorem applies to cases $(N_\uparrow,N_\downarrow)=$(1,1), (3,3), and (5,5). They are called closed shell cases and the result of our calculations for them are shown in Table \[table3\]. Because of various symmetries, features of the smallest states are reflected in those of the largest ones.
-------------- ---------------- ------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
$N_\uparrow$ $N_\downarrow$ $N$ DSYEV DNLASO PM2
1 1 100 0.5657693716217906E+01 0.5657693716217901E+01 0.5657693716217914E+01
0.5519554669107880E+01 0.5519554669107876E+01 0.5519554669107137E+01
-0.3862202348191250E+01 -0.3862202348191248E+01 -0.3862202348191251E+01
-0.3618033988749895E+01 -0.3267468797160054E+01 -0.3618033988603501E+01
3 3 14400 0.1656339684606611E+02 0.1656339684376816E+02 0.1656339684606624E+02
0.1617312172182284E+02 0.1617312172136987E+02 0.1617312172191405E+02
-0.8262531385370846E+01 -0.8262531383972004E+01 -0.8262531385370927E+01
-0.7599976793651736E+01 -0.7599976793264113E+01 -0.7599976793831864E+01
5 5 63504 0.2583432263352126E+02 0.2583432263577081E+02
0.2543485463377173E+02 0.2543485464252857E+02
-0.5834322635176973E+01 -0.5834322635773042E+01
-0.5434854632148166E+01 -0.5434830052960784E+01
-------------- ---------------- ------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
: For closed shell cases, comparison of the eigenvalues of a 10 site 1D Hubbard model computed by the eigenpair routine DSYEV, the block Lanczos routine DNLASO, and the second refinement. For the first two methods, the three largest and three smallest eigenvalues were computed to measure their consistency, effectiveness, and accuracy. \[table3\]
In Table \[table3\], three methods where used to get the eigenvalues. One method used was the LAPACK routine DSYEV [@lapack]. This double precision routine returns all the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a symmetric matrix. At large orders computer memory became insufficient for its use.Accordingly, we supplemented our results with those obtained by using the DNLASO double precision subroutine [@netlib] which is a block Lanczos method with selective reorthogonalization [@golub]. The components of the starting vectors for the Lanczos iteration are selected randomly and uniformly on the interval (-0.5,0.5). The quality of the results is controlled by specifying the block size (the number of starting states), the number of significant figures for the convergence of the eigenvalues, and the maximum number of iterations. We found a block size of 1 gave estimates for the second and third eigenvalues that became progressively poorer as $N$ increased. This is reasonable. A size of 2 produced cases where the sub-dominant eigenvalue was consistently returned as the dominant. For a size of 6, convergence was very slow if at all. For a size of 8, memory soon became insufficient. A size of 4 was used for the data in the table. We found lack of convergence for many cases if the precision was requested to be larger than 8 decimal places. Typically, a few hundred iterations were needed, but the computation times were a few tens of seconds. Table \[table3\] shows excellent agreement between all three methods. We note that the excited state was at least doubly degenerate.
The next set of results are for electron fillings where the eigenstates are subjected to Kramers degeneracies. Kramers’s Theorem [@tinkham] says all energy levels of a system containing an odd number of electrons must at least be at least doubly degenerate provided there are no magnetic fields present to remove time-reversal symmetry. In Table \[table4\], we present several Kramers cases where $(N_\uparrow,N_\downarrow)=$ (3,2), (4,3), and (5,4). For the standard software packages, we listed the three largest and three smallest eigenvalues they estimated to see the accuracy to which they determined the degenerate ground state. We see very good agreement between all three methods in estimating the eigenvalue of degenerate largest and smallest state. All three however lack the precision necessary to differentiate between a true degeneracy and a very near one. The power method in particular is less than adequate for this purpose.
In Table \[table4\], the three largest and smallest eigenvalues are presented to provide extra information about the degeneracies. Sixteen significant figures were printed to indicate how well degeneracies are captured. Basically we do not know how the precision of the eigenvalues other then it is no more than difference between eigenvalues that should exactly be degenerate. All the expected features of the lowest eigenstates with regard to degeneracies are exhibited. Because the model has particle-hole symmetry similar features also exists for its largest eigenstates.
-------------- ---------------- ------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
$N_\uparrow$ $N_\downarrow$ $N$ DSYEV DNLASO PM2
3 2 5400 0.1306499556833340E+02 0.1306499556833341E+02 0.1306499556833335E+02
0.1306499556833336E+02 0.1306499554321960E+02 0.1306499556833335E+02
0.1282579739183819E+02 0.1282579739163641E+02
-0.7511951740365890E+01 -0.7511951740281242E+01 -0.7511951740365513E+01
-0.7511951740365851E+01 -0.7511951731564561E+01 -0.7511951740365509E+01
-0.7249884543021683E+01 -0.7249884543021723E+01
4 3 25200 0.1816344283994604E+02 0.1816344283994595E+02 0.1816344283994610E+02
0.1816344283994604E+02 0.1816344283994549E+02 0.1816344283994610E+02
0.1771746494384758E+02 0.1771746494296794E+02
-0.8030089029893539E+01 -0.8030089029893475E+01 -0.8030089030622399E+01
-0.8030089029893492E+01 -0.8030089029485101E+01 -0.8030089030532327E+01
-0.7521441552342070E+01 -0.7521441551092671E+01
5 4 52920 0.2285321122055267E+02 0.2285321221296537E+02
0.2285321121726444E+02 0.2285321166226352E+02
0.2221382316719896E+02
-0.6853211221744196E+01 -0.6853211215825024E+01
-0.6853211221310334E+01 -0.6853211214979680E+01
-0.6213823170572150E+01
-------------- ---------------- ------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
: For Kramers degeneracies cases, comparison of the eigenvalues of a 10 site 1D Hubbard model computed eigenpair routine DSYEV, the block Lanczos program DNLASO, and the second refinement of the power method. For the first two methods, the three largest and three smallest eigenvalues were computed to measure their consistency, effectiveness, and accuracy in computing degenerate eigenvalues. \[table4\]
For other electron fillings [*a priori*]{} exact information about degeneracies is lacking. What is known is that when $U=0$ the ground state for most fillings is degenerate. These fillings typically are called open shell cases. When $U\neq 0$, the degeneracies are typically lifted, the degree to which it is however depends on the closeness of the nearest unoccupied eigenstate. For small systems, the lifting might be minor, and for limited precision calculations this can make distinguishing degenerate and nearly degenerate states difficult. For the results in Table \[table5\], this discussion applies to the cases $(N_\uparrow,N_\downarrow)=$ (2,2) and (4,4) illustrated there. The qualitative character of the results are similar to those of the Kramers’s cases.
-------------- ---------------- ------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
$N_\uparrow$ $N_\downarrow$ $N$ DSYEV DNLASO PM2
2 2 2025 0.1121466372028744E+02 0.1121466372028743E+02 0.1121466372028747E+02
0.1096186919469933E+02 0.1096186919469927E+02 0.1096186919053599E+02
0.1096186919469928E+02 0.1096186919469929E+02
-0.6601239688910290E+01 -0.6431629846631373E+01 -0.6601239688910274E+01
-0.6431629846631359E+01 -0.6424903541072491E+01 -0.6431629865616197E+01
-0.6431629846631350E+01 -0.5854101965765123E+01
4 4 44100 0.2143485463460406E+02 0.2143485463565059E+02
0.2106806509093548E+02 0.2106806509410040E+02
0.2106806508923771E+02
-0.7647179205940428E+01 -0.7647179208191599E+01
-0.7538791441444121E+01 -0.7538797509518616E+01
-0.7538791440796984E+01
-------------- ---------------- ------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
: For open shell cases, comparison of the eigenvalues of a 10 site 1D Hubbard model computed by the LAPACK routine DSYEV, the Netlib program DNLASO, and the second refinement of the power method. For the first two methods, the three largest and three smallest eigenvalues were computed to measure their consistency, effectiveness, and accuracy in computing degenerate eigenvalues. \[table5\]
The results of the three tables indicate that this test case is nontrivial. We judge our preliminary results as indicating that the block Lanczos and the second refinement of the power method have comparable effectiveness. The version of the power method used here lacks the ability to return more than two eigenvalues in contrast to the block Lanczos used that should estimate well at least four.
We comment that the Lanczos method is not a black box. To ensure that the result is the minimum as opposed to some excited state, the calculation usually needs to be run multiple times with different random number seeds or some other means to change the starting vectors, and then the results need to be studied to identified those to be regarded as estimates of the ground state [@lin; @wang]. An error is usually estimated from the variance of the average of the ground state estimates. We restarted the Lanczos calculations for a few of the cases multiple times. As our interest was qualitative, we did not perform an error analysis but instead presented representative results.
The power method is also not a black box. It used the same sparse matrix as the block Lanczos method. From it we only show the two largest and two smallest as our double precision code did not incorporate a procedure to allow the determination of the third eigenpair. The components of one starting state were selected uniformly and randomly over (0,1); the other from (-0.5,0.5). We defined our regions in the following manner. First we performed a random permutation of the vector components. Region 1 was the first $N/2+1$ of these permuted components; region 2, the last $N/2+1$. Initially, we used $\epsilon_0=10^{-13}$ and $\epsilon_2=10^{-10}$. Multiple starts with changing random number seeds were used to ensure consistency. We first computed the largest two eigenvalues and used the largest value, truncated to two significant figures, as the shift to compute the two smallest. Cases where the lowest or the largest had a near degeneracy converged only so far. Often with $|q_0|<\epsilon_0$ being satisfied while the $\epsilon_2$ being too small for $q_2$ to converge. Instead of adjusting these stopping criteria, we found that simply stopping the iteration after some fixed number of iterations and the choosing the result by locating when the residual $\|A\psi''-\lambda_2\psi''\|$ ceased decreasing was very effective.
Concluding Remarks
==================
We presented two refinements of the power method that enable the simultaneous determination of two extremal eigenpairs of a matrix. We illustrated their effectiveness by benchmarking them on three quite distinct but physically challenging problems. For the cyclic matrix, we exactly knew the eigenvalues and their degeneracies. We showed we could determine the two smallest extremal eigenvalues to nearly machine precision. For the transfer matrix of the two-dimensional Ising model, we knew the exact values. The two-dimensional Hubbard model was more challenging: As a function of the electron filling various degeneracies exist. Here, we choose to compare the effectiveness of the second refinement with two standard numerical determinations of the ground and first excited state, illustrating the limitations of all three methods especially when the dominant state is degenerate or very nearly so. In general, the second refinement appears as effective as a readily available implementation of the block Lanczos method with selective reorthogonalization.
All our test cases involved real matrices, but preliminary testing indicates that the techniques presented also work well for complex matrices and non-symmetric matrices with complex eigenvalues. The techniques presented are easily adapted to the determination of just the dominant or just the sub-dominant eigenpair. Convergence to the dominant one is accelerated as it is controlled by $\lambda_3/\lambda_1$ is instead of $\lambda_2/\lambda_1$. Generalizations to more than two extremal pairs are possible. Preliminary testing for up to four have been promising.
One advantage of our refinements is that they maintain the simplicity of the basic power method. Another is their adaptability to Monte Carlo implementations. In a number of fields of physics and chemistry, the power method is the core of the Monte Carlo methods for determining the ground state of models whose complexity grow exponentially with physical size. Here, the ground state energy is estimated from samplings of the ground state wavefunction. Such samplings may involve only a small fraction of all possible components of the state, and a mixed estimator [@hammond] for the energy is often used. Here we pushed the use of such estimators a step further with novel consequences. In two other papers, we will describe Monte Carlo implementations of our refinements and their applications to the transfer matrix of the two-dimensional Ising model and to Hamiltonian matrix of the two-dimensional Hubbard model [@booth3].
The work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy under the LANL/LDRD program.
We now show that if the eigenstates are non-degenerate, our second refinement of the power method simultaneously produces estimates of $\psi_1$ converging as $\lambda_3 / \lambda_1$ and estimates of $\psi_2$ converging as $\lambda_3 / \lambda_2$. Suppose that the estimates of $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ are very good with only a small mixtures of other components; that is, there is some small $v$ such that $$\psi_1 \approx ( 1+d v) \psi_1 + e v \psi_2 + f v \psi_3
\label{eq:t57}$$ $$\psi_2 \approx a v \psi_1 +(1+ b v) \psi_2 + c v \psi_3
\label{eq:t58}$$ Hence $$\psi=(a v \psi_1 +(1+ b v) \psi_2 + c v \psi_3) + x (( 1+d v) \psi_1 + e v \psi_2 + f v \psi_3)
\label{eq:it1}$$ Define the total $i^{th}$ eigenfunction component in region $j$ as $$N_{ij}=\sum_{\alpha \in R_j} \psi_{i,\alpha}
\label{eq:p2.1}$$ We now apply the balance condition for equal $\lambda$’s. For region $R_1$ the eigenvalue estimate is $$\frac{N_{11} \lambda_1 ( a v + x ( 1+d v)) + N_{21} \lambda_2 ((1+ b v) + x e v)+ N_{31} \lambda_3 (c v + x f v)}
{N_{11} ( a v + x ( 1+d v)) + N_{21} ((1+ b v) + x e v)+ N_{31} (c v + x f v)}$$ while for region $R_2$ it is $$\frac{N_{12} \lambda_1 ( a v + x ( 1+d v)) + N_{22} \lambda_2 ((1+ b v) + x e v)+ N_{32} \lambda_3 (c v + x f v)}
{N_{12} ( a v + x ( 1+d v)) + N_{22} ((1+ b v) + x e v)+ N_{32} (c v + x f v)}$$ Set the above two eigenvalue estimates equal and cross multiply to clear the denominators and obtain a quadratic equation in $x$. We now collect powers of $x$. Terms involving $x^0$ are: $$\begin{aligned}
L_1 &=&-a \lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21} v + a \lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21} v + a \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22} v - a \lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22} v \\ \nonumber
L_2&=&-c \lambda_2 N_{22} N_{31} v + c \lambda_3 N_{22} N_{31} v + c \lambda_2 N_{21} N_{32} v - c \lambda_3 N_{21} N_{32} v \\ \nonumber
L_3&=&v^2 (-a b \lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21}+ a b \lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21}+a b \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22}) \\ \nonumber
L_4&=&-c \lambda_2 N_{22} N_{31} v + c \lambda_3 N_{22} N_{31} v + c \lambda_2 N_{21} N_{32} v - c \lambda_3 N_{21} N_{32} v \\ \nonumber
L_5&=&v^2(-b c \lambda_2 N_{22} N_{31}+b c \lambda_3 N_{22} N_{31}+a c \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{32}) \\ \nonumber
L_6&=&v^2(-a c \lambda_3 N_{11} N_{32}+b c \lambda_2 N_{21} N_{32}-b c \lambda_3 N_{21} N_{32})
\label{eq:l1_l6}\end{aligned}$$ Terms involving $x^1$ are $$\begin{aligned}
L_7&=&-f \lambda_2 N_{22} N_{31} v + f \lambda_3 N_{22} N_{31} v + f \lambda_2 N_{21} N_{32} v-f \lambda_3 N_{21} N_{32} v \\ \nonumber
L_8&=&v^2(-a e \lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21}+a e \lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21}) \\ \nonumber
L_9&=&v^2(a e \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22}-a e \lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22}-a f \lambda_1 N_{12} N_{31}) \\ \nonumber
L_{10}&=&v^2(a f \lambda_3 N_{12} N_{31}-c e \lambda_2 N_{22} N_{31}-b f \lambda_2 N_{22} N_{31}) \\ \nonumber
L_{11}&=&v^2(c e \lambda_3 N_{22} N_{31}+b f \lambda_3 N_{22} N_{31}+a f \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{32}) \\ \nonumber
L_{12}&=&v^2(-a f \lambda_3 N_{11} N_{32}+c e \lambda_2 N_{21} N_{32}+b f \lambda_2 N_{21} N_{32}) \\ \nonumber
L_{13}&=&v^2(-c e \lambda_3 N_{21} N_{32}-b f \lambda_3 N_{21} N_{32}) \\ \nonumber
L_{14}&=&(1+ d v)(-\lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21}+\lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21} + \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22} - \lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22} ) \\ \nonumber
L_{15}&=&v(1+ d v)(-b \lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21} + b \lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21} +b \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22} -b \lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22} ) \\ \nonumber
L_{16}&=&v(1+ d v)(-c \lambda_1 N_{12} N_{31} +c \lambda_3 N_{12} N_{31}+c \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{32}-c \lambda_3 N_{11} N_{32})
\label{eq:l7_l16}\end{aligned}$$ Terms involving $x^2$ are $$\begin{aligned}
L_{17}&=&v^2 e f(- \lambda_2 N_{22} N_{31}+\lambda_3 N_{22} N_{31}+ \lambda_2 N_{21} N_{32}- \lambda_3 N_{21} N_{32}) \\ \nonumber
L_{18}&=&e v (1+d v)(- \lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21}+ \lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21}+\lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22}-\lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22}) \\ \nonumber
L_{19}&=&f v (1+d v)(-\lambda_1 N_{12} N_{31}+\lambda_3 N_{12} N_{31}+\lambda_1 N_{11} N_{32}-\lambda_3 N_{11} N_{32})
\label{eq:l17_l19}\end{aligned}$$ Finally we can write $$\begin{aligned}
q_0&=&L_1 + L_2 + L_3 + L_4 + L_5 + L_6 \\ \label{eq:q0}
q_1&=&L_7 + L_8 + L_9 + L_{10} + L_{11} + L_{12} +L_{13}+L_{14}+L_{15}+L_{16} \\ \label{eq:q1}
q_2&=&L_{17}+L_{18}+L_{19} \label{eq:q2}\end{aligned}$$ and note that we seek the smallest magnitude root of $$q_2 x^2+ q_1 x+ q_0=0
\label{eq:quadx}$$ Note that $x$ will be very small when $v\approx 0$, so that the quadratic part can be ignored, leading to $$x=-q_0/q_1
\label{eq:t65}$$ Also the terms involving $v^2$ can be ignored compared to terms involving $v$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
q_0&=&L_1+L_2 \\
&=&v(-a \lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21} + a \lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21} + a \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22} - a \lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22} \\
& &-c \lambda_2 N_{22} N_{31} + c \lambda_3 N_{22} N_{31} + c \lambda_2 N_{21} N_{32} - c \lambda_3 N_{21} N_{32} )\end{aligned}$$ Now consider $q_1$. Every term except $L_{14}$ has at least $v^1$ in it, which will be small compared to the $v^0$ term in $L_{14}$. Thus using the $v^0$ term in $L_{14}$, $$q_1=(-\lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21}+\lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21} + \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22} - \lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22} )$$ so from Eq. (\[eq:t65\]) we have that $$x=-a v - c v \frac{(- \lambda_2 N_{22} N_{31} + \lambda_3 N_{22} N_{31} + \lambda_2 N_{21} N_{32} - \lambda_3 N_{21} N_{32} )}
{(-\lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21}+\lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21} + \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22} - \lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22} )}$$ In what follows, $\psi$ is replaced by $\psi_2$ because the root corresponding to $\psi_2$ has been selected. $$A \psi_2=\lambda_1( a v + x ( 1+d v) )\psi_1+\lambda_2((1+ b v)+x e v) \psi_2 +\lambda_3(c v +x f v)\psi_3$$ Both $x$ and $v$ are small, so the product $x v$ is ignored yielding $$A \psi_2=\lambda_1( a v + x )\psi_1+\lambda_2((1+ b v)+x e v) \psi_2 +\lambda_3(c v +x f v)\psi_3$$ Substituting for $x$, we rewrite this equation as $$A \psi_2=\lambda_1 \frac{- c v(- \lambda_2 N_{22} N_{31} + \lambda_3 N_{22} N_{31} + \lambda_2 N_{21} N_{32} - \lambda_3 N_{21} N_{32} )}
{(-\lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21}+\lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21} + \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22} - \lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22} )}
\psi_1$$ $$+\lambda_2(1+ b v) \psi_2 +\lambda_3(c v )\psi_3$$ Dividing by $\lambda_2(1+ b v)$ and keeping terms to order $v$ yields $$\frac{1}{\lambda_2}A \psi_2= \frac{- c v(- N_{22} N_{31} +
( \lambda_3/\lambda_2) N_{22} N_{31} + N_{21} N_{32} -
(\lambda_3/\lambda_2) N_{21} N_{32} )}
{(- N_{12} N_{21}+(\lambda_2/\lambda_1) N_{12} N_{21} +
N_{11} N_{22} -( \lambda_2/\lambda_1) N_{11} N_{22} )}
\psi_1$$ $$+ \psi_2 +\frac{\lambda_3}{\lambda_2}(c v )\psi_3$$ We note that the $\psi_3$ component has dropped by the ratio $\lambda_3/\lambda_2$ after the iteration. Note that the $\psi_1$ component in the above is proportional to the $\psi_3$ component ($c v$) in the estimate of $\psi_2$ at the beginning of the iteration. Therefore, both the $\psi_1$ and $\psi_3$ components drop out of the $\psi_2$ estimate as $\lambda_3/\lambda_2$.
Now we will look at the estimated $\psi_1$ component. We note that dividing the iterate by a constant does not affect the eigenvalue estimates so we divide (\[eq:it1\]) by $x$ and then label the estimate as $\psi_1$ because the root corresponding to $\psi_1$ will be chosen. $$\psi_1=(a v \psi_1 +(1+ b v) \psi_2 + c v \psi_3) \frac{1}{x} + (( 1+d v) \psi_1 + e v \psi_2 + f v \psi_3)$$ The eigenvalue balance equation is the same, but instead of Eq. \[eq:quadx\] we have $$q_2 +q_1 \frac{1}{x}+ q_0\frac{1}{x^2}=0$$ When estimating $\psi_1$, note that $1/x$ will be very small when $v\approx 0$, so that the inverse quadratic part of this equation can be ignored, leading to $$\frac{1}{x}=-q_2/q_1
\label{eq:tlin1}$$ After all $v^2$ terms in $q_2$ are dropped, (\[eq:q2\]) and (\[eq:l17\_l19\]) become $$q_2=e v (- \lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21}+ \lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21}+\lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22}-\lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22})+$$ $$f v (-\lambda_1 N_{12} N_{31}+\lambda_3 N_{12} N_{31}+\lambda_1 N_{11} N_{32}-\lambda_3 N_{11} N_{32})$$ and after all $v$ and $v^2$ terms in $q_1$ are dropped, (\[eq:q1\]) and (\[eq:l7\_l16\]) become $$q_1=(-\lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21}+\lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21} + \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22} - \lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22} )$$ From (\[eq:tlin1\]) $$\frac{1}{x}=-e v - \frac{f v (-\lambda_1 N_{12} N_{31}+\lambda_3 N_{12} N_{31}+\lambda_1 N_{11} N_{32}-\lambda_3 N_{11} N_{32})}
{(-\lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21}+\lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21} + \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22} - \lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22} )}$$ We now note that $$A \psi_1=(a v \lambda_1 \psi_1 +(1+ b v) \lambda_2 \psi_2 + c v \lambda_3 \psi_3) \frac{1}{x} + (( 1+d v) \lambda_1 \psi_1 + e v \lambda_2 \psi_2 + f v \lambda_3 \psi_3)$$ If the small terms associated with $v^2$ and $v \frac{1}{x}$ are dropped, then dividing the equation by $\lambda_1$ yields (to first order in $v$) $$\frac{1}{\lambda_1}A \psi_1= \frac{\lambda_2}{\lambda_1} \psi_2 \frac{1}{x} + ( \psi_1 + e v
\frac{\lambda_2}{\lambda_1} \psi_2 + f v \frac{\lambda_3}{\lambda_1} \psi_3)$$ Substituting for $ \frac{1}{x}$, $$\frac{1}{\lambda_1}A T_1=\psi_1+ f v \frac{\lambda_3}{\lambda_1} \psi_3 +$$ $$-f v \frac{(\lambda_2/\lambda_1)
(-\lambda_1 N_{12} N_{31}+\lambda_3 N_{12} N_{31}+\lambda_1 N_{11} N_{32}-\lambda_3 N_{11} N_{32})}
{(-\lambda_1 N_{12} N_{21}+\lambda_2 N_{12} N_{21} + \lambda_1 N_{11} N_{22} - \lambda_2 N_{11} N_{22} )} \psi_2$$ We see that the $\psi_3$ component is decreasing as $\lambda_3/\lambda_1$ and that the $\psi_2$ component is proportional to the $\psi_3$ component ($f v$) at the beginning of the iteration. Thus the $\psi_2$ component also should be falling as $\lambda_3/\lambda_1$. Thus the procedure is converging to the first eigenfunction at the accelerated rate $\lambda_3/\lambda_1$.
T. E. Booth, Nucl. Sci. Eng. [**143**]{}, p291 (2003).
T. E. Booth, Nucl. Sci. Eng. [**154**]{}, 48 (2006).
J. Spanier and E. M. Gelbard, *Monte Carlo Principles and Neutron Transport Problems*, (Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 1969).
C. J. Thompson, *Mathematical Statisical Mechanics*, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1972).
S. Sachdev, *Quantum Phase Transitions*, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
J. H. Wilkinson, *The Algebraic Eigenvalue Problem*, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1965).
G. H. Golub and C. F. van Loan, *Matrix Computations*, (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1989).
B. L. Hmmond, W. A. Lester, Jr., and P. J. Reynolds, *Monte Carlo Methods in Ab Initio Chemisry*, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994).
L. Onsager, Phys. Rev. [**65**]{}, 117 (1944).
E. W. Montroll, J. Chem. Phys. [**9**]{}, 706 (1941).
B. T. Smith, J. M. Boyle, J. J.Dongarra, B. S. Garbow, Y. Ikebe, V. C. Klema, and C. B. Moler *Matraix Eigensystems Routines – EISPACK Guide* (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1976)
*The Hubbard Model*, editd by A. Montorsi, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992).
H. S. Wilf, *Mathematics for the Physical Sciences*, (Dover, New York, 1978).
E. Anderson et al., *LAPACK Users’ Guide, Third edition*, (SIAM, Philadelphis, 1999).
Subroutine DNLASO.f, authors D. S. Scott and B. N. Parlett, <www.netlib.org>.
M. Tinkham, *Group Theorty and Quantum Mechanics*, (Dover, New York, 1964).
H.-Q. Lin and J. E. Gubernatis, Comput. Phys. [**7**]{}, 400 (1998).
Y.-Q. Wang, H.-Q. Lin, and J. E. Gubernatis, Commun. Comp. Phys. [**1**]{}, 575 (2006).
T. E. Booth and J. E. Gubernatis, unpublished.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439'
author:
- '**ZACK SULLIVAN**'
title: |
A SUPERSYMMETRIC SOLUTION\
TO THE BOTTOM-QUARK CROSS SECTION ANOMALY
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
Introduction
============
The cross section for bottom-quark production is measured at hadron and photon colliders to be about a factor of 2 above the expectations of next-to-leading order (NLO) calculations in perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD).[@expxsec] Despite more than ten years of effort, this discrepancy has resisted satisfactory resolution within the standard model (SM) of particle physics.[@qcdrev] This is surprising because the mass of the bottom quark sets a scale at which other perturbative QCD calculations are reliable. While additional higher-order QCD effects in production or fragmentation may solve part or all of the puzzle, a reasonable question to ask is whether this anomaly is a hint of “new physics”.
In a recent Letter,[@zspaper] we explore an explanation of the discrepancy within the context of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). We postulate the existence of a light bottom squark $\tilde b$ (mass $\simeq 2$–5.5 GeV) and a relatively light gluino $\tilde
g$ (mass $\simeq 12$–16 GeV) that decays with $100\%$ branching fraction to $b$ and $\tilde b$. The masses of these particles are constrained by fits to several different experiments as described below. The $\tilde b$ may either be long-lived or it may decay via $R$-parity-violating interactions into a pair of hadronic jets. We obtain good agreement with the magnitude and shape of the measured distributions of bottom-quark production at UA1 and the Fermilab Tevatron. We also make several predictions, and point out a “golden channel” of like-sign $B$ mesons, $B^+B^+$ or $B^-B^-$, that may either be observed, or whose absence will rule out this scenario, at run II of the Tevatron.
Our assumptions are consistent with all experimental constraints on the masses and couplings of supersymmetric particles.$^{4-7}$ The tree-level coupling of the light $\tilde{b}_1$ to the $Z$ boson $g_{Z\tilde b_1\tilde
b_1}\sim (T_3\sin^2\theta_{\tilde{b}} - Q_{\tilde b} \sin^2\theta_W)$. Hence, if $\sin\theta_{\tilde{b}} \simeq 0.38$, $\tilde{b}_1$ approximately decouples from the $Z$, which leads to good agreement with the $Z$-peak observables.[@CHWW] The couplings $g_{Z\tilde b_1\tilde b_2}$ and $g_{Z\tilde b_2\tilde b_2}$ survive, but are irrelevant as long as $m_{\tilde b_2}\,\agt\, 200$ GeV. Production of $\tilde{b}_1$ pairs via virtual photons is a factor of 2–4 smaller than the best bound from LEP.[@delphilim] Bottom squarks make a tiny ($\sim2\%$) contribution to $e^+e^-\to$ hadrons. Thus, despite the improved 6–10% measurement of $R$ by the BES Collaboration [@besii] presented at this meeting, there is no sensitivity to this resonance. Spin-1/2 quarks are produced in $e^+e^-$ annihilations with an angular distribution of $(1+\alpha\cos^2\theta)$ and $\alpha=1$. The bottom squark appears as an effective $\alpha\simeq 0.92$. We refit the angular distribution measured by the CELLO Collaboration,[@CELLO] and find it is consistent with the production of a single pair of charge-1/3 squarks along with five flavors of quark-antiquark pairs.
Comparison with Data
====================
Because the excess production rate is observed in all bottom-quark decay channels and distributions, any solution will necessarily involve additional production of bottom quarks. In our scenario, light gluinos are dominantly produced by gluon fusion ($g g \to
\tilde g \tilde g$) at Tevatron energies. As long as $m_{\tilde g} > m_b +
m_{\tilde b}$, the $\tilde g$ decays promptly to $b + \tilde b$.
In Fig. 1 we show the integrated $p_{Tb}$ distribution of the $b$ quarks as measured at UA1 [@uaone] and the Tevatron.[@expxsec] For comparison we plot the NLO cross section with CTEQ4M PDF’s, $m_b =$ 4.75 GeV, scale $\mu=\sqrt{m_b^2 + p_{Tb}^2}$.[@calcs] We show separately the effect of $\tilde g$ production, followed by $\tilde g \rightarrow b + \tilde b$, for $m_{\tilde g} = $14 GeV and $m_{\tilde b} =$ 3.5 GeV. We compute the $\tilde g$-pair cross section from the leading order (LO) matrix element with NLO PDF’s, $\mu=\sqrt{m^2_{\tilde g}+p^2_{T\tilde g}}$, a two-loop $\alpha_s$, and use a $K$-factor of 1.9.[@calcs] The SUSY-QCD corrections to $b \bar{b}$ production are not yet available.[@bbsusy]
A gluino of mass $m_{\tilde g} \simeq$ 12–16 GeV is necessary give the correct magnitude of the cross section. The $\tilde g$ decays produce $p_{Tb}$ spectra that are enhanced primarily in the neighborhood of $p_{Tb}^{\rm min} \simeq m_{\tilde g}$, exactly where the data show the most prominent enhancement above the QCD expectation. Larger values of $m_{\tilde g}$ yield too little cross section to be of interest, but are not ruled out. The interesting values of $m_{\tilde b}$ and $m_{\tilde g}$ are correlated; after selections on $p_{Tb}^{\rm min}$, large values of $m_{\tilde b}$ reduce the cross section and lead to shapes of the $p_{Tb}$ distribution that agree less well with the data.
After the contributions of the NLO QCD and SUSY components are added (solid curve in Fig. 1), the magnitude of the bottom-quark cross section and the shape of the integrated $p^{\rm min}_{Tb}$ distribution are described well. A theoretical uncertainty of roughly $\pm 30\%$ may be assigned to the final solid curve, associated with variation of the $b$ mass, the scale, and the parton distributions. The SUSY process produces bottom quarks in a four-body final state and thus their momentum correlations are different from those of QCD. Angular correlations between muons that arise from decays of $b$’s have been measured.[@cdfmix; @muonexp] Examining the angular correlations between $b$’s in the SUSY case we find they are nearly indistinguishable from those of QCD once experimental cuts are applied.
Effects on $B^0$–$\bar B^0$ Mixing
==================================
Since the $\tilde g$ is a Majorana particle, its decay can yield either quarks or antiquarks. Given the kinematic cuts applied at hadron colliders, gluino pair production and subsequent decay to $b$’s will generate a number of $b b$ and $\bar b \bar
b$ pairs equal to the number of $b \bar b$ final states.[@zspaper] This leads to the “golden signature” of like-sign $B$ mesons, $B^+B^+$ and $B^-B^-$. If these do not appear in the run II data, then this scenario may be ruled out.
We predict there will be an increase of like-sign leptons in the final state after semi-leptonic decays of the $b$ and $\bar b$ quarks. This increase could be confused with an enhanced rate of $B^0$–$\bar B^0$ mixing. Time-integrated mixing analyses of lepton pairs determine the quantity $\cb
= f_d \chi_d + f_s \chi_s$, where $f_d$ and $f_s$ are the fractions of $B^0_d$ and $B^0_s$ hadrons, respectively, in the sample of semi-leptonic $B$ decays, and $\chi_f$ is the time-integrated mixing probability for $B^0_f$. The quantity $2\cb (1-\cb)$ is the fraction of $b\bar b$ pairs that decay as like-sign $b$’s. Our SUSY mechanism can be incorporated by introducing $\cbe$ such that $2\cbe (1-\cbe)=[2\cb (1-\cb) + G/2]/(1+G)$, where $G$ is the ratio of SUSY and QCD bottom-quark cross sections after cuts. Hadron colliders measure $$\cbe=\frac{\cb}{\sqrt{1+G}} +{1\over 2}\left[1-
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+G}}\right] \;.$$
To estimate $\cbe$, we assume that the world average value $\cb = 0.118 \pm
0.005$ [@pdg] represents the contribution from only the pure QCD component. We determine $\cbe$ in the region of phase space where the measurement is made,[@cdfmix] with both final $b$’s having $p_T$ of at least 6.5 GeV and rapidity $| y_b | \leq 1$. For gluino masses of $m_{\tilde g} =$ 14 and 16 GeV, we obtain $\cbe = 0.17\pm 0.02$ and $0.16\pm 0.02$, respectively. There is an additional uncertainty of $\pm
0.02$ from the lack of a NLO calculation of $\tilde g\to b\tilde b$ distributions. Our expectations may be compared with the CDF Collaboration’s published value $\cbe = 0.131 \pm 0.02 \pm
0.016$.[@cdfmix] Values of $m_{\tilde g} > 12$ GeV lead to a calculated $\cbe$ that is consistent with the measured value within experimental and theoretical uncertainties.
Additional Implications
=======================
In the standard model, a global fit to all observables provides an indirect measurement of $\alpha_s(M_Z) \simeq 0.119 \pm
0.006$.[@pdg] A light $\tilde g$ with mass about 15 GeV and a light $\tilde b$ modify the QCD $\beta$ function. Thus, experiments performed below $m_{\tilde g}$ would predict $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.125$. This is within the range of experimental uncertainty, and in better agreement with some measurements at LEP. Light gluinos are also helpful in improving gauge coupling unification by providing a light threshold in the evolution of $\alpha_s$. For gluinos of mass several hundred GeV, the strong coupling at $M_Z$ predicted from unification is somewhat above 0.13. However, for gluinos of mass 15 GeV, this prediction becomes $\alpha_s (M_Z) \alt
0.127$, in agreement with the measured value.
If the $\widetilde{b}$ is relatively stable, the $\widetilde{b}$ could pick up a light $\bar{u}$ or $\bar{d}$ and become a $\widetilde{B}^-$ or $\widetilde{B}^0$ “mesino” with $J = 1/2$. The mass of the mesino would be roughly $3$–$7$ GeV for the interval of $\widetilde{b}$ masses we consider. The charged mesino could fake a heavy muon if it punches through the hadron calorimeter, or perhaps act like a heavy $\bar{p}$ — possibly detectable with a time-of-flight apparatus. A long-lived $\widetilde b$ is not excluded by conventional searches at hadron and lepton colliders.
If $R$ parity is violated, the bottom squark can decay either promptly, or somewhere outside of the detector. The CLEO Collaboration [@CLEO] has constrained a promptly decaying $\tilde b$ with mass 3.5–4.5 GeV with the decay chain $\tilde b \rightarrow c \em{l} \tilde \nu$ or $\tilde b
\rightarrow c {\em l}$. Baryon-number-violating decays, however, are nearly unconstrained.[@bhs] In this case, the bottom squark decays to 2 jets with a width [@bhs] $$\Gamma(\tilde b \to jj)=
\frac{m_{\tilde b}}{2\pi} \sin^2\theta_{\tilde{b}}
\sum_{j<k} |\lambda^{\prime\prime}_{ij3}|^2 \;.\vspace*{-1.5ex}$$ If $m_{\tilde b} = 3.5$ GeV, $\Gamma(\widetilde b \rightarrow i j) = 0.08
|\lambda^{\prime\prime}_{ij3}|^2$ GeV. Unless all $\lambda^{\prime\prime}_{ij3}$ are extremely small, the $\widetilde {b}$ will decay quickly and leave soft hadrons in the cone around the $b$-jet.
There appears to be roughly a factor of 2 difference between the QCD prediction and the $b$ production rate measured at the $ep$ collider HERA and in photon-photon collisions at LEP.[@heralepb] Whether the existence of light bottom squarks and gluinos in the mass ranges we consider will produce enough of an excess to explain these experiments is unknown. A full NLO study is underway to determine the effect.[@bbsusy]
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I am indebted to Ed Berger, Brian Harris, David E. Kaplan, Tim Tait, and Carlos Wagner for their collaboration and insight. This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract W-31-109-ENG-38.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
CDF Collaboration, F. Abe [*et al.*]{}, ; [**79**]{}, 572 (1997); [**75**]{}, 1451 (1995); D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott [*et al.*]{}, ; . P. Nason [*et al.*]{}, in [*Proceedings of the 1999 CERN Workshop on Standard Model Physics (and more) and the LHC*]{}, edited by G. Altarelli and M. L. Mangano (CERN, Geneva, 2000), p. 231; S. Frixione, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi, in [*Heavy Flavors II*]{}, edited by A. J. Buras and M. Linder (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997). E. L. Berger, B. W. Harris, D. E. Kaplan, Z. Sullivan, T. M. P. Tait, and C. E. M. Wagner, . M. Carena, S. Heinemeyer, C. E. M. Wagner, and G. Weiglein, . DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu [*et al.*]{}, BES Collaboration, J. Z. Bai [*et al.*]{}, hep-ex/0102003; N. Wu, in this Proceedings. CELLO Collaboration, H.-J. Behrend [*et al.*]{}, . UA1 Collaboration, C. Albajar [*et al.*]{}, . See Refs. 16–18 of Berger [*et al.*]{} (Ref. 3 above) for details and references.
Z. Sullivan, in production.
CDF Collaboration, F. Abe [*et al.*]{}, . D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott [*et al.*]{}, , and references therein. Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom [*et al.*]{}, [*Eur. Phys. Jour.*]{} C [**15**]{}, 1 (2000). CLEO Collaboration, V. Savinov [*et al.*]{}, . E. L. Berger, B. W. Harris, and Z. Sullivan, ; . H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff [*et al.*]{}, ; ZEUS Collaboration, J. Breitweg [*et al.*]{}, [*Eur. Phys. Jour.*]{} C [**18**]{}, 625 (2001); L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri [*et al.*]{}, ; OPAL Collaboration, A. Csilling [*et al.*]{}, hep-ex/0010060.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We generalize graded Hecke algebras to include a twisting two-cocycle for the associated finite group. We give examples where the parameter spaces of the resulting [*twisted*]{} graded Hecke algebras are larger than that of the graded Hecke algebras. We prove that twisted graded Hecke algebras are particular types of deformations of a crossed product.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
Texas A&M University\
College Station, Texas 77843, USA
author:
- Sarah Witherspoon
date: 'June 7, 2005'
title: TWISTED GRADED HECKE ALGEBRAS
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Drinfel’d defined graded Hecke algebras for any finite subgroup $G$ of $GL(V)$ [@drinfeld86]. This definition was shown by Ram and Shepler [@ram-shepler03] to generalize the definition of graded versions of affine Hecke algebras for real reflection groups given by Lusztig, who was motivated by questions in representation theory [@lusztig88; @lusztig89]. In the same paper Ram and Shepler classified all graded Hecke algebras for complex reflection groups. They found many nontrivial graded Hecke algebras, but also showed that some groups (such as $G(r,1,n)={\mathbb {Z}}/r{\mathbb {Z}}\wr S_n$ when $r>2, \ n>3$) have no nontrivial graded Hecke algebras. Etingof and Ginzburg showed that in the case of a finite symplectic group, the symplectic form itself arises naturally in the structure of any associated graded Hecke algebra, always yielding nontrivial examples, which they called symplectic reflection algebras [@etingof-ginzburg02]. Many authors have studied representations of graded Hecke algebras, their subalgebras generated by certain idempotents, and connections to the geometry of the corresponding orbifolds $V/G$. (See for example [@gordon-smith04; @kriloff-ram02; @lusztig95; @lusztig02].)
In this note we generalize these constructions by incorporating a two-cocycle $\alpha$ that represents an element of the cohomology group ${{\rm H}}^2(G,{\mathbb{C}}^{\times})$. Chmutova introduced such a two-cocycle for symplectic groups, showing that it appears naturally in symplectic reflection algebras arising from nonfaithful group representations to [*Sp*]{}$(V)$ [@chmutova]. Here our motivation comes from numerous papers on orbifolds in which such a cocycle, called [*discrete torsion*]{}, appears ([@adem-ruan03; @caldararu-giaquinto-witherspoon04; @vafa-witten95] are just a few), as well as our finding that for some groups there is a nontrivial [*twisted*]{} graded Hecke algebra even if there is no nontrivial graded Hecke algebra (such as Example \[ex:1\] below). We adapt the direct linear-algebraic approach of Ram and Shepler to derive criteria for existence of such nontrivial twisted graded Hecke algebras (Theorem \[thm:necsuff\], Corollary \[cor:parameters\]). We give examples for which the parameter spaces for twisted graded Hecke algebras are larger than that for graded Hecke algebras: $S_n\subset GL({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ via the permutation representation (Example \[ex:3\]), as well as $({\mathbb {Z}}/\ell Z)^{n-1}\subset SL({\mathbb{C}}^n)$ (Example \[ex:1\]). On the other hand, if $G$ is symplectic, this is not the case (Example \[ex:2\]). It would be interesting to do a more thorough analysis of the parameter spaces of twisted graded Hecke algebras for various types of groups.
In Section 3 we show that twisted graded Hecke algebras are precisely particular types of deformations of crossed product algebras $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$ (Theorem \[thm:equivalence\]). We use this idea to show that Ram and Shepler’s isomorphism between the different definitions of (untwisted) graded Hecke algebra given by Drinfel’d and Lusztig arises as an equivalence of deformations whose infinitesimals are thus cohomologous. This also puts previous results into a larger context: There are in general many more infinitesimal deformations (that is, Hochschild two-cocycles) of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$ than those that lift to deformations that are (twisted) graded Hecke algebras. In some cases these other infinitesimals also lift to deformations of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$: See Remark \[deg1\] herein and [@caldararu-giaquinto-witherspoon04; @witherspoon]. We are not aware of a general result regarding such deformations.
We thank A. Ram for several stimulating conversations. It was a question of his that ultimately led to this work as well as to insight into other related projects. We thank R.-O. Buchweitz for explaining a computation of the relevant Hochschild cohomology to us.
Throughout, we will work over the complex numbers ${\mathbb{C}}$, so that ${\otimes}= {\otimes}_{{\mathbb{C}}}$ unless otherwise indicated.
Twisted graded Hecke algebras
=============================
Our approach to graded Hecke algebras will be through crossed products (generalizations of skew group algebras), so we begin by summarizing this construction. Our definition below of (twisted) graded Hecke algebras involves a parameter $t$, which may be taken to be an indeterminate or any complex number. In Section 3 we will assume $t$ is an indeterminate, as we will discuss deformations over the polynomial ring ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$. Specializing $t$ to any nonzero complex number results in a definition of graded Hecke algebra equivalent to those in the literature.
Let $V={\mathbb{C}}^n$, $G$ a finite subgroup of $GL(V)$, and $\alpha:
G\times G\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}^{\times}$ a two-cocycle, that is $$\label{eqn:alpha}
\alpha(g,h)\alpha(gh,k)=\alpha(h,k)\alpha(g,hk)$$ for all $g,h,k\in G$. The action of $G$ on $V$ induces actions by algebra automorphisms on the tensor algebra $T(V)$ and the symmetric algebra $S(V)$.
Suppose $S$ is any associative ${\mathbb{C}}$-algebra with an action of $G$ by automorphisms, for example $S=T(V)$ or $S=S(V)$. Then we may form the [*crossed product algebra*]{} $S\#_{\alpha}G$, which is $S\otimes {\mathbb{C}}G$ as a vector space, and has multiplication $$(r{\otimes}g) (s{\otimes}h) = \alpha(g,h) r(g\cdot s){\otimes}gh$$ for all $r,s\in S$ and $g,h\in G$. This makes $S\#_{\alpha}G$ an associative algebra as $\alpha$ is a two-cocycle. Note that $S$ is a subalgebra of $S\#_{\alpha}G$, via $\displaystyle{
S\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} S{\otimes}1}$, and that the subalgebra $1{\otimes}{\mathbb{C}}G$ of $S\#_{\alpha} G$ is also known as the [*twisted group algebra*]{} ${\mathbb{C}}^{\alpha}G$. We accordingly abbreviate $s{\otimes}g$ by $s\overline{g}$ ($s\in S, \ g\in G$). The action of $G$ on $S$ becomes an inner action on $S\#_{\alpha}G$, namely $s\mapsto \overline{g} s (\overline{g})^{-1}$ for all $s\in S,
\ g\in G$.
The two-cocycle $\alpha$ is a [*coboundary*]{} if there is some function $\beta: G\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}^{\times}$ such that $$\label{eqn:coboundary}
\alpha(g,h) = \beta(g)\beta(h)\beta(gh)^{-1}$$ for all $g,h\in G$. The set of two-cocycles modulo coboundaries forms an abelian group under pointwise multiplication, called the [*Schur multiplier*]{} of $G$, and denoted ${{\rm H}}^2(G,{\mathbb{C}}^{\times})$. If two cocycles differ by a coboundary, that is if they are [*cohomologous*]{}, the corresponding crossed products are isomorphic.
Replacing $\alpha$ by a cohomologous cocycle if necessary, we may assume that $\alpha$ is normalized so that $\alpha(1,g) =
\alpha(g,1) = 1$ for all $g\in G$. It follows that $\overline{1}$ is the multiplicative identity for ${\mathbb{C}}^{\alpha}G$. Thus $(\overline{g})^{-1}=\alpha^{-1}(g,g^{-1})\overline{g^{-1}}=
\alpha^{-1}(g^{-1},g)\overline{g^{-1}}$ for all $g\in G$.
For each $g\in G$, choose a skew-symmetric bilinear form $a_g:V\times V\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ (arbitrary for now, and possibly 0). Let $t$ be an indeterminate and extend scalars, $S\#_{\alpha}G[t]:= {\mathbb{C}}[t]{\otimes}(S\#_{\alpha}G)$. Let $A$ be the quotient of $T(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]$ by the (two-sided) ideal $I[t]$ generated by all $$\label{eqn:bracket}
[v,w] - \sum_{g\in G} a_g(v,w) t \overline{g}$$ where $v,w\in V$ and $[v,w]=vw-wv$. (We have omitted tensor symbols in elements of $T(V)$ for brevity.) Note that $A$ is [*additively*]{} isomorphic to a quotient of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G [t]$ via any choice of linear section $S(V)\hookrightarrow T(V)$ of the canonical projection of $T(V)$ onto $S(V)$. This quotient is proper if and only if there is more than one way to rearrange factors in a word by applying the relations (\[eqn:bracket\]). We say that $A$ is a [*twisted graded Hecke algebra*]{} if the above map yields $A\cong S(V){\otimes}{\mathbb{C}}G[t]$ as vector spaces over ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$. Equivalently, if we assign degree 1 to elements of $V$ and degree 0 to elements of $G$, then $A$ is a filtered algebra over ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$ and is a twisted graded Hecke algebra in case the associated graded algebra ${\rm gr}A$ is isomorphic to $S(V)\#_{\alpha}{\mathbb{C}}G[t]$.
[*Let $\alpha$ be the trivial two-cocycle $\alpha(g,h)=1$ for all $g,h\in G$, and let $t=1$. Then $A$ becomes the [*graded Hecke algebra*]{} of [@drinfeld86; @ram-shepler03].* ]{}
We will use the techniques of Ram and Shepler [@ram-shepler03] to determine the conditions on the bilinear forms $a_g$ under which $A$ is a twisted graded Hecke algebra. Let $h\in G$, and use (\[eqn:bracket\]) to obtain two expressions involving $[h^{-1}\cdot v,h^{-1}\cdot w]$. By direct substitution: $[h^{-1}\cdot v, h^{-1}\cdot w]=\sum_{g\in G} a_g(h^{-1}\cdot v,
h^{-1}\cdot w) t\overline{g}$. By conjugating (\[eqn:bracket\]) by $(\overline{h})^{-1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
[h^{-1}\cdot v,h^{-1}\cdot w] &=& \sum_{g\in G} a_g(v,w) t
(\overline{h})^{-1} \overline{g}\overline{h}\\
&=& \sum_{g\in G}a_g(v,w)\alpha^{-1}(h,h^{-1})\alpha(g,h)
\alpha(h^{-1},gh) t\overline{h^{-1}gh}.\end{aligned}$$ Both must be in the ideal $I[t]$, and the assumed additive isomorphism $A\cong S(V){\otimes}{\mathbb{C}}G [t]$ allows us to equate coefficients of each $\overline{g}$ ($g\in G$) in these two expressions. Thus we have $a_{h^{-1}gh}(h^{-1}\cdot v,h^{-1}\cdot w) =
\alpha^{-1}(h,h^{-1})\alpha(g,h)\alpha(h^{-1},gh)a_g(v,w)$, and replacing $v,w$ by $h\cdot v,h\cdot w$, we obtain the first equation below. Again the isomorphism $A\cong S(V){\otimes}{\mathbb{C}}G[t]$ implies that in any expression $wvu\in V^{{\otimes}3}$, three applications of (\[eqn:bracket\]) in any order to obtain $uvw$ plus an element in $tA$ must yield the same element of $A$. Comparison results in the second equation below. Thus necessary conditions for $A$ to be a twisted graded Hecke algebra are: $$\label{eqn:conjugate}
a_{h^{-1}gh}(v,w)=\alpha^{-1}(h,h^{-1})
\alpha(g,h)\alpha(h^{-1},gh)a_g(h\cdot v,h\cdot w)$$ $$\label{eqn:jacobi}
a_g(u,v) (g\cdot w - w) + a_g(v,w)(g\cdot u-u)
+a_g(w,u) (g\cdot v-v) = 0$$ for all $g,h\in G$ and $u,v,w\in V$. These equations will be used in the proofs of the following lemma and theorem.
Not only are (\[eqn:conjugate\]) and (\[eqn:jacobi\]) necessary for $A$ to be a twisted graded Hecke algebra, but they are also sufficient: The relations (\[eqn:bracket\]) allow for rearrangement of any expression in $A$ to a particular form identified with an element of $S(V){\otimes}{\mathbb{C}}G[t]$, and the relations (\[eqn:conjugate\]) and (\[eqn:jacobi\]) imply that such a form is unique. That is, (\[eqn:conjugate\]) is equivalent to uniqueness of the canonical form of $\overline{h}vu$, and (\[eqn:jacobi\]) is equivalent to uniqueness of the canonical form of $wvu$ ($u,v,w\in V$, $h\in G$), as demonstrated in [@ram-shepler03] for the case $\alpha =1$ (in the text above Lemma 1.5). The uniqueness of the form of $wvu$ is equivalent to the Jacobi identity in $A$, $$\label{eqn:jacobi2}
[u, [v,w]]+[v,[w,u]]+[w,[u,v]]=0,$$ which is another way to express the condition (\[eqn:jacobi\]). For the uniqueness of the canonical form of a monomial having more than three factors, it is helpful to note that replacing any of $u,v,w$ in the left side of (\[eqn:jacobi2\]) by an element of degree larger than 1 results in an element in the ideal generated by the left side of (\[eqn:jacobi2\]). (For more details, see [@ram-shepler03].)
Let $( \ , \ )$ be any $G$-invariant nondegenerate Hermitian form on $V$. Define orthogonal complements of subspaces of $V$ via this form. Let $g\in G$ and $V^g=\{v\in V\mid g\cdot v=v\}$. We will need the observation that $(V^g)^{\perp} =\operatorname{im}(g - 1)$, which follows from the standard facts $V^g=\ker (g-1)$, $\operatorname{im}(g-1)\subset (V^g)^{\perp}$, and $\dim (\operatorname{im}(g-1))=\dim (\ker (g-1)^{\perp})$. For any $h\in G$, denote by $h^{\perp} : (V^g)^{\perp}\rightarrow (V^g)^{\perp}$ the composition of the linear maps $h: (V^g)^{\perp} \hookrightarrow V$, $V\rightarrow V/V^g$, and a choice of isomorphism $\displaystyle{V/V^g \stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} (V^g)^{\perp}}$.
\[lem:necessary\] Suppose that $A$ is a twisted graded Hecke algebra for $G$ defined by skew-symmetric bilinear forms $a_g$ ($g\in G$) on $V$. For each $g\neq 1$, if $a_g\neq 0$ then $\operatorname{ker}a_g = V^g$, $\operatorname{codim}(V^g)=2$, and $$a_g(h\cdot v, h\cdot w)=\det(h^{\perp}) a_g(v,w)$$ for all $h\in G$ and $v,w\in (V^g)^{\perp}$.
This proof is essentially the same as in Ram and Shepler [@ram-shepler03 Lemma 1.8], with appropriate adjustments made for the possibly nontrivial two-cocycle $\alpha$.
Let $g\neq 1$ with $a_g\neq 0$. Let $v\in V$ and $w\in V^g$. If $v$ is also in $V^g$, then $a_g(v,w)(g\cdot u-u)=0$ for all $u\in V$ by (\[eqn:jacobi\]). As $g\neq 1$, there is some $u\in V$ with $g\cdot u\neq u$, so $a_g(v,w)=0$. If $v\not\in V^g$, let $u=\sum_{k=1}^r g^k\cdot v$, where $r$ is the order of $g$, so that $u\in V^g$ (possibly $u=0$). As before, this implies $a_g(u,w)=0$, and we may rewrite this equation using the definition of $u$ and (\[eqn:conjugate\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
0=a_g(u,w) &=& \sum_{k=1}^r a_g(g^k\cdot v,w)\\
&=& \sum_{k=1}^r \alpha^{-1}(g^{-k},g^k)\alpha(g,g^{-k})
\alpha(g^k,g^{1-k})a_g(v,w).\end{aligned}$$ The restriction of $\alpha$ to the cyclic subgroup $\langle g\rangle$ generated by $g$ is a coboundary since the Schur multiplier of a cyclic group is trivial [@karpilovsky85 Prop. 1.1]. Therefore there is a function $\beta:\langle g\rangle\times\langle g\rangle\rightarrow
{\mathbb{C}}^{\times}$ such that $\alpha(h,l)=\beta(h)\beta(l)\beta^{-1}(hl)$ for all $h,l\in\langle g\rangle$. It follows that the above coefficients of $a_g(v,w)$ are $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-.5in} \alpha^{-1}(g^{-k},g^k)\alpha(g,g^{-k})\alpha(g^k,g^{1-k})\\
\hspace{-3in}&=&\beta^{-1}(g^{-k})\beta^{-1}(g^k)
\beta(1)\beta(g)\beta(g^{-k})
\beta^{-1}(g^{1-k})\beta(g^k)\beta(g^{1-k})\beta^{-1}(g)\\
\hspace{-3in}&=& \beta(1),\end{aligned}$$ that is they are independent of $k$. The above calculation reduces to $0=a_g(u,w)=r\beta(1)a_g(v,w)$. As $r\beta(1)\neq 0$, this forces $a_g(v,w)=0$. Consequently $V^g\subset \operatorname{ker}a_g$, and so $(\operatorname{ker}a_g)^{\perp}
\subset (V^g)^{\perp}$.
As $a_g$ is nonzero and skew-symmetric, we have $\dim((\operatorname{ker}a_g)^{\perp})=\operatorname{codim}(\operatorname{ker}a_g)\geq 2$. Let $u,v$ be two linearly independent elements of $(\operatorname{ker}a_g)^{\perp}\subset (V^g)^{\perp}$ with $a_g(u,v)\neq 0$, so that in particular $g\cdot u - u\neq 0$ and $g\cdot v - v\neq 0$. Let $w$ be any element of $(V^g)^{\perp}
=\operatorname{im}(g-1)$, and write $w=g\cdot w'-w'$ for some $w'\in V$. By (\[eqn:jacobi\]), $w$ is a linear combination of $g\cdot u-u$ and $g\cdot v -v$, two elements of $(V^g)^{\perp}$. This implies $\dim(\operatorname{ker}a_g)^{\perp}=\dim(V^g)^{\perp} =2$, so that $V^g=\operatorname{ker}a_g$ and $\operatorname{codim}(V^g)=2$.
Finally, let $v,w\in (V^g)^{\perp}$, $h\in G$, and $$\begin{aligned}
h\cdot v &=& a_{11} v + a_{21}w +x\\
h\cdot w &=& a_{12}v+a_{22}w+x'\end{aligned}$$ where $x,x'\in V^g$ and $a_{ij}$ are scalars. Applying (\[eqn:conjugate\]), we have $a_{h^{-1}gh}(v,w)=\alpha^{-1}(h,h^{-1})
\alpha(g,h)\alpha(h^{-1},gh)a_g(h\cdot v,h\cdot w)$ on the one hand, while evaluating via the above equations yields $$\begin{array}{rcl}
a_{h^{-1}gh}(v,w) &=& \alpha^{-1}(h,h^{-1})
\alpha(g,h)\alpha(h^{-1},gh)a_g(a_{11}v
+a_{21}w+x, a_{12}v+a_{22}w +x')\\
&=& \alpha^{-1}(h,h^{-1})\alpha(g,h)\alpha(h^{-1},gh)
(a_{11}a_{22}-a_{12}a_{21}) a_g(v,w)\\
&=& \alpha^{-1}(h,h^{-1})\alpha(g,h)
\alpha(h^{-1},gh)\det(h^{\perp})a_g(v,w).
\end{array}\label{eqn:ahgh}$$ Equating the two expressions for $a_{h^{-1}gh}(v,w)$ gives $a_g(h\cdot v,h\cdot w)=\det(h^{\perp}) a_g(v,w)$, as desired.
Now suppose $g\neq 1$, $a_g\neq 0$, and $h\in C(g)=\{h\in G\mid hg=gh\}$. Then (\[eqn:ahgh\]) is equivalent to $\det(h^{\perp})=\alpha(h,h^{-1})\alpha^{-1}(g,h)\alpha^{-1}
(h^{-1},gh)$. Applying (\[eqn:alpha\]) to the triple $h,h^{-1},gh$, we find that $\alpha(h,h^{-1})\alpha^{-1}(h^{-1},gh)=\alpha(h,h^{-1}gh)
=\alpha(h,g)$ when $h\in C(g)$, so that $\det(h^{\perp})=\alpha(h,g)\alpha^{-1}(g,h)$ for all $h\in C(g)$. This condition is independent of the choice of $\alpha$ in a given coset modulo coboundaries since coboundaries are symmetric on commuting pairs as is evident from (\[eqn:coboundary\]). This is as expected since the determinant function is independent of such choices. Note that as $g\in C(g)$, (\[eqn:ahgh\]) implies $\det(g^{\perp})=1$, that is $g\in SL(V)$. Further, in case $g$ is $\alpha$-[*regular*]{}, that is $\alpha(g,h)=\alpha(h,g)$ for all $h\in C(g)$, this determinant condition is simply $\det(h^{\perp})=1$ for all $h\in C(g)$. For nonregular elements $g$, this condition is different from that in the case of the trivial cocycle, leading to new examples such as Examples \[ex:1\] and \[ex:3\] below.
\[thm:necsuff\] Let $G$ be a finite subgroup of $GL(V)$, $\alpha:G\times G
\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}^{\times}$ a normalized two-cocycle, and $g\in G-\{1\}$. There is a twisted graded Hecke algebra $A$ with $a_g\neq 0$ if, and only if, $\operatorname{ker}a_g=V^g$, $\operatorname{codim}(V^g)=2$, and $$\label{eqn:condition}
\det(h^{\perp})=\alpha(h,g)\alpha^{-1}(g,h)$$ for all $h\in C(g)$.
Again the proof is similar to that of Ram and Shepler [@ram-shepler03 Thm. 1.9] in the untwisted case. See also the paper of Etingof and Ginzburg [@etingof-ginzburg02], who used a criterion of Braverman and Gaitsgory adapted to Koszul algebras over ${\mathbb{C}}G$ [@beilinson-ginzburg-soergel96; @braverman-gaitsgory96].
If $A$ is a twisted graded Hecke algebra, Lemma \[lem:necessary\] and subsequent comments show the given conditions hold.
Conversely, suppose the stated conditions hold for $g$. Up to a scalar multiple, there is a unique skew-symmetric form on $V$ that is nondegenerate on $(V^g)^{\perp}$ and has kernel $V^g$. Fix such a form $a_g$, and let $$\label{eqn:ak}
a_k(v,w)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha^{-1}(h,h^{-1})\alpha(g,h)\alpha(h^{-1},gh) a_g(h\cdot v,h\cdot w), &
\mbox{ if } k=h^{-1}gh\\
0, & \mbox{ otherwise}\end{array}\right.$$ for all $v,w\in V$. In order for (\[eqn:conjugate\]) to hold for all pairs of group elements, we must check that the definition of $a_k$ is independent of the choice of representative from the conjugacy class of $g$. Suppose that $k=l^{-1}h^{-1}ghl$, so that there are two ways to define $a_k$. One way yields $$a_k(v,w)=\alpha^{-1}(hl,l^{-1}h^{-1})\alpha(g,hl)
\alpha(l^{-1}h^{-1},ghl)a_g(hl\cdot v,hl\cdot w),$$ and the other yields $$a_k(v,w)\hspace{5.1in}$$ $$=\alpha^{-1}(l,l^{-1})\alpha(h^{-1}gh,l)\alpha(l^{-1},h^{-1}ghl)
\alpha^{-1}(h,h^{-1})\alpha(g,h)
\alpha(h^{-1},gh)a_g(hl\cdot v,hl\cdot w).$$ These two expressions for $a_k(v,w)$ are indeed equal, as follows from five applications of (\[eqn:alpha\]), to the triple $h^{-1},gh,l$, to $l^{-1},h^{-1},ghl$, to $g,h,l$, to $hl,l^{-1},h^{-1}$, and to $h,l,l^{-1}$. By the discussion before Theorem \[thm:necsuff\], if $h^{-1}gh=g$, then (\[eqn:ak\]) coincides with $a_g(v,w)$. Therefore the definition of $a_k$ is independent of the choice of representative from the conjugacy class of $g$, and (\[eqn:conjugate\]) holds. The argument of [@ram-shepler03 Lemma 1.8(b)] applies without change to show that (\[eqn:jacobi\]) holds as well: Their key observation is that (\[eqn:jacobi\]) holds trivially if any one of $u,v,w$ is in $V^g$, while $\dim(V^g)^{\perp}=2$ implies that any three elements $u,v,w$ of $(V^g)^{\perp}$ must be linearly dependent. Substituting a linear dependence relation into the left side of (\[eqn:jacobi\]) yields 0 after some manipulation. Therefore $A$, defined by the $\{a_k\}$ in (\[eqn:ak\]), is a twisted graded Hecke algebra.
In summary, under the conditions in the theorem, $a_g$ is determined by its value $a_g(v,w)$ on a basis $v,w$ of $(V^g)^{\perp}$, and for each $h\in G$, $a_{h^{-1}gh}(v,w)$ is given by (\[eqn:ak\]).
\[cor:parameters\] Let $d$ be the number of conjugacy classes of $g\in G$ such that $\operatorname{codim}V^g =2$ and $\det(h^{\perp})=\alpha(h,g)\alpha^{-1}(g,h)$ for all $h\in C(g)$. The sets $\{a_g\}_{g\in G}$ corresponding to twisted graded Hecke algebras $A$ form a vector space of dimension $d+\dim ({\textstyle\bigwedge}^2V)^G$.
By (\[eqn:conjugate\]) and (\[eqn:jacobi\]), the only condition on $a_1$ is $a_1(v,w)=a_1(h\cdot v,h\cdot w)$ for all $h\in G$ since $\alpha(h,h^{-1})=\alpha(h^{-1},h)$, that is $a_1$ is a $G$-invariant element of $({\textstyle\bigwedge}^2V)^*$. For each conjugacy class of elements $g\in G$ with $\operatorname{codim}(V^g)=2$ and $\det(h^{\perp})=\alpha(h,g)\alpha^{-1}(g,h)$ for all $h\in C(g)$, there are skew-symmetric forms $a_g$ with kernel $V^g$, determined by a single form $a_g$ (unique up to scalar multiple) for a representative $g$, and given by (\[eqn:ak\]).
\[deg1\][*The results of this section apply if we relax one of the conditions on the forms $a_g$ a little: Allow $a_g$ to take values in ${\mathbb{C}}\oplus V^g$, that is $g$-invariant polynomials of degree at most 1. Again let $A$ be the quotient of $T(V)\#_{\alpha} G[t]$ by the ideal $I[t]$ generated by all expressions of the form (\[eqn:bracket\]). As the image of each form $a_g$ has degree at most 1, the techniques of Ram and Shepler [@ram-shepler03] still apply to yield $$a_{h^{-1}gh}(v,w)=\alpha^{-1}(h,h^{-1})\alpha(g,h)\alpha(h^{-1},gh)
\left(h^{-1}\cdot a_g(h\cdot v,h\cdot w)\right)$$ in place of (\[eqn:conjugate\]), and (\[eqn:jacobi\]) is unchanged (but now considered as a relation in $S(V)$). That is, these are necessary and sufficient conditions for $A$ to be additively isomorphic to $S(V){\otimes}{\mathbb{C}}G [t]$, leading to a generalization of Theorem \[thm:necsuff\].* ]{}
In the remainder of this section, we give several examples.
\[ex:2\][(Symplectic groups.) Let $V$ be a finite dimensional symplectic vector space over ${\mathbb{C}}$, that is $\dim V$ is even and there is a nondegenerate skew-symmetric form $\omega: V\times V\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$. Let $G$ be a finite subgroup of the symplectic group [*Sp*]{}$(V)$ of all invertible linear transformations preserving $\omega$. Let $\alpha: G\times G\rightarrow
{\mathbb{C}}^{\times}$ be the trivial two-cocycle $\alpha(g,h)=1$ for all $g,h\in G$. For each element $g\in G$ such that $\operatorname{codim}V^g =2$ (the [*symplectic reflections*]{}), let $a_g=c_g\omega_g$, where $\omega_g$ is defined to be $\omega | _{(V^g)^{\perp}}$ on $(V^g)^{\perp}=\operatorname{im}(1-g)$ and $0$ on $V^g=\ker(1-g)$, and where $c_g\in {\mathbb{C}}$ are scalars such that $c_{hgh^{-1}}=c_g$ for all $h\in G$. Let $a_1=c\omega$ for a scalar $c$ and $a_g=0$ for all other $g\in G$. By [@etingof-ginzburg02 Thm. 1.3], the collection $\{a_g\mid g\in G\}$ determines a graded Hecke algebra, called a [*symplectic reflection algebra*]{}. By Corollary \[cor:parameters\], the parameter space for the possible [*twisted*]{} graded Hecke algebras cannot be larger than that for graded Hecke algebras in the symplectic case (cf. [@chmutova]). ]{}
The next two examples, by contrast, involve groups for which the parameter space for twisted graded Hecke algebras is larger than that for graded Hecke algebras.
\[ex:1\] [(Elementary abelian groups.) Let $n\geq 3$, $\ell\geq 2$, $V={\mathbb{C}}^n$ and $G\cong ({\mathbb {Z}}/\ell {\mathbb {Z}})^{n-1}$ the multiplicative subgroup of $M_{n\times n}({\mathbb{C}})$ generated by the diagonal matrices (where $q$ is a primitive $\ell$th root of 1): $$\begin{aligned}
g_1&=&\operatorname{diag}(q,q^{-1},1,\ldots,1)\\
g_2&=&\operatorname{diag}(1,q,q^{-1},1,\ldots,1)\\
&\vdots & \\
g_{n-1}&=&\operatorname{diag}(1,\ldots,1,q,q^{-1})\end{aligned}$$ Define a function $\alpha: G\times G\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}^{\times}$ by $$\alpha(g_1^{i_1}\cdots g_{n-1}^{i_{n-1}}, \ g_1^{j_1}\cdots
g_{n-1}^{j_{n-1}}) = q^{-\sum_{1\leq k\leq n-2} i_kj_{k+1}}.$$ The relation (\[eqn:alpha\]) may be checked directly. For each generator $g_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,n-1$), as well as for $g_n=g_1^{-1}\cdots g_{n-1}^{-1}$, we have $\det(h^{\perp})=\alpha(h,g_i)
\alpha^{-1}(g_i,h)$ for all $h\in G$, as follows from a straightforward computation. Thus we have a twisted graded Hecke algebra in which the forms $a_{g_1},\ldots,a_{g_n}$ are all nonzero (and other $a_g=0$). (Note that some of the relevant determinants are not 1. There is no nontrivial (untwisted) graded Hecke algebra in this case.) If $\ell\neq 2$, it may be checked that this gives the full parameter space of twisted graded Hecke algebras corresponding to this cocycle $\alpha$. If $\ell =2$, this determinant condition is in fact satisfied for all $g$ with $\operatorname{codim}(V^g)=2$, and so there is a larger parameter space of twisted graded Hecke algebras in this case. This example is discussed in a different context in [@witherspoon Example 4.1], which generalizes [@caldararu-giaquinto-witherspoon04 Example 4.7]. ]{}
\[ex:3\]
(Symmetric groups.) Let $G=S_n$, acting on $V={\mathbb{C}}^n$ by the permutation representation. Let $\alpha$ be the unique nontrivial two-cocycle (up to coboundary). The Schur representation group for $S_n$ is $$\Gamma_n=\langle t_1,\ldots,t_{n-1},\tau\mid\tau^2=1,
t_i^2=1, \tau t_i=t_i\tau, (t_i t_{i+1})^3=1,
(t_it_j)^2=\tau (i\leq j-2)\rangle.$$ (See for example [@karpilovsky85 p. 179].) A two-cocycle $S_n\times S_n\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}^{\times}$ is determined up to coboundary by an irreducible representation of the Schur representation group $\Gamma_n$ for which the central element $\tau$ necessarily acts as multiplication by a scalar. As $\tau^2=1$, this scalar must be $-1$ in case of the nontrivial cocycle $\alpha$. Let $g=(12)(34)$. The presentation of $\Gamma_n$ may be used to check that $$\det(h^{\perp})=\alpha(h,g)\alpha^{-1}(g,h)$$ for all $h\in C(g)$. For example, letting $h=(12)$, we have $\det(h^{\perp})=-1$. Choose a section $T:S_n\rightarrow \Gamma_n$ of the projection from $\Gamma_n$ to $S_n$ that sends $\tau$ to $1$ and $t_i$ to the transposition $(i, i+1)$ as follows: Let $T(12)=t_1$, $T(34)=t_3$, $T((12)(34))=t_1t_3$, and choose other images arbitrarily. Then $\alpha(h,g)\alpha^{-1}(g,h)$ is the scalar by which the following element acts on an irreducible representation of $\Gamma_n$: $$\hspace{-.3in}T(12)T((12)(34))T((12)(12)(34))^{-1} T((12)(34)(12))
T(12)^{-1}T((12)(34))^{-1}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{1in}&=& T(12)T(12)T(34)T(34)^{-1} T(34)T(12)^{-1}T((12)(34))^{-1}\\
\hspace{1in}&=& T(34)T(12)T(34)T(12)\\
\hspace{1in}&=& \tau,\end{aligned}$$
thus the scalar is $-1$ as desired. Other elements $h$ of $C(g)$ may be checked similarly; as $h\mapsto \det(h^{\perp})$ is a group homomorphism, it suffices to check the condition (\[eqn:condition\]) on generators of $C(g)$. Therefore there is a twisted graded Hecke algebra corresponding to $\alpha$ with $a_g\neq 0$. (Compare with trivial $\alpha$, where $a_g$ is necessarily 0 for this choice of $g$ [@ram-shepler03 Table 1].) With the choice $g=(123)$, we find as in the case of the trivial cocycle $\alpha$, that $1=\det(h^{\perp})=\alpha(h,g)\alpha^{-1}(g,h)$ for all $h\in C(g)$. Therefore the parameter space of twisted graded Hecke algebras is larger than that of graded Hecke algebras, and involves the conjugacy classes of all $g\in G$ for which $\operatorname{codim}V^g =2$.
Deformations of crossed products
================================
In this section, we prove that the twisted graded Hecke algebras of the previous section are precisely the deformations of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$ of a particular type. We use this connection to deformations to put our results and examples in a larger context.
Let $t$ be an indeterminate. Given any associative algebra $R$ over ${\mathbb{C}}$ (for example $R=S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$), a [*deformation of $R$ over ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$*]{} is an associative ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$-algebra with underlying vector space $R[t]={\mathbb{C}}[t]{\otimes}R$ and multiplication of the form $$r*s=rs+\mu_1(r,s)t +\mu_2(r,s)t^2+\cdots +\mu_p(r,s)t^p$$ for all $r,s\in R$, where $rs$ denotes the product of $r$ and $s$ in $R$, the $\mu_i:R\times R\rightarrow R$ are ${\mathbb{C}}$-bilinear maps extended to be ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$-bilinear, and $p$ depends on $r,s$. Associativity of $*$ implies that $\mu_1$ is a [*Hochschild two-cocycle*]{}, that is $$\label{eqn:hochschild}
\mu_1(w,r)s+\mu_1(wr,s)=\mu_1(w,rs)+w\mu_1(r,s)$$ for all $w,r,s\in R$, as well as further conditions on the $\mu_i$, $i\geq 1$. The cocycle $\mu_1$ is called the [*infinitesimal*]{} of the deformation. (See [@gerstenhaber64] or [@giaquinto-zhang98] for the details from algebraic deformation theory.)
Recall that $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$ is a graded algebra where we assign degree 1 to elements of $V$ and degree 0 to elements of $G$.
\[thm:equivalence\] Up to isomorphism, the twisted graded Hecke algebras are precisely the deformations of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$ over ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$ for which $\deg \mu_i = -2i$ ($i\geq 1$).
Let $A$ be a twisted graded Hecke algebra, as defined in Section 2. Let $v_1,\ldots,
v_n$ be a basis of $V$ and choose the section of the projection from $T(V)$ to $S(V)$ in which a word in $T(V)$ is written in the order $v_1^{i_1}\cdots v_n^{i_n}$. Express all elements of $A$ in terms of this section, writing group elements on the right. Such expressions in $A$ exist and are unique due to the additive isomorphism $A\cong
S(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]$. Now let $r=v_1^{i_1}\cdots v_n^{i_n}
\overline{g}$ and $s=v_1^{j_1}\cdots v_n^{j_n}\overline{h}$ be elements of $A$. Denoting the product in $A$ by $*$, we have $$r*s=\alpha(g,h)v_1^{i_1}\cdots v_n^{i_n}*(g\cdot v_1^{j_1}
\cdots v_n^{j_n})\overline{gh}.$$ The factor $v_1^{i_1}\cdots v_n^{i_n}(g\cdot v_1^{j_1}\cdots
v_n^{j_n})$ may now be rearranged using (\[eqn:bracket\]) repeatedly until it is in the standard form for elements of $A$ discussed above. The result will be of the form $$r*s=rs+\mu_1(r,s)t+\mu_2(r,s)t^2+\cdots +\mu_p(r,s)t^p,$$ where $rs$ is identified with the product of $r$ and $s$ in $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$, via the additive isomorphism $A\cong S(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]$, and $\mu_1(r,s),\ldots,\mu_p(r,s)$ are elements of $A$ also identified with elements of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$. This is a finite process as each time (\[eqn:bracket\]) is applied, the degree drops. As the multiplication $*$ in the twisted graded Hecke algebra $A$ is bilinear and associative, the maps $\mu_i$ are bilinear and thus $A$ is a deformation of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$ over ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$. (Alternatively, the existence of the obvious algebra isomorphism $A/tA\cong S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$ implies that $A$ is a deformation of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$ over ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$.) The conditions on the $\mu_i$ stated in the theorem are consequences of the relations (\[eqn:bracket\]), by induction on the degree $\sum_{k=1}^n (i_k+j_k)$ of a product $v_1^{i_1}\cdots v_n^{i_n}*v_1^{j_1}\cdots v_n^{j_n}$.
Conversely, suppose that $A$ is a deformation of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$ over ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$ satisfying the given conditions. By definition, $A\cong S(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]$ as a vector space over ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$. Define a ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$-linear map $\phi: T(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]\rightarrow A$ by $$\phi(v_{i_1}\cdots v_{i_m}\overline{g}) = v_{i_1} * \cdots
* v_{i_m} *\overline{g}$$ for all words $v_{i_1}\cdots v_{i_m}$ in $T(V)$ and $g\in G$. It may be checked that $\phi$ is an algebra homomorphism since $T(V)$ is free on $v_1,\ldots, v_n$, and since $\mu_i({\mathbb{C}}^{\alpha}G,{\mathbb{C}}^{\alpha}G)=
\mu_i({\mathbb{C}}^{\alpha}G,V)=\mu_i(V,{\mathbb{C}}^{\alpha}G)=0$ for all $i\geq 1$ by the degree condition on $\mu_i$. We will show, by induction on degree, that $\phi$ is surjective: First note that $\phi(\overline{g})=\overline{g}$ and $\phi(v\overline{g})=v
\overline{g}$ for all $v\in V$, $g\in G$. Now we would like to show that an arbitrary basis monomial $v_{i_1}\cdots v_{i_m}\overline{g}$ ($i_1\leq\cdots\leq i_m$) of $A$ is in $\operatorname{im}(\phi)$. Assume $v_{i_2}\cdots v_{i_m}\overline{g}=\phi(X)$ for some element $X$ of $T(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(v_{i_1}X)&=&\phi(v_{i_1})*\phi(X) \\
&=& v_{i_1} * v_{i_2}\cdots v_{i_m}\overline{g}\\
&=& v_{i_1}\cdots v_{i_m}\overline{g} + \mu_1(v_{i_1},v_{i_2}\cdots v_{i_m}
\overline{g})t + \mu_2(v_{i_1},v_{i_2}\cdots v_{i_m}
\overline{g})t^2 + \cdots\end{aligned}$$ By induction on $m$, as $\mu_i$ is a map of degree $-2i$, each $\mu_j(v_{i_1},v_{i_2}\cdots v_{i_m}\overline{g})$ is in $\operatorname{im}(\phi)$. This implies $v_{i_1}\cdots v_{i_m}\overline{g}\in \operatorname{im}(\phi)$, and thus $\phi$ is surjective.
It remains to determine the kernel of $\phi$. Letting $v,w\in V$, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(vw) & = & v*w =vw+\mu_1(v,w)t\\
\phi(wv) &=& w*v=wv+\mu_1(w,v)t,\end{aligned}$$ since $\deg \mu_i = -2i$. As $vw=wv$ in $S(V)$, we may subtract to obtain $\phi(vw-wv)=
(\mu_1(v,w)-\mu_1(w,v))t$. Since $\deg \mu_1=-2$ and $\phi
(\overline{g})=\overline{g}$ for all $g\in G$, this implies that $$\label{eqn:kernel}
vw-wv-(\mu_1(v,w)-\mu_1(w,v))t$$ is in the kernel of $\phi$ for all $v,w\in V$. It also follows, as $\deg\mu_1 = -2$, that $$\mu_1(v,w)-\mu_1(w,v)=\sum_{g\in G} a_g(v,w)\overline{g}$$ for some functions $a_g: V\times V\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$. By definition, $a_g$ is bilinear and skew-symmetric for each $g\in G$. Let $I[t]$ be the ideal of $T(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]$ generated by all such expressions (\[eqn:kernel\]), so that $I[t]\subset\operatorname{ker}\phi$. We will use a dimension count to show that $I[t]=\operatorname{ker}\phi$: By the arguments of the previous section, $T(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]/I[t]$ is a quotient of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]$, and so has dimension in each degree no greater than that of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]$. Since $\phi$ induces a map from $T(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]/I[t]$ onto $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]$, this forces $I[t]=\operatorname{ker}\phi$ and thus $A$ is a twisted graded Hecke algebra.
The proof of Theorem \[thm:equivalence\] shows that the skew-symmetric forms $a_g$ appearing in the relations (\[eqn:bracket\]) of a twisted graded Hecke algebra arise as coefficients in the skew-symmetrization of a Hochschild two-cocycle $\mu_1$ on $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$. Hochschild cohomology thus provides an alternate approach to the study of twisted graded Hecke algebras. An advantage of this approach is that it puts the computation of the possible skew-symmetric forms $a_g$ into a larger context. A disadvantage is that, given a Hochschild two-cocycle $\mu_1$ on an algebra $R$, there is no general method for determining whether it lifts to a deformation of $R$, nor for finding the $\mu_i$ ($i\geq 2$) in case it does lift. In case $\deg(\mu_1)=-1$, Remark \[deg1\] points to existence of deformations of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$ defined by quotients of $T(V)\#_{\alpha}G[t]$ analogous to twisted graded Hecke algebras. There are a few special cases where deformations of $S(V)\#_{\alpha}G$ are known whose infinitesimals $\mu_1$ have arbitrarily high degree [@caldararu-giaquinto-witherspoon04; @witherspoon]. These examples were discovered after examining the relevant Hochschild cohomology: $${{\rm HH}}^{{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}\begin{picture}(2.5,2)
(1,1)\put(2,3.5){\circle*{2}}\end{picture}}} (S(V)\#_{\alpha}G)\cong \left(\bigoplus_{g\in G}
{\textstyle\bigwedge}^{{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}\begin{picture}(2.5,2)
(1,1)\put(2,3.5){\circle*{2}}\end{picture}}-\operatorname{codim}V^g}((V^g)^*) {\otimes}\det(((V^g)^{\perp})^*){\otimes}S(V^g)\overline{g}\right) ^G$$ additively, where the superscript $G$ denotes elements invariant under the action induced by conjugation in ${\mathbb{C}}^{\alpha}G$ and the action of $G$ on $V$, and $\det$ denotes the top exterior power. This follows from [@ginzburg-kaledin04], see (6.2) and the formula before (6.4) where $S(V)$ is replaced by ${\mathbb{C}}[M]$, or more directly from the techniques of [@AFLS], where $S(V)$ is replaced by a Weyl algebra.
We conclude by giving a broader context for the isomorphism found by Ram and Shepler between Lusztig’s and Drinfeld’s definitions of (untwisted) graded Hecke algebras for real reflection groups [@drinfeld86; @lusztig89; @ram-shepler03]. Let $W\subset GL(V)$ be a finite real reflection group. Specifically, $W$ is generated by simple reflections $s_1,\ldots,s_n$ corresponding to simple roots $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\in V$ for a root system $R$ in $V$. If $\alpha\in R$ is any root, we write $s_{\alpha}$ for the reflection corresponding to $\alpha$, so that $$s_{\alpha}\cdot v = v-\langle v,\alpha\check{\hspace{.2cm}}\rangle\alpha$$ where $\alpha\check{\hspace{.2cm}}= 2\alpha / \langle
\alpha , \alpha\rangle$, and $\langle \ , \ \rangle$ is the inner product. For each $\alpha\in R$, choose $k_{\alpha}\in{\mathbb{C}}$ in such a way that $k_{g\cdot\alpha}=k_{\alpha}$ for all $g\in W$, so that the number of independent parameters $k_{\alpha}$ is simply the number of different lengths of roots. Lusztig’s graded version of an affine Hecke algebra, as defined over ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$, is the quotient $A'$ of $T(V)\# W[t]$ by the ideal generated by all $$[v,w] \ \ \mbox{ and } \ \ \overline{s}_iv-(s_i\cdot v)\overline{s}
_i + k_{\alpha_i}
\langle v,\alpha_i\check{\hspace{.2cm}}\rangle t$$ where $v,w\in V$ and $i=1,\ldots, n$.
Ram and Shepler defined the following graded Hecke algebra and showed that it is isomorphic to Lusztig’s algebra $A'$ given above (and their isomorphism extends to one over ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$): For each $g\in W$, let $$a_g(v,w)=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{\stackrel{\alpha,\beta>0}
{g=s_{\alpha}s_{\beta}}} k_{\alpha}k_{\beta} \left(
\langle v,\beta\check{\hspace{.2cm}}\rangle\langle w,
\alpha\check{\hspace{.2cm}}\rangle -\langle v,
\alpha\check{\hspace{.2cm}}\rangle \langle w,
\beta\check{\hspace{.2cm}}\rangle\right).$$ In order to make the connection to Lusztig’s version, replace $t$ by $t^2$ in (\[eqn:bracket\]) and take the quotient $A$ of $T(V)\# W[t]$ by the ideal generated by all $$[v,w] - \sum_{g\in W}a_g(v,w)t^2 \overline{g}.$$ The resulting quotient algebra $A$ is in fact a graded Hecke algebra defined over ${\mathbb{C}}[t^2]$, however the isomorphism with Lusztig’s algebra $A'$ is not defined over ${\mathbb{C}}[t^2]$. This isomorphism $\Phi_t : A'\rightarrow A$ is given by $$\Phi_t (v) = v- t\langle v,h\rangle \ \ \mbox{ and } \ \
\Phi_t(\overline{g})= \overline{g}$$ for all $v\in V, g\in W$, where $h=\displaystyle{\frac{1}{2}}
\sum_{\alpha >0}k_{\alpha}\alpha{\check{\hspace{.2cm}}}\overline{s}_{\alpha}$, and $\langle v,h\rangle = \displaystyle{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha >0}
k_{\alpha}\langle v,\alpha\check{\hspace{.2cm}}\rangle
\overline{s}_{\alpha}}$. This may be extended uniquely to an algebra isomorphism by the calculations of Ram and Shepler. The reason for replacing $t$ by $t^2$ in the definition of $A$ is that it is necessary in order to extend their isomorphism to one defined over ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$. The only calculation that changes significantly in this context occurs in the proof that $$[\Phi_t(v),\Phi_t(w)] = [v,w] + t^2[\langle v,h\rangle ,
\langle w,h\rangle ] -t[v,\langle w,h\rangle ] +t
[w,\langle v,h\rangle ] = 0.$$ This is true as $[v,\langle w,h\rangle ] = [w,\langle v,h\rangle ]$ and $[\langle v,h\rangle , \langle w,h\rangle ] = -\sum_{g\in W}a_g(v,w)
\overline{g}$ by computations in the proof of [@ram-shepler03 Thm. 3.5].
In particular, the isomorphism $\Phi_t$ is an equivalence of deformations over ${\mathbb{C}}[t]$. This implies that the Hochschild two-cocycle corresponding to the coefficients of $t$ in the deformation $A'$ of $S(V)\# W$ is a coboundary, however there is a Hochschild two-cocycle arising from the coefficients of $t^2$ in products in $A'$ that will be cohomologous to that for $A$. (Again see [@gerstenhaber64] or [@giaquinto-zhang98] for details from the general theory of algebraic deformations.)
[99]{}
A. Adem and Y. Ruan, “Twisted orbifold $K$-theory,” Comm. Math. Phys. 237 (2003), no. 3, 533–556.
J. Alev, M. A. Farinati, T. Lambre, and A. L.Solotar, “Homologie des invariants d’une algèbre de Weyl sous l’action d’un groupe fini,” J. Algebra 232 (2000), 564–577.
A. Beilinson, V. Ginzburg, and W. Soergel, “Koszul duality patterns in representation theory,” J. Amer. Math. Soc. 9 (1996), 473–527.
D. J. Benson, [*Representations and Cohomology II: Cohomology of Groups and Modules*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1991.
A. Braverman and D. Gaitsgory, “Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem for quadratic algebras of Koszul type,” J. Algebra 181 (1996), 315–328.
A. Căldăraru, A. Giaquinto, and S. Witherspoon, “Algebraic deformations arising from orbifolds with discrete torsion,” J. Pure Appl. Algebra 187 (2004), no. 1–3, 51–70.
T. Chmutova, “Twisted symplectic reflection algebras,” [arxiv:math.RT/0505653 v1]{}.
V. G. Drinfel’d, “Degenerate affine Hecke algebras and Yangians,” Funct. Anal. Appl. 20 (1986), 58–60.
P. Etingof and V. Ginzburg, “Symplectic reflection algebras, Calogero-Moser space, and deformed Harish-Chandra homomorphism,” Invent. Math. 147 (2002), no. 2, 243–348.
M. Gerstenhaber, “On the deformation of rings and algebras,” Ann. Math. 79 (1964), 59–103.
A. Giaquinto and J. Zhang, “Bialgebra actions, twists, and universal deformation formulas,” J. Pure Appl.Algebra 128 (1998), 133–151.
V. Ginzburg and D. Kaledin, “Poisson deformations of symplectic quotient singularities,” Adv. Math. 186 (2004), no. 1, 1–57.
I. Gordon and S. P. Smith, “Representations of symplectic reflection algebras and resolutions of deformations of symplectic quotient singularities,” Math. Ann. 330 (2004), no. 1, 185–200.
G. Karpilovsky, [*Projective representations of finite groups*]{}, Marcel-Dekker, 1985.
C. Kriloff and A. Ram, “Representations of graded Hecke algebras,” Represent. Theory 6 (2002), 31–69.
G. Lusztig, “Cuspidal local systems and graded Hecke algebras I,” Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci. Math. 67 (1988), 145–202.
G. Lusztig, “Affine Hecke algebras and their graded version,” J. Amer. Math. Soc. 2 (1989), 599–635.
G. Lusztig, “Cuspidal local systems and graded Hecke algebras II,” [*Representations of Groups*]{} (Banff 1994), 217–275, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1995.
G. Lusztig, “Cuspidal local systems and graded Hecke algebras III,” Represent. Theory 6 (2002), 202–242.
A. Ram and A. V. Shepler, “Classification of graded Hecke algebras for complex reflection groups,” Comment. Math. Helv.78 (2003), no. 2, 308–334.
D. Ştefan, “Hochschild cohomology on Hopf Galois extensions,” J. Pure Appl. Algebra 103 (1995), 221–233.
C. Vafa and E. Witten, “On orbifolds with discrete torsion,” J. Geom. Phys. 15 (1995), 189–214.
C. A. Weibel, [*An Introduction to Homological Algebra*]{}, Cambridge Studies in Adv. Math. 38, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1994.
S. Witherspoon, “Skew derivations and deformations of algebras,” preprint available at [http://www.math.tamu.edu/\~sjw/preprints.html]{}.
[^1]: Partially supported by NSF grants \#DMS–0422506, 0443476.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider incorporating incomplete physics knowledge, expressed as differential equations with latent functions, into Gaussian processes (GPs) to improve their performance, especially for limited data and extrapolation. While existing works have successfully encoded such knowledge via kernel convolution, they only apply to linear equations with analytical Green’s functions. The convolution can further restrict us from fusing physics with highly expressive kernels, [[*e.g.,*]{}]{}deep kernels. To overcome these limitations, we propose Physics Regularized Gaussian Process ([PRGP]{}) that can incorporate both linear and nonlinear equations, does not rely on Green’s functions, and is free to use arbitrary kernels. Specifically, we integrate the standard GP with a generative model to encode the differential equation in a principled Bayesian hybrid framework. For efficient and effective inference, we marginalize out the latent variables and derive a simplified model evidence lower bound (ELBO), based on which we develop a stochastic collapsed inference algorithm. Our ELBO can be viewed as a posterior regularization objective. We show the advantage of our approach in both simulation and real-world applications.'
author:
- |
Zheng Wang, Wei Xing, Robert Kirby, Shandian Zhe\
School of Computing, University of Utah\
Salt Lake City, UT 84112\
`[email protected]`, `[email protected]`, `[email protected]`, `[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'PIGP.bib'
title: Physics Regularized Gaussian Processes
---
Introduction
============
Gaussian processes (GPs) are powerful nonparametric function estimators. However, as a data-driven approach, GPs can perform poorly when the training data are insufficient to reflect the complexity of the system (producing the data) or the test points are far away from the training examples, [[*i.e.,*]{}]{}extrapolation. On the other hand, physics knowledge, expressed as differential equations, are used to build physical models for various science and engineering applications [@lapidus2011numerical]. These models are meant to characterize the underlying mechanism ([[*i.e.,*]{}]{}physical processes) that drives the system and are much less restricted by data availability: they can make accurate predictions even without training data, [[*e.g.,*]{}]{}the landing of Curiosity on Mars and flight of Voyager 1.
Therefore, we consider improving GP learning with physics knowledge, especially for scarce data and extrapolation tasks. However, encoding physics into a probabilistic framework is challenging. First, differential equations are hard to represent as a probabilistic term, [[*e.g.,*]{}]{}priors and likelihoods. Second, physics knowledge are usually incomplete — the equations can include latent functions (or sources), making their representations and joint estimation with GPs even more challenging.
While the classical latent force models (LFM) @alvarez2009latent [@alvarez2013linear] can incorporate physics by kernel convolution, they are restricted to linear equations with analytical Green’s functions to enable the convolution operation. However, many realistic/complex equations are nonlinear and (or linear but) do not have analytical Green’s functions, hence cannot be exploited. Furthermore, to obtain a closed-form kernel, we have to convolve with simple/smooth kernels ([[*e.g.,*]{}]{}Gaussian), which restrict us from fusing physics with complex yet highly expressive kernels, [[*e.g.,*]{}]{}deep kernels [@wilson2016deep], unless we develop extra approximations.
To address these issues, we propose [PRGP]{}, a physics regularized GP model to avoid relying on Green’s functions, exploit both linear and nonlinear differential equations, and be free to use all kinds of expressive kernels. Specifically, we integrate the standard GP with a generative model in a principled Bayesian hybrid framework [@lasserre2006principled]. The generative component samples virtual observations and is equivalent to giving a GP prior to the latent function (source) in the equation. We then apply the differential operator (of the equation) on the posterior function of the standard GP and construct a Dirac delta prior to tightly link to the latent function in the generative component. In this way, we incorporate the information of the equation, without the need for limiting the kernel and equation types. For efficient and good-quality inference, we marginalize out all the latent variables to avoid approximating their complex posteriors. Then we use Jensen’s inequality to derive a simplified model evidence lower bound (ELBO), based on which we develop a stochastic collapsed inference algorithm. The ELBO can be further explained as a soft posterior regularization objective [@ganchev2010posterior], regularized by physics.
For evaluation, we examined [PRGP]{}in both simulations and real-world applications. [PRGP]{}uses a shallow kernel for the latent function as in LFM, and a deep kernel for the standard GP component, while LFM convolves the shallow kernel with Green’s function to derive the final kernel for GP estimation. On synthetic datasets based on two commonly used differential equations, [PRGP]{}outperforms the standard deep kernel GP, shallow kernel GP and LFM in recovering the ground-truth functions, especially in extrapolation. We then examined [PRGP]{}in four real-world applications. [PRGP]{}consistently improves upon the competing approaches in prediction accuracy. In addition, we applied [PRGP]{}for a nonlinear differential equation where LFM is unavailable. [PRGP]{}significantly outperforms standard GPs with deep/shallow kernels.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
**Standard Gaussian Process**. Suppose we aim to learn a function $f: \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ from a training set ${\mathcal{D}}= ({{\bf X}}, {{\bf y}})$, where ${{\bf X}}=[{{\bf x}}_1, \cdots, {{\bf x}}_N]^\top$, ${{\bf y}}=[y_1, \cdots, y_N]^\top$, each ${{\bf x}}_n$ is a $d$ dimensional input vector and $y_n$ the observed output. We place a GP prior, $f\sim \mathcal{GP}(m(\cdot), k(\cdot, \cdot))$ where $m(\cdot)$ is the mean function usually set to constant $0$ and $k(\cdot, \cdot)$ the covariance (kernel) function. Then, the finite projection of $f(\cdot)$ on ${{\bf X}}$, namely ${{\bf f}}= [f({{\bf x}}_1), \cdots, f({{\bf x}}_N)]^\top$, follow a multivariate Gaussian distribution, $p({{\bf f}}|{{\bf X}}) = {\mathcal{N}}({{\bf f}}|{{\bf 0}}, {{\bf K}})$ where ${{\bf K}}$ is the kernel matrix on ${{\bf X}}$ and each $[{{\bf K}}]_{i,j}=k({{\bf x}}_i, {{\bf x}}_j)$. Given the function values ${{\bf f}}$, the observed outputs ${{\bf y}}$ are sampled from a noisy model. For example, when ${{\bf y}}$ are continuous, we can use the isotropic Gaussian noise model, $p({{\bf y}}|{{\bf f}}) = {\mathcal{N}}({{\bf y}}|{{\bf f}}, \tau^{-1}{{\bf I}})$ where $\tau$ is the inverse variance. We integrate out ${{\bf f}}$ to obtain the marginal likelihood, $$\begin{aligned}
p({{\bf y}}|{{\bf X}}) = {\mathcal{N}}({{\bf y}}|{{\bf 0}}, {{\bf K}}+ \tau^{-1}{{\bf I}}). \label{eq:gp}\end{aligned}$$ To learn the model, we can maximize the likelihood to estimate the kernel parameters and the inverse variance $\tau$. Given a test input ${{\bf x}}^*$, we use a conditional Gaussian distribution to represent the posterior (or predictive) distribution of $f({{\bf x}}^*)$, $$\begin{aligned}
p\big(f({{\bf x}}^*)|{{\bf x}}^*, {{\bf X}}, {{\bf y}}\big) = {\mathcal{N}}\big(f({{\bf x}}^*)|\mu({{\bf x}}^*), v({{\bf x}}^*)\big),
\label{eq:predictive}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu({{\bf x}}^*) = {{\bf k}}_*^\top({{\bf K}}+ \tau^{-1}{{\bf I}})^{-1}{{\bf y}}$, $v({{\bf x}}^*)=k({{\bf x}}^*, {{\bf x}}^*) - {{\bf k}}_*^\top({{\bf K}}+ \tau^{-1}{{\bf I}})^{-1}{{\bf k}}_*$ and ${{\bf k}}_* = [k({{\bf x}}^*, {{\bf x}}_1), \cdots, k({{\bf x}}^*, {{\bf x}}_N)]^\top$.
**Latent Force Model**. In many applications, physics knowledge, expressed as differential equations, provides the insight of the system mechanism and can be very useful for prediction. The latent force model (LFM) [@alvarez2009latent; @alvarez2013linear] is the classical and state-of-the-art approach to incorporate the physics knowledge into GP learning. In general, LFM considers $Q$ output functions $\{f_1({{\bf x}}), \ldots, f_Q({{\bf x}})\}$, and assumes each output function $f_q({{\bf x}})$ is governed by a linear differential equation, $$\begin{aligned}
L f_q({{\bf x}}) = u_q({{\bf x}}) \label{eq:lineq}\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is the linear differential operator [@courant2008methods], $u_q$ a latent function (force) that can be further decomposed as a linear combination of several common latent functions (forces), $u_q({{\bf x}}) = \sum_{r=1}^R s_{rq}g_r({{\bf x}})$. Since $L$ is linear, if we assign a GP prior over $u_q$, $f_q({{\bf x}})$ will also have a GP prior. Further, if Green’s function [@arfken2011mathematical] — the solution of $L G({{\bf x}}, {{\bf s}}) = \delta({{\bf s}}- {{\bf x}})$ ($\delta$ is the Dirac delta function) — is available, we can obtain $f_q({{\bf x}}) = \int G({{\bf x}}, {{\bf s}})u_q({{\bf s}}) {{\rm d}}{{\bf s}}$. Hence, given the GP kernel for $u_q$, we can derive the kernel for $f_q$ through a convolution operation, $k_{f_q}({{\bf x}}_1, {{\bf x}}_2) = \iint G({{\bf x}}_1, {{\bf s}}_1) G({{\bf x}}_2, {{\bf s}}_2) k_{u_q}({{\bf s}}_1, {{\bf s}}_2) {{\rm d}}{{\bf s}}_1 {{\rm d}}{{\bf s}}_2$. To handle multiple outputs, we can place (independent) GP priors over each common latent function $g_r$, then each $u_q$ and $f_q$ will in turn obtain GP priors. Via a similar convolution, we can derive the kernel across different outputs, $k_{f_q, f_{q'}}(\cdot, \cdot)$. In this way, the physics knowledge (reflected in Green’s functions) are fused with the kernel for the latent forces, resulting in an convolved kernel, with which we can train the GP model.
Model {#sec:model}
=====
Despite the success of LFM, the precondition for using LFM might be too restrictive. To enable the kernel convolution, LFM requires that the differential equations must be linear and have analytical Green’s functions. However, many realistic/complex equations can be nonlinear ([[*e.g.,*]{}]{}Burger’s equation [@olsen2011numerical]) and (or linear but) do not possess analytical Green’s functions; hence they cannot be exploited. In particular cases, even with a tractable Green’s function, a complete kernel of all the input variables is still infeasible to obtain. For example, the Green’s function of the commonly used diffusion equation [@olsen2011numerical] takes the form $G(x, \xi, t)$ ($x$ and $t$ are spatial and time variables) [@polyanin2015handbook], with which we can only convolve on $\xi$ to obtain a kernel of spatial variables (at a fixed time $t$), and we cannot incorporate different time variables. Finally, in order to obtain an analytical kernel after the convolution, we have to convolve Green’s functions with simple/smooth kernels ([[*e.g.,*]{}]{}Gaussian). This may prevent us from integrating the physics knowledge into more complex yet highly flexible kernels. For example, the recently proposed deep kernels [@wilson2016deep] are constructed from deep neural networks, can perform much better feature mapping than the shallow ones and greatly improve the performance. To handle the intractable integral, we need to develop extra approximations, [[*e.g.,*]{}]{}Monte-Carlo approximation.
To address these issues, we propose [PRGP]{}, a physics regularized GP model that does not count on Green’s functions, can exploit both linear and nonlinear equations, and is free to use all kinds of expressive kernels. Our model is presented as follows.
Physics Regularized Gaussian Process
------------------------------------
First, we assume the differential equation that describes the physics knowledge in general takes the following form, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi f({{\bf x}}) = g({{\bf x}}) \label{eq:pde} \end{aligned}$$ where $\psi$ is a differential operator, linear or nonlinear, $f({{\bf x}})$ is the target function we want to estimate from a training dataset ${\mathcal{D}}= ({{\bf X}}, {{\bf y}})$, $g({{\bf x}})$ is a latent function (or force) and we do not know its form. Note that the operator $\psi$ may include unknown parameters as well. One example is $\psi f(x) = \frac{{{\rm d}}f(x)}{{{\rm d}}x} + \alpha f(x) - \beta$, where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are unknown parameters. This is a linear operator and the input variable $x$ is a scalar. Another example is the viscous version of Burger’s equation [@olsen2011numerical], $\psi f({{\bf x}}) = \frac{\partial f({{\bf x}})}{\partial x_1} + f({{\bf x}})\frac{\partial f({{\bf x}})}{\partial x_2} - v \frac{\partial^2 f({{\bf x}})}{\partial x_{2}^2}$, where ${{\bf x}}= [x_1, x_2]^\top$, $x_1$ is the spatial variable, $x_2$ the time variable, and $v$ the unknown viscosity parameter. This is a nonlinear equation (due to the product term $f({{\bf x}})\frac{\partial f({{\bf x}})}{\partial x_2}$) and does not have any analytical Green’s function.
![The graphical representation of [PRGP]{}[]{data-label="fig:graphical-model"}](./fig/graphic-new.eps){width="32.00000%"}
To incorporate the physics knowledge in , we propose a hybrid of conditional and generative models based on the general framework proposed by @lasserre2006principled. The conditional component is the standard GP that given the training inputs ${{\bf X}}$, samples the (noisy) output observations ${{\bf y}}$, and the probability $p({{\bf y}}|{{\bf X}})$ is provided in . To benefit learning, we can choose any expressive kernel (covariance) function, like deep kernels. The generative component is for the unknown function (source) $g({{\bf x}})$ in . As in LFM, we want to assign a GP prior over $g(\cdot)$. To this end, we first sample a finite set of input locations ${{\bf Z}}= [{{\bf z}}_1, \ldots, {{\bf z}}_m]^\top$ (we will discuss the choice of $p({{\bf Z}})$ later). Then the projection of $g$ on ${{\bf Z}}$ follows a multivariate Gaussian distribution, $$\begin{aligned}
p({{\bf g}}|{{\bf Z}}) = {\mathcal{N}}({{\bf g}}|{{\bf 0}}, {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}) = {\mathcal{N}}({{\bf 0}}|{{\bf g}}, {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}) \label{eq:gp-g}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\bf g}}= [g({{\bf z}}_1), \ldots, g({{\bf z}}_m)]^\top$, $[{\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}]_{ij} = \kappa({{\bf z}}_i, {{\bf z}}_j)$ and $\kappa(\cdot, \cdot)$ is another kernel. We can see that placing a finite GP prior over $g$ is equivalent to sampling a set of virtual observations ${{\bf 0}}$, due to the symmetry of the Gaussian distribution. Hence, the sampling of the inputs ${{\bf Z}}$ and virtual observations ${{\bf 0}}$ constitute the generative component, and the probability is given by $$\begin{aligned}
p({{\bf 0}}, {{\bf Z}}|{{\bf g}}) = p({{\bf Z}})p({{\bf 0}}|{{\bf Z}}, {{\bf g}})=p({{\bf Z}}){\mathcal{N}}({{\bf 0}}|{{\bf g}}, {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}) \label{eq:prob-gen}. \end{aligned}$$
Now, we link the conditional model ([[*i.e.,*]{}]{}standard GP) and generative model via the differential equation . Specifically, we observe that from the GP posterior distribution , the posterior function of any input takes the following form, $f(\cdot) = \mu(\cdot) + \epsilon \sqrt{v(\cdot)}$, where $\epsilon \sim {\mathcal{N}}(\epsilon|0, 1)$, $\mu(\cdot)$ and $\sqrt{v(\cdot)}$ are posterior mean and standard deviation functions. While this is a random function (due to $\epsilon$), we can still apply the differentiation operator to obtain the differentiated posterior function, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi f(\cdot) = \psi \mu(\cdot) + \epsilon \psi\sqrt{v(\cdot)}. \label{eq:psi_f}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, for any input ${{\bf x}}$, we can sample $\psi f({{\bf x}})$ from ${\mathcal{N}}\big(\cdot| \psi \mu({{\bf x}}), \big( \psi\sqrt{v({{\bf x}})} \big)^2 \big)$. We therefore sample ${\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}= [\psi f({{\bf z}}_1), \ldots, \psi f({{\bf z}}_m)]^\top$ from $$\begin{aligned}
p({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf Z}}, {{\bf X}}, {{\bf y}}) = \prod\nolimits_{j=1}^m {\mathcal{N}}\big(\widetilde{g}_j|\psi\mu({{\bf z}}_j), \big(\psi\sqrt{v({{\bf z}}_j)}\big)^2\big), \notag $$ where $\widetilde{g}_j=\psi f({{\bf z}}_j)$. Note that ${\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}$ correspond to L.H.S values of the equation on ${{\bf Z}}$. We then use a prior for ${{\bf g}}$ conditional on ${\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}$ to tie the standard GP and the generative component, $$\begin{aligned}
p({{\bf g}}|{\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}) = {\mathcal{N}}({{\bf g}}|{\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}, v{{\bf I}}). \end{aligned}$$ To reflect the fact that ${{\bf g}}$ and ${\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}$ should be identical (according to ), we take the limit when $v \rightarrow 0$ so that $p({{\bf g}}|{\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}) = \delta({{\bf g}}- {\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}})$ where $\delta(\cdot)$ is the Dirac delta function. Finally, the joint probability is $$\begin{aligned}
&p({{\bf y}}, {{\bf Z}}, {\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}, {{\bf g}}, {{\bf 0}}|{{\bf X}}) =p({{\bf y}}|{{\bf X}}) p({{\bf Z}})p({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf Z}}, {{\bf X}}, {{\bf y}}) p({{\bf g}}|{\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}})p({{\bf 0}}|{{\bf g}}, {{\bf Z}}) \notag \\
&={\mathcal{N}}({{\bf y}}|{{\bf 0}}, {{\bf K}}+ \tau^{-1}{{\bf I}}) p({{\bf Z}}) \notag \\
& \cdot \prod\nolimits_{j=1}^m {\mathcal{N}}\big(\widetilde{g}_j |\psi\mu({{\bf z}}_j), \big(\psi\sqrt{v({{\bf z}}_j)}\big)^2\big) \delta({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}- {{\bf g}}) {\mathcal{N}}({{\bf 0}}|{{\bf g}}, {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}). \label{eq:joint}\end{aligned}$$ The graphical representation of [PRGP]{}is shown in Fig. \[fig:graphical-model\]. The generative component fulfills a GP prior of the latent function, which, combined with the differential operator, regularizes the GP modeling of the target function $f(\cdot)$. In this way, we incorporate the physics to guide the learning of $f$, without the need for specifying the form or type of the equation. The choice of $p({{\bf Z}})$ is flexible. If we have no knowledge about the input distribution, we can use a uniform distribution for the bounded domain, and for unbounded domains we can use a wide Gaussian distribution with zero mean or uniform distribution on a region large enough to cover our interested predictions.
Algorithm {#sec:algorithm}
=========
Stochastic Collapsed Inference
------------------------------
We now present the model inference algorithm. The exact posterior of the latent random variables ${{\bf g}}$, ${\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}$ and ${{\bf Z}}$ in are infeasible to calculate because they are coupled in kernels and differentiation operators. While we can use variational approximations, they will introduce extra variational parameters, complicate the optimization and affect the integration of the physics knowledge. Therefore, we marginalize out all the latent variables to conduct collapsed inference to avoid approximating their complex posteriors. Specifically, we can derive that $p({{\bf y}}, {{\bf 0}}|{{\bf X}}) = p({{\bf y}}|{{\bf X}})p({{\bf 0}}|{{\bf y}}, {{\bf X}})$, where $$\begin{aligned}
&p({{\bf 0}}|{{\bf y}}, {{\bf X}}) =\int p({{\bf Z}}) p({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf Z}}, {{\bf X}}, {{\bf y}}) p({{\bf g}}|{\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}) p({{\bf 0}}|{{\bf g}}, {{\bf Z}}) {{\rm d}}{{\bf g}}{{\rm d}}{\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}{{\rm d}}{{\bf Z}}\notag \\
& ={\mathbb{E}}_{p({{\bf Z}})}{\mathbb{E}}_{p({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf Z}}, {{\bf X}}, {{\bf y}})} \notag \\ & \cdot [\int \delta({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}- {{\bf g}}) {\mathcal{N}}({{\bf 0}}|{{\bf g}}, {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}}) {{\rm d}}{{\bf g}}] \notag\\ &\qquad \qquad= {\mathbb{E}}_{p({{\bf Z}})}{\mathbb{E}}_{p({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf Z}}, {{\bf X}}, {{\bf y}})} [{\mathcal{N}}({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf 0}}, {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}})]. \label{eq:gen_marginal}\end{aligned}$$ Further, to allow us to adjust the importance of the generative component and so the influence of the physics during training, we weight the likelihood of the generative component by a free hyper-parameter $\gamma \ge 0$. The weighted marginal likelihood [@warm1989weighted; @hu2002weighted] is $$\begin{aligned}
p_\gamma ({{\bf y}}, {{\bf 0}}|{{\bf X}}) = p({{\bf y}}|{{\bf X}}) p({{\bf 0}}|{{\bf X}}, {{\bf y}})^{\gamma}.\end{aligned}$$ Our inference is to maximize the log weighted marginal likelihood to optimize the kernel parameters in $k(\cdot, \cdot)$ and $\kappa(\cdot, \cdot)$, the inverse noise variance $\tau$ and unknown parameters in the differential equation, $\log p_\gamma ({{\bf y}}, {{\bf 0}}|{{\bf X}}) = \log \big({\mathcal{N}}({{\bf y}}|{{\bf 0}}, {{\bf K}}+ \tau^{-1}{{\bf I}})\big) + \gamma \log \big({\mathbb{E}}_{p({{\bf Z}})}{\mathbb{E}}_{p({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf Z}}, {{\bf X}},{{\bf y}})} [{\mathcal{N}}({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf 0}}, {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}})]\big)$. Obviously, the log likelihood is infeasible to compute due to the intractable expectation inside the logarithm. To address this problem, we use Jensen’s equality on the log function to obtain a model evidence lower bound (ELBO), $\log p_\gamma ({{\bf y}}, {{\bf 0}}|{{\bf X}}) \ge {\mathcal{L}}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{L}}= \log \big({\mathcal{N}}({{\bf y}}|{{\bf 0}}, {{\bf K}}+ \tau^{-1}{{\bf I}})\big) \notag \\ &+ \gamma \cdot {\mathbb{E}}_{p({{\bf Z}})}{\mathbb{E}}_{p({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf Z}}, {{\bf X}},{{\bf y}})} [\log\big({\mathcal{N}}({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf 0}}, {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}})\big)]. \label{eq: elbo}\end{aligned}$$ The ELBO is still intractable, because the expectation term is not analytical. However, since the expectation is outside the logarithm, we can maximize ${\mathcal{L}}$ via stochastic optimization. Specifically, each time, we first sample input locations ${{\bf Z}}$ from $p({{\bf Z}})$ and then generate a parameterized sample of ${\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}$. This can be efficiently done by the reparameterization trick [@kingma2013auto]: according to , given each sample ${{\bf z}}_j$, to generate a parameterized sample for $[{\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}]_j = \psi f({{\bf z}}_j)$, we can sample a standard Gaussian random variable $\epsilon \sim {\mathcal{N}}(0,1)$, and construct the sample by $h_j = \psi \mu({{\bf z}}_j) + \epsilon \cdot \psi \sqrt{v({{\bf z}}_j)}$. We then substitute the parameterized samples $[h_1, \ldots, h_m]^\top$ for ${\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}$ in $\log\big({\mathcal{N}}({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf 0}}, {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}})\big)$ to obtain the unbiased estimate $\widetilde{{\mathcal{L}}}$. We calculate $\nabla \widetilde{{\mathcal{L}}}$ as an unbiased stochastic gradient of ${\mathcal{L}}$, with which we can use any stochastic optimization to estimate the model parameters. Despite its simplicity, the ELBO ${\mathcal{L}}$ in includes an interesting term, ${\mathbb{E}}_{p({{\bf Z}})}{\mathbb{E}}_{p({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf Z}}, {{\bf X}},{{\bf y}})} [\log\big({\mathcal{N}}({\widetilde{{{\bf g}}}}|{{\bf 0}}, {\boldsymbol{\Sigma}})\big)]$, in addition to the standard GP log marginal likelihood. Jointly maximizing this term in ${\mathcal{L}}$ encourages that all the possible latent function values (at $m$ locations) obtained from the GP posterior function $f(\cdot)$ (via the differential operator $\psi$) should be considered as the samples of another GP. This can be viewed as a soft constraint over the posterior function of the original GP model. Therefore, our ELBO is also a posterior regularization objective [@ganchev2010posterior], and our inference algorithm can be viewed as estimating a standard GP model with a soft regularization on its posterior distribution .
Algorithm Complexity
--------------------
The time complexity for the inference of our model is ${\mathcal{O}}(N^3 + m^3)$, because it involves the calculation for two GPs: one is the standard model, and the other is in the generative component. The time complexity for prediction is still ${\mathcal{O}}(N^3)$. The space complexity is ${\mathcal{O}}(N^2 + m^2)$, including the storage of the kernel matrices of the two GPs.
Discussion and Related Work
===========================
A critical difference between [PRGP]{}and LFM is that [PRGP]{}integrates the physics knowledge as a soft regularization in GP learning while LFM makes a hard encoding in the kernel space via Green’s functions. Not only can our soft integration accommodate more complex differential equations and expressive kernels, but also it enables a flexible combination of the physics knowledge and data information by choosing the likelihood weight $\gamma$ and number of random input locations $m$ (when $m \rightarrow \infty$, [PRGP]{}achieves the hard encoding, [[*i.e.,*]{}]{}$\psi f(\cdot) = g(\cdot)$). This makes [PRGP]{}particularly useful, because in real world, physical modeling often cannot guarantee a perfect match to the data generation process; there can be some mismatch/gap. In such cases, an over-rigid integration might instead restrict the model from fully capturing information in the data and hurt the performance. On the contrary, the freedom to adjust the strength and degree of the physics constraints may allow us to better synergize/utilize the information in the both sources. An excellent follow-up work [@hartikainen2012state] uses the stochastic differential equation representation of the GP prior with a stationary kernel to formulate the problem as a latent state space model. While the model does not reply Green’s function as well, it is no longer a GP and does not enjoy the nonparametric learning nature. In addition, the model only applies to differential equations with one variable ([[*e.g.,*]{}]{}ODEs) and cannot exploit more complex equations, like PDEs.
It is known that applying a linear (partial) differential operator on a GP will result in another GP [@graepel2003solving]. Many excellent works have been done in this direction [@graepel2003solving; @lawrence2007modelling; @gao2008gaussian; @alvarez2009latent; @alvarez2013linear; @raissi2017machine]. For example, @graepel2003solving uses GPs to solve the linear equation given observed noisy forces ($u_q(\cdot)$ in ). He first defines the kernel for the solution function ($f_q(\cdot)$ in ) with which to derive the kernel for the forces. The kernel parameters are then estimated from the noisy forces data, given which the solution can be predicted. @raissi2017machine assume both the noisy forces and solutions are observed, and they jointly model these examples in one single GP with a heterogeneous block covariance matrix. Other excellent works related to GP derivatives include [@calderhead2009accelerating; @barber2014gaussian; @heinonen2018learning] [[*etc.*]{}]{}They mainly focus on estimating parameters/operators in ODEs without latent functions/forces as assumed in LFM and our work. Posterior regularization is a powerful inference methodology [@ganchev2010posterior]. In general, the objective includes the model likelihood on data and a penalty term that encodes the constrains over the posterior of the latent variables. Many successful posterior regularization algorithms have been proposed, [[*e.g.,*]{}]{} [@he2013graph; @ganchev2013cross; @zhu2014bayesian; @bilen2014weakly; @libbrecht2015entropic; @song2016kernel]. While our inference algorithm is developed for a Bayesian hybrid model, the ELBO optimized in the inference is a typical posterior regularization objective that estimates a standard GP model and meanwhile penalizes the posterior of the (target) function to encourage the consistency with the differential equations. This aligns with our modeling goal.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Simulation
----------
We first examined if [PRGP]{}can improve extrapolation with appropriate physics knowledge. We generated two synthetic datasets. The first dataset, *1stODE*, was simulated from a first-order Ordinary Differential Equation (ODE), $\frac{\partial f(t)}{\partial t} + B\cdot f(t) - D = g(t)$ where $B = D = 1$, $g(t) = \sin(2\pi t)\exp(-t)$ and the initial condition $f(0) = 0.1$. We set the time domain $t \in [0, 1]$. We ran the finite difference algorithm [@mitchell1980finite] to obtain the accurate solution. We chose $1,001$ equally spaced time points ($t_0 = 0, t_{1000} = 1$) and their solution values as the dataset. The second dataset, *1dDiffusion*, was simulated from a diffusion equation with one dimensional spatial domain, $\frac{\partial f(x, t)}{\partial t} - \alpha \frac{\partial f^2(x,t)}{\partial x^2} = g(x, t)$ where $\alpha = 10$, $g(x, t) = 0$ and the initial condition $f(x, 0)$ is a square wave. We set the domain $(x,t) \in [0, 1] \times [0, 1]$. We ran a numerical solver to obtain the accurate solution. Then we discretized the entire spatial and time domain into a $48 \times 101$ grid with equal spacing in each dimension. We retrieved the grid points and their solution values as our dataset.
**Competing methods**. We compared with GP regression using (1) SE-ARD kernel (GP-ARD) and (2) the deep kernel (GP-DEEP), and (3) LFM, which uses SE-ARD for the latent force (function), and then convolves it with Green’s function to obtain the kernel for the target function. To construct a deep kernel, we followed [@wilson2016deep] to feed the input variables to a (deep) neural network (NN) and calculated the RBF kernel over the neural network outputs. Across our experiments, we used a 5-layer NN, with 20 nodes in each hidden and output layer. We used $\mathrm{tanh}(\cdot)$ as the activation function. For our method [PRGP]{}, we used the same deep kernel for the solution function. As in LFM, we used SE-ARD kernel for the latent function. We set the number of virtual observations $m=10$ for the generative component, and uniformly sampled the input locations from the entire domain (see ). We chose the weight of the generative component $\gamma$ from $\{0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10\}$. For both LFM and [PRGP]{}, the parameters of differential equations are unknown. All the methods were implemented with TensorFlow [@abadi2016tensorflow]. For our method, we used ADAM [@kingma2014adam] for stochastic inference. We ran 10K epochs to ensure convergence. For the other methods, we used L-BFGS for optimization and set the maximum number of iterations to 5K.
To test extrapolation on *1stODE* , we used the first $101$ samples ($t_i \in [0, 0.1]$) for training, and the remaining $900$ samples ($t_i \in (0.1, 1]$) for test. We show the posterior distribution of the functions learned by all the methods and the ground-truth in Fig. \[fig:ode\]. We can see that the predictions of GPR-ARD and GPR-DEEP are largely biased when the test points are far from the training region $[0, 0.1]$. On average, GPR-DEEP obtains better accuracy than GPR-ARD. The root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) are {GPR-DEEP:0.21, GPR-ARD:0.25}. As a comparison, the posterior means of LFM and [PRGP]{}are much closer to the ground-truth in the test region, and the RMSEs are {LFM: 0.09, [PRGP]{}: 0.04}, showing the benefit of the incorporated physics. However, LFM is quite unstable in extrapolation: the farther away the test area, the more fluctuating the prediction. By contrast, [PRGP]{}obtains much smoother curves that are even closer to the ground-truth, and smaller posterior variances in the test region. Hence, it shows that the LFM kernel obtained from shallow kernel convolution is less expressive/powerful than the regularized deep kernel in [PRGP]{}. Note that unlike GPR-ARD/DEEP, both LFM and [PRGP]{}estimated nontrivial posterior variances ([[*i.e.,*]{}]{}not extremely close to 0) in the training region, implying that the physics also helps prevent GPs from overfitting. Since for diffusion equations, LFM cannot derive the kernel for time variable $t$, for a fair comparison on *1dDiffusion*, we fixed $t=0.5$ and used the $48$ spatial points as the training inputs. While the kernel of LFM is for the spatial input only, all the other methods used both the spatial and time inputs. We then evaluated the posterior distribution of the function values at all the grid points ($48 \times 101$) in the entire domain. We report the absolute difference between the posterior mean and ground-truth in Fig. \[fig:1ddiffu\]a-d. From Fig. \[fig:1ddiffu\]a and b, we can see that the prediction errors of GPR-ARD/DEEP are close to $0$ (dark colors) in regions close to the training data ($t=0.5$). However, when the test points are getting far away, say, close to the boundary ($t=0$ or $1$), the error grows significantly (see the bright colors). Overall, GPR-DEEP achieves smaller extrapolation error than GPR-ARD, implying an advantage of using more flexible kernels. From Fig. \[fig:1ddiffu\]c, we can see that while LFM misses the time information, it still exhibits better extrapolation results, as compared with GPR-ARD/DEEP. It shows the benefit of the physics knowledge. Finally, [PRGP]{}achieves even smaller prediction error ([[*i.e.,*]{}]{}darker) when $t$ is away from the training time point and exhibits even best extrapolation performance. The RMSEs of all the methods are {GPR-ARD: 0.18, GPR-DEEP: 0.11, LFM: 0.09, [PRGP]{}:0.07}. We also examined the predictive standard deviation of each method. It shows that [PRGP]{}also reduces the uncertainty of the extrapolation prediction. The details are provided in the supplementary material.
[cccc]{}
[0.25]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.25]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.25]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.25]{} {width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:ode\]
[ccccc]{}
[0.05]{}
&
[0.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[ccc]{}
[0.33]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.33]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.33]{} {width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:jura-motion\]
Real-World Applications
-----------------------
**Metal Pollution in Swiss Jura.** Next, we evaluated [PRGP]{}in real-world applications. We examined the predictive performance in terms of normalized RMSE (nRMSE) and test log-likelihood (LL). Due to the space limit, the test LL results are provided in the supplementary material (Sec. 2). We first considered predicting the metal concentration in Swiss Jura. The data were collected from 300 locations in a 14.5 km$^2$ region (<https://rdrr.io/cran/gstat/man/jura.html>). The diffusion of the metal concentration is naturally modelled by a diffusion equation with the two-dimensional spatial domain, $\frac{\partial f(x_1, x_2, t)}{\partial t} = \alpha (\frac{\partial f^2(x_1,x_2, t)}{\partial x_1^2} +\frac{\partial f(x_1, x_2, t)}{\partial x_2^2})$, where $f(\cdot, \cdot, \cdot)$ is the concentration of the metal at a particular location and time point. However, the dataset do not include the time $t_s$ when these concentrations were measured. LFM considers the initial condition $f(x_1, x_2,0)$ as the latent function and obtains a kernel of the locations where $t_s$ can be viewed as a kernel parameter learned from data. In our approach, we estimated the solution function at $t_s$, $h(x_1, x_2) =f(x_1, x_2, t_s)$. Hence, the equation can be viewed as $\frac{\partial h^2(x_1,x_2)}{\partial x_1^2} +\frac{\partial h^2(x_1, x_2)}{\partial x_2^2} = g(x_1, x_2)$, where the latent function $g(x_1, x_2) = \frac{1}{\alpha}\frac{\partial f(x_1, x_2, t)}{\partial t}|_{t = t_s} $. We were interested in predicting the concentration of cadium and copper. The input variables include the coordinates of the location $(x_1, x_2)$, the concentrations of {nickel, zinc} for cadmium, and {lead, nickel, zinc} for copper. For [PRGP]{}, we selected $m$ from $\{10, 50, 100, 200, 500\}$ for the generative component and $\gamma$ from $\{0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10\}$. We normalized/standardized the training inputs and then sampled latent inputs ${{\bf Z}}$ from ${\mathcal{N}}({{\bf 0}},{{\bf I}})$ in model estimation. For LFM, we varied the number of latent forces from {1,3, 5}. We randomly selected 50 samples for training, and used the remaining 250 samples for test. We repeated the experiments for 5 times, and report the average nRMSE and its standard deviation of each method in Fig. \[fig:jura-motion\]a and b. As we can see, [PRGP]{}outperforms all the competing approaches for both prediction tasks. [PRGP]{}always significantly improves upon GPR-ARD and GPR-DEEP ($p<0.05$). In addition, [PRGP]{}significantly outperforms LFM in predicting Cadium concentration (Fig. \[fig:jura-motion\]b). Note that LFM does improve upon GPR-ARD in predicting Copper concentration (Fig. \[fig:jura-motion\]a), but not as significant as [PRGP]{}. **Motion Capture.** We then looked into predicting trajectories of joints in the motion capture application. To this end, we used CMU motion capture database ( <http://mocap.cs.cmu.edu/>), from which we used the samples collected from subject 35 in the walk and jog motion lasting for 2,644 seconds. We trained all the models to predict the angles of Joint 60 along with time. We used the first order ODE in simulation to represent the physical model, based on which we ran LFM and [PRGP]{}. Note this physical system might be oversimplified [@alvarez2009latent]. For LFM, we varied the number of latent forces from {1,3, 5}. Again, we randomly selected $500$ samples for training and $2,000$ samples for test. We repeated the experiments for $5$ times and report the average nRMSE and its standard deviation in Fig. \[fig:jura-motion\]c. As we can see, [PRGP]{}improves upon all the competing methods by a large margin. Note that LFM is even far worse than GPR-ARD. This might because LFM over-exploits the over-simplified physics, which harms the prediction. By contrast, [PRGP]{}allows us to tune the number of virtual observations $m$ and the likelihood weight ($\gamma$ in ), and hence can consistently improve upon GPR-DEEP.
[cc]{}
[0.25]{} ![PM2.5 and traffic flow prediction.[]{data-label="fig:pm-traffic"}](./fig/pm25.eps "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
&
[0.25]{} ![PM2.5 and traffic flow prediction.[]{data-label="fig:pm-traffic"}](./fig/trafficflow.eps "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
**PM2.5 in Salt Lake City.** Second, we considered predicting the Particulate Matter (PM2.5) levels across Salt Lake City. The dataset were collected from sensors’ reads at different time and locations (<https://aqandu.org/>). We chose the time range from 07/04/2018 to 07/06/2018. Following [@wang2018prediction], we used the diffusion equation plus a source term ([[*i.e.,*]{}]{}the latent function) to represent the physical model, $\frac{\partial f(x_1, x_2, t)}{\partial t} - \alpha \sum_{j=1}^2\frac{\partial f^2(x_1,x_2, t)}{\partial x_j^2} = g(x_1, x_2, t)$, where $f$ is the concentration level and $g$ the source term. The input variables include both the location coordinates and detailed time points. Since LFM cannot construct a full kernel of the input variables from the physics, we did not test it to avoid unfair comparisons. We trained GPR-ARD and GPR-DEEP with both the spatial and time inputs. We randomly selected $500$ samples for training and $2,000$ samples for test. We repeated the experiments for $5$ times and report the average nRMSE and its standard deviation in Fig. \[fig:pm-traffic\]a. As we can see, with a more flexible kernel, GPR-DEEP improves upon GPR-ARD significantly, and with the incorporation of the physics, [PRGP]{}in turn outperforms GPR-DEEP significantly ($p< 0.05$).
**High-Way Traffic Flow Prediction.** Finally, we applied [PRGP]{}to predict the traffic flow in the interstate highway 215 across Utah state. The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has installed sensors every a few miles along the high way. Each sensor counts the number of vehicles passed every minute, and sends the data back to a central database. The real time data and road conditions are available at <https://udot.iteris-pems.com/>. We used the data collected by 20 sensors continuously installed in a segment of $30$ miles, and the time was chosen from 08/05/2019 to 08/11/2019. The input variables include the location coordinates of each sensor and the time of each read. Following [@nagatani2000density], we used the Burger’s equation plus a source term to describe the system, $\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + f\cdot \sum_{j=1}^2\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}- \nu \sum_{j=1}^2\frac{\partial f^2}{\partial x_j^2} = g(x_1, x_2, t)$, where $f$ is the traffic flow, $\nu$ the unknown viscous coefficient, and $g$ the source term, [[*i.e.,*]{}]{}the latent function. Note that the equation is nonlinear and we do not have an analytical form of Green’s function. Hence we cannot use LFM to incorporate the physics to enhance GP training. Hence we compared with GPR-ARD and GPR-DEEP only. We randomly selected $500$ and $2,000$ samples for training and test, respectively, and repeated for $5$ times. The average nRMSEs and the standard deviations are reported in Fig. \[fig:pm-traffic\]b. As we can see, GPR-DEEP significantly outperforms GPR-ARD, which demonstrates the advantage of the more expressive, deep kernel. More important, PRGP further improves upon GPR-DEEP, showing that the physics incorporated by our approach indeed promotes the predictive performance.
Conclusion
==========
We have presented [PRGP]{}, a physics regularized GP model that can flexibly incorporate physics knowledge from incomplete linear/nonlinear differential equations to promote GP training for limited data and extrapolation. In the future work, we will extend our model with sparse GP approximations [@GPSVI13] and explore the effect of physics for large-scale applications.
Broader Impact {#broader-impact .unnumbered}
==============
This work can be used in a variety prediction and engineering development tasks. Therefore, the work has potential positive impacts in the society if it is used to forecast weather and air quality, develop safe and high-capacity batteries, traffic management, and all the other tasks that can benefit human lives. At the same time, this work may have some negative consequences if it is used to study weapon effects or develop new weapons.
Supplementary Materials {#supplementary-materials .unnumbered}
=======================
Posterior Standard Deviation
============================
[ccccc]{}
[0.1]{}
&
[0.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.24]{} {width="\linewidth"}
On the *1dDiffusion* dataset (see Section 6.1 of the main paper), we also examined the posterior standard deviations of all the methods, as shown in Fig. \[fig:1ddiffu-psd\]. We can see that the posterior standard deviations (PSDs) of GPR-ARD/DEEP are both close to $0$ in the training region, and quickly grow when the inputs move away. On average GPR-DEEP shows smaller PSDs and smoother changes. By contrast, LFM and PRGP obtain PSDs quite uniformly across the entire domain and less than GRP-ARD/DEEP. It means that the physics knowledge help inhibit overfitting and reduce the uncertainty in extrapolation. Compared with LFM, [PRGP]{}obtains even smaller PSDs (darker color) across the domain, showing even smaller uncertainty in extrapolation. This is consistent with the results on the *1stODE* dataset.
Test Log-likelihood on Real-World Datasets
==========================================
In Fig. \[fig:jura-motion-ll\] and \[fig:pm25-ll\], we report the test log-likelihood (LL) of all the methods in the real-world applications in Section 6.2 of the main paper. Note that since test LLs are negative (smaller than zero) in most datasets, the corresponding bar plots are shown inverted for a convenient comparison. As we can see, our method (PRGP) consistently outperforms all the competing methods, and in many cases by a large margin. GPR-DEEP always obtains test LLs larger than or comparable to GPR-ARD except that in Fig. \[fig:pm25-ll\] a, GPR-DEEP is lightly worse. It demonstrates the advantage of more expressive kernels. PRGP further improves upon GPR-DEEP in all the cases, showing that the physics knowledge are effectively exploited and indeed help with the prediction. Especially, in Fig. \[fig:pm25-ll\]a, while GPR-DEEP obtains slightly smaller test LLs than GPR-ARD, after PRGP regularizes the same deep kernel with physics, the test LLs are greatly improved. Note that, similar to nRMSE results, we can see LFM improves upon GPR-ARD in some cases, [[*e.g.,*]{}]{}LFM-3 in Fig. \[fig:jura-motion-ll\] a and b, but in other cases are even worse, [[*e.g.,*]{}]{}in Fig. \[fig:jura-motion-ll\] c. This might because the rigid incorporation (hard-coding) of the physics in LFM might even hurt the performance when there is a significant mismatch to the actual data. For example, a first-order ODE might be too simple to describe the motion data in Fig. \[fig:jura-motion-ll\] c. Overall, the test LL results are consistent with nRMSEs shown in the main paper.
[ccc]{}
[0.33]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.33]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.33]{} {width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:jura-motion-ll\]
[ccc]{}
[0.33]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
[0.33]{} {width="\linewidth"}
&
\[fig:pm25-ll\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} is a geometrically frustrated magnet which demonstrates rather unusual properties at low temperatures including a coexistence of long- and short-range magnetic order, characterized by two different propagation vectors. In the present work, the effects of crystal fields (CF) in this compound containing four magnetically inequivalent erbium sublattices are investigated experimentally and theoretically. We combine the measurements of the CF levels of the Er$^{3+}$ ions made on a powder sample of [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} using neutron spectroscopy with site-selective optical and electron paramagnetic resonance measurements performed on single crystal samples of the lightly Er-doped nonmagnetic analogue, [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{}. Two sets of CF parameters corresponding to the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the crystallographically inequivalent lattice sites are derived which fit all the available experimental data well, including the magnetization and dc susceptibility data for both lightly doped and concentrated samples.'
author:
- 'B. Z. Malkin'
- 'S. I. Nikitin'
- 'I. E. Mumdzhi'
- 'D. G. Zverev'
- 'R. V. Yusupov'
- 'I. F. Gilmutdinov'
- 'R. G. Batulin'
- 'B. F. Gabbasov'
- 'A. G. Kiiamov'
- 'D. T. Adroja'
- 'O. Young'
- 'O. A. Petrenko'
bibliography:
- 'SrLn2O4\_all.bib'
title: 'Magnetic and spectral properties of multi-sublattice oxides $\mathbf{SrY_2O_4:Er^{3+}}$ and $\mathbf{SrEr_2O_4}$'
---
Introduction
============
The family of rare-earth (RE) strontium oxides, [Sr$R_2$O$_4$]{}, has recently been identified as a useful addition to a small group of compounds where the combination of geometrical frustration, magnetic low-dimensionality and single-ion physics results in the stabilisation of highly unusual ground states at temperatures much lower than those expected from the strength of the magnetic interactions [@Karunadasa_2005; @Petrenko_2014]. A wide variety of unconventional magnetic properties observed in these compounds include a coexistance of long-range [antiferromagnetic]{} and short-range incommensurate order in [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} [@Petrenko_2008; @Hayes_2011], two types of short-range order in [$\rm SrHo_2O_4$]{} [@Young_2012; @Young_2013; @Wen_2015], noncollinear order in [$\rm SrYb_2O_4$]{} [@Quintero_2012], incommensurate magnetic structure in [$\rm SrTb_2O_4$]{} [@Li_2014_STO] and the absence of the longer-range magnetic correlations in [$\rm SrDy_2O_4$]{} down to the lowest experimentally available temperatures [@Cheffings_2013]. To elucidate and model specific magnetic properties of these oxides, which can be described as geometrically frustrated multi-sublattice magnets with a quasi-one-dimensional space structure, it is necessary to establish the spectral properties of the magnetic subsystem formed by the RE ions. However, only sparse information on low-energy electronic excitations in [Sr$R_2$O$_4$]{} compounds has been obtained from studies of inelastic neutron scattering in [$\rm SrHo_2O_4$]{} [@Ghosh_2011; @Poole_2014] and [$\rm SrDy_2O_4$]{} [@Poole_2014]. The present work is aimed at the determination of sets of parameters used in the microscopic models of spectral and magnetic properties of a single RE ion in a dielectric crystal. With these parameters, it is possible to carry out a physically justified analysis of the different quantum effects caused by the interactions between the paramagnetic RE ions. To characterize the single ion properties, we start from experimental and theoretical studies of a strongly diluted RE subsystem in the isostructural diamagnetic compound, [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{}. Studies of [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{} single-crystals doped with the Er$^{3+}$ ions are well suited for this purpose due to the rich spectrum of electronic excitations of the Er$^{3+}$ ion lying in the spectral range accessible to site-selective optical measurements.
We have performed a series of spectroscopic studies of the Er$^{3+}$ ions in the sample (measurements of the electron paramagnetic resonance, EPR, and optical spectra) and in the concentrated [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} crystals (measurements of the inelastic neutron scattering at different temperatures) as well as the magnetometry studies (measurements of the magnetization versus external magnetic fields applied along the principal crystallographic axes at different temperatures). Analysis of the results of these measurements in the framework of a semi-phenomenological crystal field (CF) theory [@Malkin_1987] and the derived four-particle self-consistent model of magnetic interactions have allowed us to determine the sets of CF parameters and exchange coupling constants related to the specific positions of the Er$^{3+}$ ions in the crystal lattice. From comparisons of the simulated spectral envelopes of the inelastic neutron scattering, the temperature dependencies of the dc susceptibility tensor components and the field dependencies of the magnetization in [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} with the experimental data, it is evident that the spectral parameters of the impurity Er$^{3+}$ ions in [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{} can be used successfully to reproduce spectral and magnetic properties of the erbium subsystem in [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{}.
The paper is organized as follows: the experimental methods employed in the present work and the crystal structure of the samples are described in Sec. \[sec\_methods\]. The results of measurements are presented in Sec. \[sec\_results\]. Sec. \[sec\_modeling\] contains an analysis of the data obtained which involves simulations of the crystal fields affecting the Er$^{3+}$ ions at different crystallographic sites and modeling of the magnetic properties of the concentrated [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} crystals in the paramagnetic phase. The paper ends with a brief summary of the results.
Experimental methods and crystal structure {#sec_methods}
==========================================
A single crystal of [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{} doped with Er$^{3+}$ ions (0.5 at.%) was grown by the optical floating zone technique. SrCO$_{3}$ (Alfa Aesar, 99.99%), Y$_2$O$_3$ (Alfa Aesar, 99.99%) and Er$_2$O$_3$ (Alfa Aesar, 99.9%) oxides were used as starting materials. The thoroughly ground and mixed stoichiometric composition was initially sintered at 1050 $^\circ$C for 8 hours. The synthesized powder was examined with powder X-ray diffraction (Bruker D8 ADVANCE, Cu K$\alpha$) and found to be a phase-pure material with lattice parameters and space group symmetry corresponding to the structure of [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{}. A cylindrical rod was formed from the powder using a hydrostatic press, and this rod was used as the ingot for the crystal growth. The single crystal was grown in an air flow of 0.5 L/min at ambient pressure using an optical floating zone furnace FZ-T-4000-H-VII-VPO-PC (Crystal Systems Corp., Japan) equipped with four 1 kW halogen lamps at a rate of 3 mm/h. The feed and seed rods were counterrotated at a rate of 15 rpm in order to obtain a homogeneous molten zone. The grown crystal was pinkish in color and was of high optical quality.
![(Color online) Top panel: Positions of the Er$^{3+}$ ions within [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{}, with the two crystallographically inequivalent Er$^{3+}$ sites shown in different colors. The blue box represents a crystal unit cell of the $Pnam$ space group. Bottom panel: a schematic of the magnetic interactions between the Er$^{3+}$ ions in one of the zig-zag chains. A four-particle cluster used to model the magnetization process is highlighted by the dashed box.[]{data-label="Fig1_structure"}](Fig1_final.eps){width="0.88\columnwidth"}
The crystal structure of [Sr$R_2$O$_4$]{} is orthorhombic with the space group $Pnam$. The unit cell has 28 ions in total, split into seven groups each containing four crystallographically equivalent $\lambda$-ions ($\lambda =$ Sr, R1, R2, O1, O2, O3 and O4) at the Wyckoff 4c positions. The ions coordinates (in units of lattice constants $a$, $b$, and $c$), $\bm{r}_{1,\lambda} = (x_{\lambda }, y_{\lambda }, 0.25)$, $\bm{r}_{2,\lambda} = (0.5-x_\lambda,y_\lambda - 0.5,0.75)$, $\bm{r}_{3,\lambda} = (-x_\lambda,-y_\lambda,0.75)$, $\bm{r}_{4,\lambda} = (x_\lambda -0.5, 0.5-y_{\lambda },0.25)$ are determined by structure parameters $x_\lambda$ and $y_\lambda$. The lattice constants and the structure parameters of [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{} and [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} were reported in Refs. [@Muller-Buschbaum_1968; @Karunadasa_2005; @Li_2014_SEO]. In particular, $a=10.0166$ Å, $b=11.8541$ Å, and $c=3.3848$ Å, $x_{\rm R1}=0.4227$, $y_{\rm R1}=0.1101$, and $x_{\rm R2}=0.4232$, $y_{\rm R2}=0.6118$ in [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} at 80 K [@Li_2014_SEO]. The impurity Er$^{3+}$ ions in [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{} substitute for Y$^{3+}$ ions at the R1 and R2 sites and, as in [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{}, have six nearest neighbor oxygen ions which form distorted octahedra. The average distances between the Er$^{3+}$ and O$^{2-}$ ions in Er1O$_6$ and Er2O$_6$ octahedra in [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} are equal to 2.26 and 2.28 Å, respectively, at 80 K. Crystal fields at the R1 and R2 sites have point symmetry $C_s$. The R1- and R2-sublattices are labeled below by the indices $\rho$ from 1 to 4 ($\bm{r}_\rho =\bm{r}_{\rho ,{\rm R1}}$) and from 5 to 8 ($\bm{r}_\rho = \bm{r}_{\rho -4,{\rm R2}}$), respectively (see Fig. \[Fig1\_structure\]). Ions with the indices $\rho =1$ and $\rho =3 $ (2 and 4, 5 and 7, 6 and 8) are connected by the inversion operation and form a ladder with legs parallel to the $c$ axis and shifted relative to one another by $c$/2. In general, a ladder can be considered as a zigzag chain where distances between the neighboring ions lying on the adjacent legs, $d_1$, and on the same leg, $d_2$, are slightly different, and $d_1>d_2$. Each leg in a ladder has two neighboring legs belonging to other ladders, and the projection of the R1 and R2 chains results in a honeycomb network (of edge-sharing distorted hexagons) in the $ab$ plane, see Fig. \[Fig1\_structure\].
The sample used in the EPR, optical and magnetization studies was aligned using X-ray diffraction. It had the shape of a rectangular parallelepiped with the dimensions of $2.5 \times 2 \times 1$ mm$^3$ with the edges along the crystallographic $a$, $b$ and $c$ axes, respectively. EPR spectra were measured with the X-band Bruker ESP300 spectrometer. The standard ER4102ST rectangular cavity with the TE$_{102}$ mode was used. The studies were performed at 15 K, and the sample temperature was controlled using an Oxford Instruments ESR9 liquid helium flow system.
The magnetization measurements of the aligned single crystal were performed using a Quantum Design Physical Property Measurement System (PPMS-9) Vibrating Sample Magnetometer (VSM).
Fluorescence of the crystals was excited with either a pulsed tunable dye laser (Littrow type oscillator and amplifier, linewidth of about 1 Å) pumped by the second or third harmonic of a Nd-YAG laser (LQ129, Solar LS) in the visible spectral range or a Ti:Sapphire tunable laser with linewidth of about 0.4 Å (LX325, Solar LS) pumped by the second harmonic of a Nd-YAG laser (LQ829, Solar LS) in the near-IR range. The spectra were analyzed with an MDR-23 monochromator. The fluorescence signal was detected by a cooled photomultiplier (PMT-106 or PMT-83) in the photon-counting regime. The studied crystal was kept in helium vapor at a temperature of 4.2 K.
The polycrystalline sample of [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} used in the neutron scattering experiments was prepared from high-purity starting materials SrCO$_3$ and Er$_2$O$_3$ following Ref. [@Karunadasa_2005]. The same sample was previously used for high-resolution powder neutron diffraction experiments [@Petrenko_2008] which have revealed the absence of any significant amount of impurities or chemical disorder in the samples. The inelastic neutron scattering (INS) experiment was performed with the HET time-of-flight spectrometer at ISIS, STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, United Kingdom in the temperature range 5 to 140 K. For the INS experiment the powdered samples were wrapped in a thin Al-foil and mounted inside a thin-walled cylindrical Al-can. The sample mount was cooled in a top-loading closed-cycle refrigerator with He-exchange gas and the INS data were collected using neutrons with incident energies $E_i$ between 24 and 120 meV, and for scattering angles between 3 and 135 degrees. The elastic resolution (full width half maximum) was 1.5, 2.0 and 5.5 meV for the $E_i$ of 24, 40 and 120 meV, respectively.
Although magnetization data for [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} have been previously reported [@Petrenko_2008; @Hayes_2012] the emphasis for the earlier studies was either on the magnetization behavior in high magnetic field [@Petrenko_2008] or on very low temperatures [@Hayes_2012] where unusual plateaux have been observed rather than on the measurements of the absolute value of the magnetization. We therefore took advantage of the much higher accuracy available with a SQUID magnetometer (MPMS, Quantum Design) compared to the VSM and extraction magnetometers previously used [@Petrenko_2008] and remeasured magnetization in [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} at $T=5$ K for the field parallel to the three main crystallographical directions. The sample preparation is described in Ref. [@Balakrishnan_2009].
Experimental results {#sec_results}
====================
EPR spectra
-----------
![EPR spectra ($T=15$ K, $\nu = 9.42265$ GHz) of the [$\rm SrY_2O_4$:Er$^{3+}$]{} crystal for the magnetic field applied (1) along the $c$ axis, (2) along the $a$ axis, and (3) tilted by 20 degrees away from the $a$ axis in the $ab$ plane.[]{data-label="Fig2_EPR"}](Fig2_final.eps){width="0.88\columnwidth"}
Examples of the observed EPR spectra taken in crossed static ($\bm H$) and linearly polarized microwave ($\bm{H}_t$) magnetic fields, in particular, for static fields applied along the crystallographic $a$ and $c$ axis, are shown in Fig. \[Fig2\_EPR\]. For $\bm H \parallel c$ and $\bm{H}_t \parallel b$, two signals are detected in the spectrum at $H \sim 680$ Oe and $\sim 1920$ Oe. The first signal marked as Er1 consists of the intense line originating from erbium isotopes with even mass numbers and a pronounced hyperfine octet due to the single isotope with an odd mass number, $^{167}$Er, which has a nuclear spin $I=7/2$ and the natural abundance of 22.9%. The second signal at 1920 Oe marked as Er2 is considerably broader than the first one. As a consequence, it reveals a significantly less pronounced but still detectable hyperfine structure of $^{167}$Er$^{3+}$. It should be emphasised that we cannot [*a priori*]{} identify the observed EPR signals with the R1 and R2 positions of the Er$^{3+}$ ions. The identification of the EPR signals (as well as of the transitions in the optical spectra discussed below) was achieved on the basis of the crystal field calculations (see Sec. \[sec\_modeling\]). The integral intensity of the resonance absorption is proportional to the square of the $g$-tensor component corresponding to the microwave field direction. The relationships between the intensities of the Er1 and Er2 EPR signals (which are proportional to field derivatives of the absorption) in Fig. \[Fig2\_EPR\] agree with the ratios of the corresponding $g$-factors of the erbium ions at the R1 and R2 sites determined below and presented in Table \[TableI\].
With the magnetic field $\bm H$ applied along any of the crystallographic axes as well as lying in either the $ac$ or $bc$ plane, two signals are observed in the EPR spectra in agreement with the presence of the two crystallographically inequivalent R1 and R2 sites. In an arbitrary oriented magnetic field tilted away from the $ac$ (or $bc$) plane, two magnetically inequivalent centers are revealed in the spectra for both the Er1 and Er2 positions (see Fig. \[Fig2\_EPR\], spectrum number 3).
-------------- ------------------------ -------------- ------------------------ -------------
Measured Calculated Measured Calculated
$g_1$ 5.382 $\pm$ 0.011 5.396 13.2 $\pm$ 0.1 13.22
$g_2$ 3.009 $\pm$ 0.007 3.009 1.69 $\pm$ 0.05 1.726
$g_3=g_{cc}$ 9.93 $\pm$ 0.03 9.944 3.42 $\pm$ 0.02 3.51
$\phi$ $(48.0 \pm 0.2)^\circ$ $45.3^\circ$ $(8.1 \pm 0.05)^\circ$ $9.3^\circ$
$g_{aa}$ 4.239 4.357 13.07 13.05
$g_{bb}$ 4.478 4.38 2.502 2.73
-------------- ------------------------ -------------- ------------------------ -------------
: $g$-factors of the ground doublets of the impurity Er$^{3+}$ ions in [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{} (the orbital reduction factors used in the calculations are $k=0.985$ for Er1 and $k=0.97$ for Er2).
\[TableI\]
In a low-symmetry crystal field, all the energy levels of an Er$^{3+}$ ion with the ground electronic configuration $4f^{11}$ are Kramers doublets. In an external magnetic field, the effective spin-Hamiltonian ($S=1/2$) of a Kramers doublet in the Cartesian system of coordinates with the coordinate axes along the principal axes of a $g$-tensor has the following form $$\mathcal{H}_S = \mu_{\mathrm B} (g_1 H_1 \hat{S_1} + g_2 H_2 \hat{S_2} + g_3 H_3 \hat{S_3}).
\label{eq1_Ham}$$ Here $\mu_{\mathrm B}$ is the Bohr magneton, $H_\alpha$ and $S_\alpha$ ($\alpha = 1, 2, 3$) are projections of the magnetic field and effective electronic spin moment on the coordinate axes, respectively. In the case of a local $C_s$ symmetry of a paramagnetic ion, two principal axes (labeled by the indices 1 and 2) of the $g$-tensor are in the $ab$ (mirror) plane, and the third axis is parallel to the $c$ axis.
In the EPR spectra with the frequency $\nu$ and magnetic field lying in the $ab$ plane at the angle $\vartheta$ to the $a$ axis, the resonant fields $H$ of erbium isotopes with even mass numbers are given by the equation $$\mu_{\mathrm B} H = \frac{2 \sqrt{2} \pi \hbar \nu}{\sqrt{g^2_{1,\kappa } + g^2_{2,\kappa} + (g^2_{1,\kappa } - g^2_{2,\kappa}) \cos (2 \vartheta \pm 2 \varphi _{\kappa})}},
\label{eq2_field}$$ where $+\varphi _\kappa$ and $-\varphi _\kappa$ are the angles between the principal axes corresponding to the $g$-factors $g_{1,\kappa}$ and the $a$ axis for the Er$^{3+}$ions at sites $\bm{r}_{1,\kappa}$, $\bm{r}_{3,\kappa}$ and $\bm{r}_{2,\kappa}$, $\bm{r}_{4,\kappa}$, respectively ($\kappa =$ R1, R2). In agreement with the results of the measurements for an arbitrary orientation of the field $\bm H$, four EPR signals can be observed, but when the magnetic field is applied along a principal crystallographic axis $\alpha$ ($\alpha = a, b$ or $c$), there are only two lines corresponding to the resonant fields $H=2\pi \hbar \nu /(g_{\alpha \alpha , \kappa }\mu_{\mathrm B})$, where $$\begin{aligned}
g_{aa,\kappa} & = & [g^2_{1,\kappa} + g^2_{2,\kappa} + (g^2_{1,\kappa} - g^2_{2,\kappa}) \cos (2\varphi _\kappa )]^{1/2}/\sqrt{2}, \hspace{5mm} \\
g_{bb,\kappa} & = & [g^2_{1,\kappa} + g^2_{2,\kappa} - (g^2_{1,\kappa} - g^2_{2,\kappa}) \cos (2\varphi _\kappa )]^{1/2}/\sqrt{2}, \\
g_{cc,\kappa} & = & g_{3,\kappa}.
\label{eq35_g}\end{aligned}$$ For the magnetic field in the $ac$ plane, the resonant fields satisfy the condition $$\mu_{\mathrm B} H = 2 \pi \hbar \nu \lbrack g^2_{cc,\kappa } + (g^2_{aa,\kappa} - g^2_{cc,\kappa})\cos^2 \vartheta ]^{-1/2},
\label{eq6_field}$$ where $\vartheta $ is the angle between the field and the $a$ axis.
![(Color online) Measured (symbols) and calculated (lines) angular dependencies of the resonant magnetic field in the (a) $ab$ and (b) $ac$ planes of at the frequency of 9.42265 GHz. Black/red solid symbols and gray/orange open symbols are used for the Er1 and Er2 centers respectively.[]{data-label="Fig3_EPR"}](Fig3_final.eps){width="0.88\columnwidth"}
Angular dependencies of the EPR spectra were measured for the magnetic field lying in the $ab$ and $ac$ planes. The resonant field dependence of the field direction for the erbium isotopes with even mass numbers are shown in Fig. \[Fig3\_EPR\]. These dependencies are well described by equations (\[eq2\_field\]) and (\[eq6\_field\]). The results of the fits to the experimental data, within the model of the isolated effective spin-1/2 doublet with the anisotropic $g$-tensor, are represented in Fig. \[Fig3\_EPR\] by the solid lines. The values of the principal $g$-tensor components, $g$-factors in the directions of the crystallographic axes as well as the angles between the principal directions of the $g$-tensor and the crystallographic axes are presented in Table \[TableI\]. It should be noted that a possible misalignment of the sample in an external magnetic field may introduce errors in the obtained values of the $g$-factors of up to 0.1. Nevertheless, the EPR studies reported here provide conclusive evidence for the strong magnetic anisotropy of the Er$^{3+}$ ions of an easy-axis type with the easy-axis along the $c$ direction at the R1 sites and along the two non-collinear directions in the $ab$ plane at the magnetically inequivalent R2 sites.
The available experimental data do not allow for a full characterization of the hyperfine interaction for any $^{167}$Er$^{3+}$ center. The values of the hyperfine constants can be given with a satisfactory accuracy for only a limited range of the magnetic field directions with respect to the crystal axes. The restrictions arise due to the strong broadening of the EPR lines.
Additional weak EPR signals were observed in the magnetic fields lying in the $ac$ plane. The nature of the corresponding paramagnetic centers is not entirely clear, but it is possible that the impurity Er$^{3+}$ions substitute not only for Y$^{3+}$ but also for the Sr$^{2+}$ ions.
Optical site-selective excitation and emission spectra
------------------------------------------------------
![(Color online) (a) Luminescence spectra at $T=4.2$ K of the R1 centers corresponding to the emission from the lowest sublevels of $\rm ^4S_{3/2}$ (lower spectrum) and $\rm ^4I_{11/2}$ (upper spectrum) multiplets into the sublevels of the ground $\rm ^4I_{15/2}$ multiplet induced by radiation with the wave numbers of 19193 and 10355.5 cm$^{-1}$ absorbed due to the excitations of the Er$^{3+}$ ions into the sublevel number 4 in the $\rm ^2H_{11/2}$ multiplet or the sublevel number 6 in the $\rm ^4I_{11/2}$ multiplet, respectively (see Table \[TableII\]). (b) Luminescence spectra of the R2 centers induced by radiation with the wave numbers of 19273.6 and 10393.9 cm$^{-1}$ absorbed due to the excitations into the sublevels number 6 in the $\rm ^2H_{11/2}$ and $\rm ^4I_{11/2}$ multiplets, respectively. The insets give graphical representations of the crystal field energy levels for the two crystallographic sites.[]{data-label="Fig4_optics"}](Fig4_resub.eps){width="0.88\columnwidth"}
We studied the emission of the [$\rm SrY_2O_4$:Er$^{3+}$]{} samples for two channels corresponding to the radiative transitions from the two metastable states of the Er$^{3+}$ ions, namely, from the lowest CF sublevels of the $\rm ^4I_{11/2}$ and $\rm ^4S_{3/2}$ multiplets, to the sublevels of lower-lying multiplets.
The site-selective technique revealed the presence of two different sets of photoluminescent spectral lines originating from transitions in the Er$^{3+}$ ions (see Fig. \[Fig4\_optics\]). Here, energies of the CF sublevels of the ground ($\rm ^4I_{15/2}$) and the first excited ($\rm ^4I_{13/2}$) multiplets were determined from the selectively excited luminescence spectra. The selective excitation of different centres is confirmed, in particular, by the very different luminescence spectra shown in Figs. \[Fig4\_optics\]a and \[Fig4\_optics\]b.
![(Color online) Excitation spectra of the R1 (solid line) and R2 (dashed line) centers in corresponding to the transitions from the ground state into the $\rm ^4F_{7/2}$ multiplet of the Er$^{3+}$ ions at $T=4.2$ K registered by the emission from the lowest sublevels of the $\rm ^4I_{11/2}$ multiplet to the first excited sublevels of the ground multiplet at the wave numbers of 10170.7 cm$^{-1}$ (10195.9 cm$^{-1}$ – 25.2 cm$^{-1}$) and 10150 cm$^{-1}$ (10191.1 cm$^{-1}$ – 41.1 cm$^{-1}$), respectively. The arrows in the inset show the excitations (Exc), the registered emission (REm) and the nonradiative stepped decay of the excited states (NRD).[]{data-label="Fig5_spectra"}](Fig5_final.eps){width="0.88\columnwidth"}
Additional spectral lines were observed with an intensity that was at least two orders of magnitude weaker. These lines probably correspond to the Er$^{3+}$ions substituted for the Sr$^{2+}$ ions in the [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{} lattice, however, the concentration of these centers is very small. Energies of all CF sublevels of the $\rm ^4I_{11/2}$, $\rm ^4I_{9/2}$, $\rm ^4F_{9/2}$, $\rm ^2H_{11/2}$, $\rm ^4F_{7/2}$, $\rm ^4F_{5/2}$, $\rm ^4F_{3/2}$ and $\rm ^4S_{3/2}$ multiplets of both the R1 and R2 optical centers were determined from the excitation spectra of the luminescence measurements (an example is shown in Fig. \[Fig5\_spectra\]). The measured spectra provide evidence of a relatively weak exchange of the excitation energy between the R1 and R2 centers.
-------------------- --------------- ------------ --------------- ------------
Multiplet
Measured Calculated Measured Calculated
$\rm ^4I_{15/2}$ 1 0 0 0 0
2 25.2 (26.2) 25.25 41.1 (41.1) 42.6
3 75.1 75.3 74.6 (74.6) 68.3
4 98.8 (97.3) 97.3 92.4 (93.4) 94.2
5 111.2 (111.7) 109.2 162.2 (162.2) 165.4
6 463.5 457 431.8 427.6
7 491.6 (491.6) 486.1 453.6 (453.6) 457.3
8 506 497.4 533.6 528.4
$\rm ^4I_{13/2}$ 1 6503.8 6504.3 6517.8 6517.7
2 6540.5 6540.2 6568.1 6560.6
3 6556 6556 6579.3 6575.8
4 6580.5 6576.3 6635.1 6632.3
5 6826.3 6829.4 6823.9 6815.9
6 6842.1 6838.4 6831.6 6822.9
7 6850.8 6844 6917.9 6901.1
$\rm ^4I_{11/2}$ 1 10196 10197 10192 10193
2 10219 10219 10231 10230
3 10232 10231 10258 10259
4 10342 10349 10336 10343
5 10348 10354 10340 10346
6 10355 10359 10394 10405
$\rm ^4I_{9/2}$ 1 12331.7 12332 12343 12345
2 12404.9 12400 12430 12425
3 12524.6 12531 12533 12539
4 12581.4 12584 12584 12599
5 12621 12621 12622 12630
$\rm ^4F_{9/2}$ 1 15129.1 15132 15138.6 15142
2 15156.1 15156 15176.6 15186
3 15301.4 15308 15276.7 15284
4 15333.8 15340 15377.9 15386
5 15446.8 15440 15457.4 15457
$\rm ^4S_{3/2}$ 1 18184.8 18190 18201 18205
2 18234.8 18235 18295 18295
$\rm ^2H_{11/2}$ 1 19048.1 19052 19054.1 19057
2 19066.3 19063 19072.1 19079
3 19074.5 19076 19088.5 19104
4 19193 19207 19205 19213
5 19209.5 19228 19229 19242
6 19265.2 19271 19273.7 19274
$\rm ^4F_{7/2}$ 1 20379 20388 20358.8 20351
2 20437.5 20438 20462.2 20452
3 20478.8 20484 20493.8 20493
4 20543.9 20535 20585.8 20575
$\rm ^4F_{5/2}$ 1 22047.2 22063 22053.5 22061
2 22070 22078 22087.5 22100
3 22194.7 22179 22193.8 22182
$\rm ^4F_{3/2}$ 1 22451 22453 22428.8 22428
2 22514.1 22514 22570.5 22566
-------------------- --------------- ------------ --------------- ------------
: Measured and calculated crystal field energies (in cm$^{-1}$) of the Er$^{3+}$ ions in and [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} (in brackets).
\[TableII\]
Crystal field energies for both the R1 and R2 centers obtained from the analysis of the experimental data are presented in Table \[TableII\]. The obtained energy level patterns, and the total splittings of the ground and excited multiplets are similar to those of the impurity Er$^{3+}$ions at the Y$^{3+}$ sites with C$_2$ symmetry in $\rm Y_2O_3$ [@Chang_1982]. The energy level pattern of the Er$^{3+}$ground multiplet $\rm ^4I_{15/2}$ in the octahedral CF contains two groups of sublevels, separated by the energy gap of about 300 cm$^{-1}$ in the case of oxygen ligands, the lower one involves a quadruplet $\Gamma_8$, a doublet $\Gamma _6$ and a second quadruplet $\Gamma_8$, and the upper one involves a doublet $\Gamma_7$ and a quadruplet $\Gamma_8$, the total spitting being close to 500 cm$^{-1}$. Due to a splitting of the quadruplets by the low-symmetry component of the crystal field, one may expect to observe a pattern formed by the lower five doublets well separated from the upper three doublets. The measured CF energies for both the Er1 and Er2 centers agree well with these simple arguments.
The two optical centers formed by the Er$^{3+}$ions in [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{} differ markedly in the splittings of the $\rm ^4S_{3/2}$ and $\rm ^4F_{3/2}$ multiplets (see Table \[TableII\]). Large splittings of the multiplets with the total angular moment $J=3/2$ are likely be related to the more pronounced distortion of the first coordination shell (oxygen octahedron) for the Er$^{3+}$ions at the R2 sites and, consequently, stronger quadrupole components of the crystal field. This conjecture is confirmed below by the CF calculations (see Sec. \[subsec\_CF\]).
Inelastic neutron scattering
----------------------------
![(Color online) Neutron scattering spectra of a polycrystalline [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} sample for the incident neutron energy $E_i=24$ meV measured at different temperatures. The arrow points to the additional peak in the scattering intensity observed with the incident energy of 40 meV. The origin of the peaks labeled from A to E is discussed in the text. The results of simulations are represented by solid lines. The curves at different temperatures are offset for clarity.[]{data-label="Fig6_INS"}](Fig6_resub.eps){width="0.88\columnwidth"}
The results of the inelastic neutron scattering measurements on a powder sample of [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} are summarised in Fig. \[Fig6\_INS\]. At a base temperature of 5 K, several peaks are clearly visible in the energy transfer range of up to 15 meV, they are labeled as A, B, C, D, and E. The widths of the peaks are resolution limited, apart from peak D, which consists of two excitation levels (see Sec. \[subsec\_INS\]). The peaks show very little dependence (a slight decrease) of intensity with the scattering vector $Q$, consistent with the $Q$-dependence of the magnetic form factor for the Er$^{3+}$ions. There were no detectable phonon signals observed at any $Q$, therefore the intensity of the peaks is presumed to be fully magnetic in nature.
With increasing temperature, the main peaks start to look broader and several weaker peaks become visible at different energy transfers. This behavior is typically associated with the increase of the fractional population of the higher-energy levels at higher temperatures, which allows excited state transitions to become visible.
Additional measurements with a higher incident neutron energy revealed the presence of a much weaker peak at about 20 meV (see Fig. \[Fig6\_INS\]) as well as a weak double peak at about 60 meV (not shown).
Magnetometry studies
--------------------
Magnetization results at $T=2$ K for a diluted sample are shown in Fig. \[Fig7\_M\_Y\], while Figures \[Fig8\_chi\] and \[Fig9\_M\_Er\] summarize the results of the susceptibility and magnetization measurements in the [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} single crystals.
![(Color online) Measured (symbols) and calculated (lines) magnetic field dependencies of the magnetization along the $a$, $b$ and $c$ crystallographic directions in the sample at $T=2.0$ K.[]{data-label="Fig7_M_Y"}](Fig7_final.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
For the diluted sample, the magnetization increases in an applied field in a way which preserves the order of the absolute values of magnetization observed in a concentrated sample at higher temperatures, $M_{H \parallel a} > M_{H \parallel c} > M_{H \parallel b}$. The gradients of all three curves gradually decrease with an applied field, as would be expected for a system of noninteracting magnetic moments. The details of the magnetization calculations for a diluted sample are given in Sec. \[subsec\_CF\].
![(Color online) Temperature dependence of dc magnetic susceptibility of [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} crystal measured along the three crystallographic axes (symbols) in a field of $H=1$ kOe in the temperature range of 0.5 – 50 K [@Hayes_2012; @Balakrishnan_2009]. Solid lines represent the calculated susceptibility for temperatures from 1 to 50 K in the framework of the four-particle self-consistent model (see Sec. \[sec\_4p\_model\] for further details). Inset: the temperature dependence of the inverse susceptibility.[]{data-label="Fig8_chi"}](Fig8_final.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[Fig8\_chi\] we combine the previously reported results for the temperature dependence of the susceptibility of [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} [@Hayes_2012; @Balakrishnan_2009] with the results of the calculations. For all three directions of an applied magnetic field, the four-particle model described in detail in Sec. \[sec\_4p\_model\] returned a satisfactory agreement with the experimental data, particularly at higher temperatures. A linear temperature dependence of the inverse susceptibilities along the three crystallographic axes is observed at $T>15$ K (see inset in Fig. \[Fig8\_chi\]). The negative values of the corresponding Curie-Weiss temperatures [@Hayes_2012] indicate [antiferromagnetic]{} interactions between the Er$^{3+}$ ions.
![(Color online) Measured (symbols) and calculated (solid lines) field dependence of the magnetization of [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} single-crystals along the three crystallographic axes at $T=5$ K. The calculated magnetic moments at sites R1 and R2 are shown by dashed lines marked as Er1 and Er2, respectively.[]{data-label="Fig9_M_Er"}](Fig9_final.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[Fig9\_M\_Er\] shows a comparison between the experimental and the theoretical results for the magnetization of [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} at $T=5$ K. Although the $M(H)$ curves have been reported previously, in particular in high fields [@Petrenko_2008] and at very low temperatures [@Hayes_2012], comparison with the more accurate experimental data helps to justify the validity of the theoretical approach used (see Sec. \[sec\_4p\_model\] for further details). One important observation to make here is that the magnetization for $\bm{H} \parallel a$ is largely due to the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the R2 sites, while for $\bm{H} \parallel b$ and $\bm{H} \parallel c$, the dominant contribution is from the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the R1 sites. Combined with the results of polarized neutron scattering [@Hayes_2011], which suggested that at low temperatures the magnetic moments in the long-range and short-range structures of [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} are predominantly pointing along the $c$ and $a$ axes, respectively, this observation uniquely identifies the R1 sites with the commensurate long-range order and the R2 sites with the incommensurate short-range order.
Modeling and Discussion {#sec_modeling}
=======================
Crystal fields affecting the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the R1 and R2 sites {#subsec_CF}
------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis of the experimental data presented in Sec. \[sec\_results\] was carried out starting from the Hamiltonian, ${\cal H}$, of a single Er$^{3+}$ ion operating in the total space of 364 states of the ground electronic $4f^{11}$ configuration: $${\cal H} = {\cal H}_{\rm FI} + {\cal H}_{\rm CF}.
\label{eq7_ham}$$ Here $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\cal H}_{\rm FI} & = & \zeta \sum_j \hat{\bm{l}}_j \hat{\bm{s}}_j + \alpha \hat{\bm{L}}^2 + \beta \hat{G}(G_2) + \gamma \hat{G}(R_7) \\*
& + & \sum_q (F^q \hat{f}_q + P^q \hat{p}_q + T^q \hat{t}_q + M^q \hat{m}_q)
\label{eq8_ham-fi}\end{aligned}$$ is the free-ion Hamiltonian written in a standard form that includes the energies of the spin-orbit interaction, electrostatic interactions between the $4f$ electrons (labeled by the index $j$), and additional terms due to interconfiguration and relativistic interactions, $\hat{\bm{l}} _j$ and $\hat{\bm{s}} _j$ are the orbital and spin moments of the electrons, $\bm{L}$ is the total orbital moment, explicit expressions for the operators $\hat{G}, \hat{f}, \hat{p}, \hat{t}, \hat{m}$ are given in literature (see Ref. [@Carnall_1989]). In the present work, we use parameters of the Hamiltonian (\[eq8\_ham-fi\]) from Ref. [@Magnani_2002] for the Er$^{3+}$ impurity ions in $\rm BaY_2F_8$ modified slightly to fit the gaps between the multiplet centers of gravity. Namely, the same parameters $F^2=96320$, $F^4=67854$, $F^6=54260$, $\alpha=18.2$, $\beta=-600$, $\gamma=1760$, $P^2=594$, $P^4=445$, $P^6=119$, $M^0=3.7$, $M^2=2.07$, $M^4=1.15$, $T^2=390$, $T^3=50$, $T^4=83$, $T^6=-271$, $T^7=298$, $T^8=280$ (cm$^{-1}$) for both the R1 and R2 sites, but different spin-orbit coupling constants $\zeta=2361$ and 2366 cm$^{-1}$ are used for the R1 and R2 sites, respectively.
The Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{\rm CF}$ gives the energy of the localized $4f$ electrons in a static crystal field. In the crystallographic coordinate system with the $z$ axis along the $c$ axis, this Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_{\rm CF}$ for a RE ion in the crystal field with the $C_s$ symmetry in [Sr$R_2$O$_4$]{}, is determined by 15 CF parameters $B^q_p$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq9_ham-cf}
{\cal H}_{\rm CF} & = & B^0_2 O^0_2 + B^2_2 O^2_2 + B^{-2}_2 O^{-2}_2 + B^0_4 O^0_4 + B^2_4 O^2_4 \\* \nonumber
& + & B^{-2}_4 O^{-2}_4 + B^4_4 O^4_4 + B^{-4}_4 O^{-4}_4 + B^0_6 O^0_6 + B^2_6 O^2_6 \\* \nonumber
& + & B^{-2}_6 O^{-2}_6 + B^4_6 O^4_6 + B^{-4}_6 O^{-4}_6 + B^6_6 O^6_6 + B^{-6}_6 O^{-6}_6.\end{aligned}$$ Here $O^q_p$ are linear combinations of the spherical tensors $C^{(p)}_q$ [@Klekovkina_2011; @note_eq8_9]. In particular, $O_p^0 = a_{p0} C_0^{(p)}$, $O_p^q = a_{pq} (C_q^{(p)} + C_{-q}^{(p)})$, $O_p^{-q} = -ia_{pq}(C_q^{(p)}-C_{-q}^{(p)})$ for $q=2,4,6$; the numerical factors are $a_{20}=2$, $a_{22}=2/\sqrt{6}$, $a_{40}=8$, $a_{42}=4/\sqrt{10}$, $a_{44}=8/\sqrt{70}$, $a_{60}=16$, $a_{62}=16/\sqrt{105}$, $a_{64}=16/\sqrt{126}$, $a_{66}=16/\sqrt{231}$. There are two sets of independent CF parameters for the RE ions at the nonequivalent R1 and R2 positions, parameters $B_p^{-q} (q > 0)$ for the ions in the sublattices 1, 3 and 2, 4 (5, 7 and 6, 8) have the same absolute values but differ in sign.
The initial values of the CF parameters were calculated in the framework of the semi-phenomenological Exchange Charge Model (ECM) [@Malkin_1987] using the expressions $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
B_p^q = K_p^q \sum_\nu \frac{e^2}{R_\nu} \bigg[-Q_\nu (1-\sigma_p) \frac{\langle r^p \rangle}{{R_\nu^p}} \hspace{15mm} \\
+ \frac{2(2p+1)}{7} S_p(R_\nu)\bigg] O_p^q (\Theta_\nu, \Phi_\nu),
\label{eq10_Bqp}\end{aligned}$$ where $K_p^0 = a_{p0}^{-2}$, $K_p^q = a_{pq}^{-2}/2$ for $q\neq 0$, $e$ is the elementary charge, $R_\nu$, $\Theta _\nu$, $\Phi _\nu$ are spherical coordinates of the ion located at the lattice site $\nu$, $eQ_\nu$ are ion charges, $\sigma_p$ are the shielding factors, and $\langle r^p \rangle$ are the moments of the $4f$ electron density. Linear combinations $S_p (R_\nu)$ of the squared overlap integrals between the wave functions of the $4f$ electrons localized at the RE ion and the electronic wave functions of the lattice ions determine the “exchange" charges. Because the overlap integrals decrease exponentially with increasing distance between the ions, we take into account only the overlapping between the Er$^{3+}$ $\vert 4fl_z \rangle$ wave functions and the $\vert 2s \rangle$, $ \vert 2pl_z \rangle$ wave functions corresponding to the outer electronic shells of the six nearest neighbor oxygen ions (here $l_z$ is the projection of the electronic orbital moment on the bond direction). In this case, introducing the dimensionless model parameters $G_s$, $G_\sigma$ and $G_\pi$, we obtain [@Malkin_1987] $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
S_p (R_\nu) & = & G_s S_s (R_\nu)^2 + G_\sigma S_\sigma (R_\nu)^2 \\*
& + & [2-\frac{p(p+1)}{12}] \: G_\pi S_\pi (R_\nu)^2.
\label{eq11_SpRv}\end{aligned}$$ The $R$ dependencies of the overlap integrals $S_s (R) = \langle 4f0\vert 2s \rangle$, $S_\sigma (R) = \langle 4f0 \vert 2p0 \rangle$ and $S_\pi (R) = \langle 4f1 \vert 2p1\rangle$, computed with the available radial wave functions of the Er$^{3+}$ [@Freeman_1962] and O$^{2-}$ [@Clementi_1964] ions, can be approximated by the functions $S_u = a_u \exp (-b_u R^{c_u})$ ($u=s, \sigma$ and $\pi$), where $a_s=0.333$, $b_s=1.0776$, $c_s=1.4269$; $a_\sigma = 0.08648$, $b_\sigma =0.3845$, $c_\sigma =1.9254$; $a_\pi = 3.1067$, $b_\pi = 3.0381$, $c_\pi = 0.8048$ ($R$ in angstroms). The results of the calculations of the CF parameters (\[eq10\_Bqp\]) performed in the framework of the simplest single-parameter version of ECM ($G_s = G_\sigma = G_\pi = 8$) are presented in Table \[TableIII\]. The values of $\langle r^2 \rangle = 0.666$, $\langle r^4 \rangle =1.126$ and $\langle r^6 \rangle =3.978$ (in atomic units) [@Freeman_1962], $\sigma _2 = 0.617$ [@Gupta_1973], $\sigma_4=\sigma_6=0$, the nominal values of the ion charges $Q$(Sr)=2, $Q$(Y)=3, $Q$(O)=$-2$ and the structure parameters of [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} [@Li_2014_SEO] were used in the calculations. It should be noted that the oxygen coordinates in the unit cell of [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{} determined in Refs. [@Muller-Buschbaum_1968; @Fu_2005] should be revised because they lead to significantly overestimated distances between the Y$^{3+}$ and the nearest neighbor O$^{2-}$ ions as compared to the corresponding distances in [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{}. In particular, according to Ref. [@Fu_2005], the average Y$^{3+}$–O$^{2-}$ distances in Y1O$_6$ and Y2O$_6$ octahedra exceed the corresponding average Er$^{3+}$–O$^{2-}$ distances in [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} by 0.08 Å.
----- ----- --------- --------- --------- --------
$p$ $q$ $Calc.$ $Fin.$ $Calc.$ $Fin.$
2 0 118.7 188 -33.1 17
2 2 118.6 137.5 -546.9 -744
2 -2 -104.2 -171.2 -110.8 -125
4 0 -59.8 -57.3 -55.9 -60.2
4 2 -1012 -1066.2 1064 1033.2
4 -2 1140 1165.2 -797.8 -977.8
4 4 -73.3 -86.9 379 430.2
4 -4 -1015 -972.3 -638.3 -685.6
6 0 -39.5 -38 -33.0 -35.2
6 2 -8.2 -22.3 -51.6 -68.4
6 -2 23.0 22.8 -13.6 -42.8
6 4 -8.6 30.1 -63.4 -80.2
6 -4 -145.6 -115.2 -186.8 -191.4
6 6 -208 -162.2 -66.7 -119.6
6 -6 -147.6 -84 56.3 80.5
----- ----- --------- --------- --------- --------
: Crystal field parameters $B^q_p$ (cm$^{-1}$) for the Er$^{3+}$ ions at $r_{1,{\rm R}1}$ and $r_{1,{\rm R}2}$ sites ($Calc.$ – the results of calculations in the framework of the exchange charge model, $Fin.$ – the final values from the fitting procedure).
\[TableIII\]
The energy level schemes and the ratios between the $g$-tensor components of the ground doublet for the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the R1 and R2 sites obtained from the numerical diagonalization of the Hamiltonian (\[eq7\_ham\]) which make use of the calculated CF parameters agree only qualitatively with the experimental data. In particular, the splittings of the $\rm ^4S_{3/2}$ and $\rm ^4F_{3/2}$ multiplets are underestimated by about 30%.
The next step in the simulations involves variations of the initial values of the CF parameters. To conserve the physical meaning of the CF parameters during the fitting procedure, namely, their definition within the crystallographic coordinate system, the CF parameters were varied to match simultaneously not only the measured energies of the CF levels (see Table \[TableII\]) but the principal values and orientations of the principal axes of the $g$-tensor of the ground doublet of the Er$^{3+}$ ion (see Table \[TableI\]) as well.
When a strongly diluted paramagnetic crystal [$\rm SrY_2O_4$:Er$^{3+}$]{} is placed in an external magnetic field $\bm{H}$, the Hamiltonian (\[eq7\_ham\]) of an Er$^{3+}$ ion contains an additional term, the Zeeman energy, ${\cal H}_Z = - \bm{\hat{m} H}$. Here $\bm{\hat m} = -\mu_{\mathrm B} \sum_j (k\bm{\hat l}_j + 2 \bm{\hat s}_j)$ is the magnetic moment operator, the sum is taken over eleven $4f$ electrons, and $k$ is the orbital reduction factor that, for simplicity, is approximated by a scalar. The projection of the Zeeman energy on the 2-dimensional space of wave functions ($\sigma =+$ and $-$) of a Kramers doublet $\Gamma$ can be written as ${\cal H}_S = \mu_{\mathrm B}\sum\limits_{\alpha \beta } H_\alpha g_{\alpha \beta} \hat{S}_\beta$, where the effective spin $S=1/2$, and components of the $g$-tensor are determined by the corresponding matrix elements of the magnetic moment: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
g_{\alpha x} & = & 2\operatorname{Re}\langle \Gamma, + \vert \hat{m}_\alpha \vert \Gamma, -\rangle, \\* \nonumber
g_{\alpha y} & = &-2\operatorname{Im}\langle\Gamma, + \vert \hat{m}_\alpha \vert \Gamma, -\rangle, \\*
g_{\alpha z} & = & 2\langle\Gamma, + \vert \hat{m}_\alpha \vert \Gamma, + \rangle.
\label{eq12_gxyz}\end{aligned}$$ Square roots of eigenvalues of the matrix $(g^2)_{\alpha\beta}=\sum\limits_\gamma g_{\alpha \gamma } g_{\beta \gamma}$ are the principal values of the $g$-tensor, and eigenvectors of this matrix are the directional cosines of the corresponding principal axes. In the present work we considered the orbital reduction factor as an additional fitting parameter with the condition that it may only deviate from unity by a small amount. The fitting procedure involved numerical diagonalization of the Hamiltonian (\[eq7\_ham\]) for each fixed set of the CF parameters and subsequent computations of the $g$-tensor components (\[eq12\_gxyz\]) of the ground doublet; the main attention was paid to the correct description of the CF energies of the ground multiplet sublevels and principal values of the $g$-tensor. It is well established that the conventional one-electron CF parameterization underestimates the splitting of the $\rm ^2H_{11/2}$ multiplet of Er$^{3+}$ [@Jayasankar_1989; @Moune_1991; @Gruber_1993; @Tanner_2002]. Following Refs. [@Moune_1991] and [@Tanner_2002], to fit the measured splittings, we introduced additional empirical parameters, the multiplying factors of 1.37 and 1.32 for the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the R1 and R2 sites, respectively, in the reduced matrix elements of the fourth-rank spherical tensors in the space of states belonging to this multiplet. The final values of the CF parameters are presented in Table \[TableIII\], and the calculated $g$-factors and the CF energies are compared with the experimental data in Tables \[TableI\] and \[TableII\], respectively. Using the obtained sets of the CF parameters, we are also able to satisfactorily reproduce the results of the magnetization measurements. From a comparison of the calculated and measured field dependencies of the magnetization along the crystallographic axes at a temperature of 2 K for the sample assuming different populations $c_\kappa$ of the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the R1 and R2 sites (see Fig. \[Fig7\_M\_Y\]), we obtained physically meaningful values of $c_{\rm R1}=57$% and $c_{\rm R2}=43$%. This result proves the preferential occupation of the R1 sites by the impurity Er$^{3+}$ ions in the strongly diluted paramagnet [$\rm SrY_2O_4$:Er$^{3+}$]{}.
Inelastic neutron scattering {#subsec_INS}
----------------------------
Intensity of neutron scattering from powder [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} is considered here as a sum of two terms (see Eq. \[eq13\_iet\] below) corresponding to elastic and inelastic scattering. Neglecting magnetic interactions between the paramagnetic ions, *i.e.*, supposing that the Er$^{3+}$ ions contribute independently to the scattering processes, we can write the scattering intensity versus energy transferred from the incident neutrons to the magnetic subsystem, averaged over directions of the scattering vector, as follows [@Trammell_1953] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq13_iet}
I(\Delta E,T) & = & K_{f}D(0,\Delta E) \\* \nonumber
& + & \sum \limits_{\kappa \Gamma \Gamma ^\prime} p_{\kappa ,\Gamma }(T)D(E_{\kappa \Gamma^\prime} - E_{\kappa \Gamma},\Delta E) w_{\kappa}(\Gamma,\Gamma^\prime),\end{aligned}$$ where $$D(x,\Delta E) = (2\pi \delta ^2)^{-1/2}\exp [-(x-\Delta E)^2/2\delta^2]
\label{eq14_dxe}$$ is the setup form-function that is approximated by a Gaussian, $p_{\kappa,\Gamma }(T)$ are populations of energy levels $E_{\kappa \Gamma}$ with wave functions $\vert \kappa \Gamma,\sigma \rangle$ of Er$^{3+}$ ions at $\kappa$-sites, $\kappa = $Er1, Er2; $$w_{\kappa }(\Gamma ,\Gamma^\prime) = \sum \limits_{\sigma\sigma^\prime,~\alpha =x,y,z}\vert\langle\kappa \Gamma^\prime, \sigma^\prime | \hat{m}_{\alpha} |\kappa \Gamma ,\sigma \rangle\vert^2
\label{eq15_dipoles}$$ are relative probabilities of magnetic dipole transitions between energy levels of a RE ion, and $K_f$ is a fitting parameter. Expression (\[eq15\_dipoles\]) is a reasonable approximation for the scattering intensity assuming equal probabilities for the directions of the crystallographic axes in a powder sample. The spectral envelopes (\[eq13\_iet\]) were calculated by making use of the transition energies given in Table \[TableII\], the transition probabilities computed with the wave functions obtained from the numerical diagonalization of Hamiltonian (\[eq7\_ham\]) for impurity Er$^{3+}$ ions in [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{}, and a $\delta$ value of 4.4 cm$^{-1}$. The corresponding HWHM of $\sqrt{2 \ln{2}} \: \delta = 0.65$ meV of the spectral lines is chosen to coincide with the average instrumental resolution for the neutrons with an incident energy of 24 meV. The results are compared with the experimental data in Fig. \[Fig6\_INS\].
At low temperatures, in particular, at 5 K, the spectrum is formed by transitions of the Er$^{3+}$ ions from the ground doublet to the excited crystal field sublevels of the $\rm ^4I_{15/2}$ multiplet. According to the calculations, the peaks A and B (see Fig. \[Fig6\_INS\]) correspond to the transitions with integrated intensities (in units of the intensity of the transition A at the R1 sites) of 1.0 and 0.86 to the first excited doublets with energies 26.2 and 41.1 cm$^{-1}$ at the R1 and R2 sites, respectively. Both the peaks C and D correspond to the unresolved closely spaced transitions to the third (with energies 75.1 and 74.6 cm$^{-1}$) and fourth (with energies 97.3 and 93.4 cm$^{-1}$) sublevels of the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the R1 and R2 sites, with the total intensities of $0.45+0.30=0.75$ and $0.35+0.26=0.61$, respectively. The peak E with an intensity of 0.264 corresponds to transitions from the ground state to the fifth sublevel of the $\rm ^4I_{15/2}$ multiplet with an energy of 111.7 cm$^{-1}$ at the R1 sites. Note that the calculated intensities of transitions from the ground state to the upper three sublevels of the $\rm ^4I_{15/2}$ multiplet at both the R1 and R2 sites are about two orders of magnitude weaker than the intensities of transitions within the lower groups of five sublevels. The temperature evolution of the spectrum envelope is caused by the redistribution of the sublevel populations, a number of additional transitions appear which lead to the smoothing of the scattering spectra at higher temperatures.
Four-particle self-consistent model: dc magnetic susceptibility and the magnetization {#sec_4p_model}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above discussions prove that the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the R1 and R2 sites have rather different magnetic anisotropy in the ground state, the easy axis of the magnetization is parallel to the chain direction (along the $c$ axis) for Er1, and is perpendicular to the chain direction for Er2. At temperatures of about 1 K the dipole-dipole interactions tend to induce a long-range ferromagnetic order along the chains at the Er1 sites or an [antiferromagnetic]{} order of the Néel type at the Er2 sites because of small distances between the nearest neighbor ions in the chains and large values of the $g$-factors $g_3$ (Er1) and $g_1$ (Er2). In particular, when considering only the dipolar interactions, simulations of the dc susceptibility along the $c$ axis in the framework of the conventional single-site mean-field approximation bring about a divergence at the Curie-Weiss temperature of 2.1 K. Powder neutron diffraction and single-crystal heat capacity measurements have demonstrated long-range magnetic ordering in [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} below $T_{\rm N}=0.75$ K, but with a rather specific magnetic structure: the magnetic moments at the Er1 sites point along the $c$ axis and form ferromagnetic chains along this direction, with neighboring chains coupled antiferromagnetically [@Petrenko_2008]. Note that the measured value of the magnetic moment at the Er1 sites of 4.5$\mu_{\mathrm B}$ at $T=0.55$ K is in line with the corresponding $g$-factor $g_3=9.93$ which is determined in the present work. The measured magnetic moments of the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the R2 sites below $T_{\rm N}$ have much reduced values, and it has been shown that only short-range magnetic correlations emerge within the R2 chains coexisting with the long-range order in the R1 chains [@Petrenko_2008; @Hayes_2011].
In the following we focus our attention on the magnetic properties of [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} in the paramagnetic phase. Each Er$^{3+}$ ion (at both the R1 and R2 sites) has eight neighboring Er$^{3+}$ ions at distances less than 0.4 nm. For example, an ion in the sublattice number 1 (at the R1 site) has the two nearest neighbor ions belonging to the same sublattice (to the left and right within the chain, see Fig. \[Fig1\_structure\]), a pair of the next nearest neighbor R1 ions belonging to the magnetically equivalent sublattice number 3 (on the second leg of the ladder), and two pairs of more distant ions at the R2 sites belonging to the sublattices with numbers 6 and 7. There are good reasons to believe that the neighboring ions are connected by strong [antiferromagnetic]{} exchange interactions, such as the observed [antiferromagnetic]{} ordering of the R1 chains, and the measured temperature dependence of the susceptibility (see Fig. \[Fig8\_chi\]), which demonstrates the suppressed responses of the Er$^{3+}$ ions in external magnetic fields at low temperatures.
To elucidate the temperature dependence of the dc susceptibility (in particular, the broad peak observed in the low-temperature susceptibility along the $c$ axis), and the field dependence of the isothermal magnetization, we employ the well known Bethe-Peierls approximation and introduce the four-particle self-consistent model. In the framework of this model we treat the dipole-dipole interactions exactly by computing the lattice sums with the Ewald method and consider the exchange coupling constants as fitting parameters.
Let us consider four neighboring Er$^{3+}$ ions in a zig-zag chain labeled sequentially by indices I, II, III and IV (as shown in Fig. \[Fig1\_structure\]). The effective Hamiltonian of this cluster has the following form: $${\cal H}_C = {\cal H}_{C0} - (\bm{\hat m}_{\rm I}+\bm{\hat m}_{\rm IV}) \bm{H}_{loc 1} - (\bm{\hat m}_{\rm II} + \bm{\hat m}_{\rm III}) \bm{H}_{loc 2} ,
\label{eq16_ham-c}$$ where $\bm{H}_{loc 1}$ and $\bm{H}_{loc 2}$ are local magnetic fields affecting the external and internal pairs of the ions (these two pairs of the ions – the first and the fourth, the second and the third – are not equivalent in the construction). The Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{C0}$ involves the single-ion energies $\mathcal{H}_j$ and the energies of interactions between the ions in the cluster: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\cal H}_{C0} & = & \sum\limits_{j={\rm I, IV}} {\cal H}_j + \bm{\hat m}_{\rm I} \bm{J}_r \bm{\hat m}_{\rm II} + \bm{\hat m}_{\rm II} \bm{J}_r^\prime \bm{\hat m}_{\rm III} \\*
& + & \bm{\hat m}_{\rm III} \bm{J}_r \bm{\hat m}_{\rm IV} + \bm{\hat m}_{\rm I} \bm{J}_c \bm{\hat m}_{\rm III} + \bm{\hat m}_{\rm II} \bm{J}_c \bm{\hat m}_{\rm IV} .
\label{eq17_ham-c0}\end{aligned}$$ The matrices $\bm{J}_r = \bm{J}_r^{(dd)} + \bm{J}_r^{(ex)}$, $\bm{J}_r^\prime = \bm{J}_r^{\prime (dd)}+\bm{J}_r^{\prime (ex)}$ and $\bm{J}_c = \bm{J}_c^{(dd)} + \bm{J}_c^{(ex)}$ determine the dipole-dipole ($dd$) and the exchange ($ex$) interactions between the Er$^{3+}$ ions along the rungs, $r$, and legs, $c$, of the ladder under consideration. The operators (\[eq16\_ham-c\]) and (\[eq17\_ham-c0\]) work in the Kronecker product of the four single-ion Hilbert spaces of states. For magnetic fields of less than 60 kOe and temperatures below 60 K, computations of the magnetization and susceptibility of the single Er$^{3+}$ ion at the R1 (or R2) site have shown that results obtained with the Hamiltonian determined in the total space of 364 states of the electronic $4f^{11}$ configuration, and those with the single-ion Hamiltonian determined in the truncated Hilbert space spanned by the wave functions of the three lowest CF doublets, do not differ by more than a few percent. Based on these results, we constructed the matrix representation of the Hamiltonian (\[eq16\_ham-c\]) in the basis of $6^4=1296$ states corresponding to the three lower sublevels of the ground multiplet of each of the four Er$^{3+}$ ions in the cluster. The contributions to the magnetic moments due to other excited single-ion states were taken into account in the last step of the simulations by adding the corresponding differences estimated from the exact single-ion calculations.
To model the temperature dependence of the dc susceptibility, first we compute the responses of the Er$^{3+}$ ions in the cluster to weak local magnetic fields. For a given set of the exchange coupling constants in the Hamiltonian (\[eq17\_ham-c0\]), components of single-site susceptibility tensors, ${\bm \chi}^{(i)}_{\kappa, j}$, are calculated numerically in the temperature range $1 - 50$ K with a step size of 0.25 K. The average magnetic moments of the Er$^{3+}$ ions are determined according to the following expressions (here, similar to the notation introduced above, $\kappa=$ R1, R2; $j = \rm{I - IV}$, $\langle \bm{m}_{\kappa, \rm{I}} \rangle = \langle \bm{m}_{\kappa, \rm{IV}} \rangle$, $\langle \bm{m}_{\kappa, \rm{II}} \rangle = \langle \bm{m}_{\kappa, \rm{III}} \rangle)$: $$\langle \bm{m}_{\kappa, j} \rangle = \bm{\chi}_{\kappa, j}^{(1)}\bm{H}_{\kappa, loc1} + \bm{\chi}_{\kappa, j}^{(2)}\bm{H}_{\kappa, loc2} .
\label{eq18_m-kj}$$
$\rho \alpha$, $\rho^\prime \beta$ $Q_{\rho \alpha, \rho^\prime \beta}$ $\rho \alpha$, $\rho^\prime \beta$ $Q_{\rho \alpha, \rho^\prime \beta}$
------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- --
$\rho x$, $\rho x$ -4.116 $\rho x$, $\rho +4x$ -1.139
$\rho y$, $\rho y$ -4.781 $\rho y$, $\rho +4y$ 4.144
$\rho z$, $\rho z$ 11.897 $\rho z$, 7$z$ 0.215
1$x$, 2$x$ 0.629 1$x$, 7$y$ 2.809
1$y$, 2$y$ 2.370 1$x$, 8$x$ 3.092
1$x$, 3$x$ -1.432 1$y$, 8$y$ -0.084
1$y$, 3$y$ 3.717 1$z$, 8$z$ -0.008
1$z$, 3$z$ 0.715 1$x$, 8$y$ 0.006
1$x$, 3$y$ -4.657 5$x$, 6$x$ 0.634
1$x$, 4$x$ 2.310 5$y$, 6$y$ 2.366
1$y$, 4$y$ 0.694 5$x$, 7$x$ -1.471
1$x$, 6$x$ 6.777 5$y$, 7$y$ 3.797
1$y$, 6$y$ -4.082 5$z$, 7$z$ 0.674
1$z$, 6$z$ 0.305 5$x$, 7$y$ -4.526
1$x$, 6$y$ -0.045 5$x$, 8$x$ 2.352
1$x$, 7$x$ -1.272 5$y$, 8$y$ 0.653
1$y$, 7$y$ 4.058 5$z$, 8$z$ -0.005
: Dipolar lattice sums $Q_{\rho \alpha, \rho^\prime \beta}$ (in units of 4$\pi$/3$\nu_c$).
\[TableIV\]
Such a cluster approach allows us to (at least partly) account for quantum correlations between the magnetic moments. Neglecting fluctuations of magnetic moments of the ions outside a fixed cluster (specifically, we consider a cluster containing the Er$^{3+}$ ions at magnetically equivalent R1 sites, belonging to the sublattices with numbers $\rho =1, 3$), we can write the local magnetic fields as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq19_ham-R1l1}
\bm{H}_{{\rm R1}, loc 1} & = & \bm{H}_{{\rm R1}, 0} - \bm{J}_r^{(ex)}\langle \bm{m}\rangle_{\rm R1} + \Delta \bm{H}_{\rm R1} , \\
\bm{H}_{{\rm R1}, loc 2} & = & \bm{H}_{{\rm R1}, 0} + \bm{J}_r^{(dd)}\langle \bm{m}\rangle_{\rm R1},
\label{eq20_ham-R1l2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\bm{H}_{{\rm R1}, 0} & = & \bm{H} - \bm{H}_D + \sum\limits_{\rho =1}^8 (\bm{Q}_{1 , \rho} - \bm{J}_{1, \rho}^{(ex)}) \langle \bm{m}_\rho \rangle \\*
& + & (\bm{J}_r^{(dd)}+\bm{J}_c^{(dd)} - \bm{J}_c^{(ex)}) \langle \bm{m}\rangle_{\rm R1}.
\label{eq21_ham-R1-0}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\bm{H}_{D}$ is the demagnetizing field, and $\langle \bm{m} \rangle_{\kappa}$ are magnetic moments of the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the sites $\kappa$ induced by the external field $\bm{H}$ (a more rigorous definition is given below). When $\bm{H} \parallel c$, only the $z$ components of the average single-ion magnetic moments are nonzero, and $\langle m_{\rho, z} \rangle = \langle m \rangle_{{\rm R1}, z}$ for $\rho$ from 1 to 4, $\langle m_{\rho, z} \rangle = \langle m \rangle_{{\rm R2}, z}$ for $\rho$ from 5 to 8. For the magnetic field $\bm{H} \parallel a$ and $\bm{H} \parallel b$, the calculations of the local fields are more complicated because the single-ion susceptibility tensors have nonzero off-diagonal components, and the magnetic moments are tilted away from the external magnetic field direction in the $ab$ plane. Specifically, for $\bm{H} \parallel a$, the components of the magnetic moments satisfy the relations $\langle m_{\rho, x} \rangle = \langle m \rangle_{{\rm R1}, x}$ for $\rho$ from 1 to 4, $\langle m_{\rho, x} \rangle = \langle m \rangle_{{\rm R2}, x}$ for $\rho$ from 5 to 8, $\langle m_{1, y} \rangle = -\langle m_{2, y} \rangle = \langle m_{3, y} \rangle = -\langle m_{4, y} \rangle = \langle m \rangle_{{\rm R1}, y}$ and $\langle m_{5, y} \rangle = -\langle m_{6, y} \rangle = \langle m_{7, y} \rangle = -\langle m_{8, y} \rangle = \langle m \rangle _{{\rm R2}, y}$. Similar relations, with the rearranged indices $x$ and $y$, are valid for $\bm{H} \parallel b$. The matrices $\bm{J}^{(ex)}_{\rho,\rho^\prime}$ in Eq. (\[eq21\_ham-R1-0\]) correspond to the exchange interactions between the next-nearest-neighbors and between the Er1 and Er2 ions. The nonzero values of the dipolar lattice sums $$Q_{\rho\alpha, \rho^\prime \beta} = \sum\limits_{L(n_1, n_2, n_3)} \frac{(-r_{L\rho \rho^\prime}^2 \delta_{\alpha \beta } + 3x_{L\rho \rho ^\prime \alpha} x_{L\rho \rho^\prime \beta })}{r_{L\rho \rho ^\prime}^5}
\label{eq22_dipolar-lattice}$$ (here $x_{L\rho\rho^\prime\alpha}$ is the $\alpha$-component of the vector $\bm{r}_{L\rho\rho^\prime} = n_1\bm{a} + n_2\bm{b} + n_3\bm{c}+\bm{r}_\rho - \bm{r}_{\rho^\prime}$, and $n_1, n_2, n_3$ are integers) are presented in Table \[TableIV\] in units of $4\pi/3v_{c}$, where $v_c = abc$ is the unit cell volume). According to the crystal lattice symmetry $\bm{Q}_{2,3} = \bm{Q}_{1,4};~\bm{Q}_{2,4} = \bm{Q}_{1,3};~\bm{Q}_{3,4} = \bm{Q}_{1,2};~\bm{Q}_{6,7} = \bm{Q}_{5,8};~\bm{Q}_{6,8} = \bm{Q}_{5,7};~\bm{Q}_{7,8} = \bm{Q}_{5,6};~\bm{Q}_{2,5} = \bm{Q}_{3,8} = \bm{Q}_{4,7} = \bm{Q}_{1,6};~\bm{Q}_{2,7} = \bm{Q}_{3,6} = \bm{Q}_{4,5} = \bm{Q}_{1,8};~\bm{Q}_{2,8} = \bm{Q}_{3,5} = \bm{Q}_{4,6} = \bm{Q}_{1,7}$. The additional magnetic field $\Delta \bm{H}_{\rm R1}$ introduced in Eq. (\[eq19\_ham-R1l1\]) is determined from the condition of the magnetic equivalence of all ions in the cluster, namely $$\langle \bm{m}_{\kappa, \rm{I}} \rangle = \langle \bm{m}_{\kappa, \rm{II}} \rangle = \langle \bm{m}_{\kappa, \rm{III}} \rangle = \langle \bm{m}_{\kappa, \rm{IV}}\rangle .
\label{eq23_mag-equiv}$$ This condition renormalizes the single-site susceptibilities, which now take the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\bm{\chi}_{\kappa}^{(s)} & = & \bm{\chi}_{\kappa, \rm{I}}^{(1)}(\bm{\chi}_{\kappa, \rm{I}}^{(1)} - \bm{\chi}_{\kappa, \rm{II}}^{(1)})^{-1}\bm{\chi}_{\kappa, \rm{II}}^{(2)} \\*
& - & \bm{\chi}_{\kappa, \rm{II}}^{(1)}(\bm{\chi}_{\kappa, \rm{I}}^{(1)} - \bm{\chi}_{\kappa, \rm{II}}^{(1)})^{-1}\bm{\chi}_{\kappa, \rm{I}}^{(2)} .
\label{eq24_1site-chi}\end{aligned}$$ The components of the bulk dc susceptibility tensor $\bm{\chi} = N_A (\bm{\chi}_{\rm R1}+\bm{\chi}_{\rm R2})/2$ (per mole of Er, where $N_A$ is the Avogadro constant) are obtained from solutions of a system of self-consistent linear equations which determine the susceptibilities $\bm{\chi}_{\kappa}$ of the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the R1 and R2 sites: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \bm{m}\rangle_{\rm R1} & = & \bm{\chi}_{\rm R1}\bm{H} = \bm{\chi}_{\rm R1}^{(s)}\bm{H}_{{\rm R1}, loc2}(\langle \bm{m}\rangle_{\rm R1}, \langle \bm{m} \rangle_{\rm R2}) , \\
\langle \bm{m}\rangle_{\rm R2} & = & \bm{\chi}_{\rm R2}\bm{H} = \bm{\chi}_{\rm R2}^{(s)}\bm{H}_{{\rm R2}, loc2}(\langle \bm{m}\rangle_{\rm R1}, \langle \bm{m} \rangle_{\rm R2}).
\label{eq25_1site-chi-eqs}\end{aligned}$$
In the temperature range of $1-50$ K, the computed susceptibilities describing the response of [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} samples to external magnetic fields directed along the principal crystallographic axes agree well with the experimental data, as shown in Fig. \[Fig8\_chi\]. Relatively small differences between the measured and simulated susceptibilities along the $a$ and $b$ axes become noticeable only at temperatures below 3 K. It should be noted that the broad maximum observed in the susceptibility along the $a$ axis (at temperatures close to $T_{\rm N} = 0.75$ K) is shifted in the calculated temperature dependence of $\chi_{aa}$ to 1.25 K. The results of calculations hint that the low-temperature broad peaks in $\chi_{aa}$ and $\chi_{bb}$ are related to the intrinsic properties of the Er2-ladders (*i.e.*, the geometrically frustrated exchange interactions), and that these peaks could perhaps be observed more clearly if the temperature range was extended to below 0.5 K despite the magnetic ordering of the Er1-ladders. The parameters of the exchange and dipolar interactions between the Er$^{3+}$ ions in the clusters used in the calculations are presented in Table \[TableV\] (note that in our model $\bm{J}_r = \bm{J}_r^\prime$). From the data, it can readily be seen that the introduced anisotropic exchange interactions are comparable with the dipolar ones. The additional contributions to the local magnetic fields due to the exchange interactions (defined by Eq. \[eq21\_ham-R1-0\]) are estimated from the fitting procedure. Namely, they are determined by the parameters $\sum\limits_{\rho =1,3} J_{1x, \rho x}^{(ex)}=13.4$, $\sum\limits_{\rho =1,3} J_{1y, \rho y}^{(ex)}=\sum\limits_{\rho =5,7} J_{5y,\rho y}^{(ex)} = \sum\limits_{\rho =5, 7} J_{5z, \rho z}^{(ex)} = 8.9$, $\sum\limits_{\rho =1,3} J_{1z,\rho z}^{(ex)}=14.5$, $\sum\limits_{\rho =5,8} J_{1x,\rho x}^{(ex)}=\sum\limits_{\rho =1,4} J_{5x,\rho x}^{(ex)} = 17.8$, $\sum\limits_{\rho =5,7} J_{5x,\rho x}^{(ex)}=31.2$ (in the units of 10$^{-3}$ cm$^{-1}/\mu_{\mathrm B}^2$).
------------------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------
$J_{\alpha \beta}^{(\ldots)}$ $(ex)$ $(dd)$ $(ex)$ $(dd)$
$J_{r,xx}^{(\ldots)}$ 2.5 4.1 28 4.2
$J_{r,yy}^{(\ldots)}$ 2.5 -7.1 7.5 -7.2
$J_{r,xy}^{(\ldots)}=J_{r,yx}^{(\ldots)}$ 0 10.3 0 10.0
$J_{r,zz}^{(\ldots)}$ 24.0 3.0 7.5 3.0
$J_{c,xx}^{(\ldots)}=J_{c,yy}^{(\ldots)}$ 5.0 11.2 5.0 11.2
$J_{c,zz}^{(\ldots)}$ 5.0 -22.4 5.0 -22.4
------------------------------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------
: Parameters of the exchange ($J_r^{(ex)}$, $J_c^{(ex)}$) and dipole-dipole ($J_r^{(dd)}$, $J_c^{(dd)}$) interactions (in units of 10$^{-3}$ cm$^{-1}$/$\mu_{\mathrm B}^2$) between the Er$^{3+}$ ions in the R1 and R2 ladders.
\[TableV\]
At low temperatures, the energy of interaction determined by the parameter $J_{\rho \alpha, \rho^\prime \beta}^{(ex)}$ is actually a bilinear function of the corresponding $g$-factors of the ground state. Remembering the large value of $g_{xx}$ of the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the R2 sites, we conclude that the peculiar magnetic properties of these ions (and particularly, the absence of long-range order) are caused by strong [antiferromagnetic]{} interactions between the ions forming edge-sharing triangles in the R2 ladders. In contrast, in the R1 ladders, a ferromagnetic dipolar interaction along the legs prevails due to the large value of the $g$-factor $g_{zz}$, and induces the long-range magnetic order seen at low temperatures.
The reliability of the parameters presented above and in Table \[TableV\] is confirmed by the good agreement between the calculated and measured field dependencies of the magnetization of [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} for the magnetic fields directed along different crystallographic axes as shown in Fig. \[Fig9\_M\_Er\]. Calculations of the average self-consistent magnetic moments at 5 K were performed using density matrices corresponding to the Hamiltonians (\[eq16\_ham-c\]) of the four-particle clusters in the R1 and R2 ladders and the procedure of subsequent approximations. The results of calculations (in Fig. \[Fig9\_M\_Er\]) clearly demonstrate that there is a strong magnetic anisotropy of the easy-axis type along the $c$ axis at the R1 sites and along the $a$ axis at the R2 sites.
Summary
=======
To summarize, we report the results of a systematic study of the behavior of the magnetic Er$^{3+}$ ions in [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{} as well as in a lightly doped nonmagnetic analogue, [$\rm SrY_2O_4$:Er$^{3+}$]{}. The observed EPR spectra in the single crystals of established very anisotropic $g$-factors for the Er$^{3+}$ ions in the two crystallographically inequivalent sites. The CF energies of the Er$^{3+}$ ions substituting for the Y$^{3+}$ ions were determined by making use the methods of the site-selective laser spectroscopy. This combination of the EPR and spectral studies was further complemented by inelastic neutron scattering as well as the measurements of the field dependencies of magnetization in the paramagnetic phase of the concentrated system, [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{}. The obtained data allowed us to develop a theoretical model to describe the electronic structure of the Er$^{3+}$ ions both in the magnetically dilute and concentrated samples. Although operating with a large number of independent parameters it was not possible to determine all of their values unambiguously, we are able to estimate most of these parameters from the literature data or from simulations based on known models developed for CF theory. The sets of CF parameters obtained for the Er$^{3+}$ ions at the two crystallographically inequivalent positions are related to the crystallographic axes, contrary to the results of the CF simulations for the impurity Eu$^{3+}$ ions in [Sr$R_2$O$_4$]{} ($R=$ Y, Gd, In) reported in Ref. [@Taibi_1993].
It is rather important to be able to separate the single-ion effects from the collective interactions for the overall understanding of the complex low-temperature magnetic properties of the concentrated strontium rare earth oxides [Sr$R_2$O$_4$]{} (as well as the related family of barium rare earth oxides [@Doi_2006; @Besara_2014; @Aczel_2014]). We hope that the approach adopted in this paper and that has proven successful for [$\rm SrEr_2O_4$]{}, could be applied to other compounds. In particular, our initial simulations show an Ising type magnetic anisotropy along the $c$ axis and close to the $b$ axis in the ground quasidoublet states of the Ho$^{3+}$ ions at the R1 and R2 sites, respectively, in [$\rm SrHo_2O_4$]{}. A more detailed analysis of the spectral and magnetic properties of the Ho$^{3+}$ ions in [$\rm SrY_2O_4$]{} and [$\rm SrHo_2O_4$]{} is in progress.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The work of R.V. Yusupov, D.G. Zverev, R. Batulin, I.F. Gilmutdinov and A.G. Kiiamov was funded by the subsidy of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation allocated to Kazan Federal University. B.Z. Malkin is grateful for support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant No. 14-02-00826).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study numerically how a sound signal stored in a quantum computer can be recognized and restored with a minimal number of measurements in presence of random quantum gate errors. A method developed uses elements of MP3 sound compression and allows to recover human speech and sound of complex quantum wavefunctions.'
author:
- 'Jae Weon Lee$^{(a)}$, Alexei D. Chepelianskii$^{(a,b)}$ and Dima L. Shepelyansky$^{(a)}$'
date: 'July 31, 2003'
title: Treatment of sound on quantum computers
---
In the last decade the rapid technological progress made possible the treatment of large amounts of information and their transmission over large distances. In spite of this the transmission of digital audio signals required the development of specific compression methods in order to achieve real time audio communication. A well known example of audio compression is the Mpeg Audio Layer 3 (MP3) which allows to reduce the signal size by an order of magnitude without noticeable distortion [@mp3]. It essentially uses the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) in order to have rapid access to the signal spectrum, whose analysis allows to reach significant compression rates. Such methods find every day applications in the Internet telephone communication and teleconferences.
Recent developments in quantum information make possible a new type of computation and communication using the quantum nature of the signal (see [*e.g.*]{} [@chuang; @qcom]). In quantum computation theory it was shown that certain quantum algorithms can be exponentially more efficient than any known classical counterpart. For instance the Shor algorithm enables to factorize large integers in a time polynomial in the number of bits whereas all known classical algorithms are exponential [@shor]. This algorithm relies on the Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT) which is exponentially faster than FFT [@chuang; @shor]. Simple quantum algorithms have been realized experimentally with few qubit quantum computers based on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) and ion traps [@chuang1; @cory; @blatt]. Quantum communications also attracted a great deal of attention since they allow to realize secret data transmission. Currently, such a transmission has been achieved over distances of up to a few tens kilometers [@qcom].
These prospects rise timely the question of treatment of audio signals on quantum computers. Classical audio analysis methods cannot be directly applied to quantum signals and it is important to adapt them to the new environment of quantum computation. Furthermore while digital signal treatment is faultless, quantum computation contains phase and amplitude errors which can affect the quality of sounds encoded on a quantum computer. In addition the extraction of quantum information relies on quantum measurements which bring new elements that must be taken into account in the treatment of quantum audio signals. Different type of sound signals are possible like human speech, music or pure quantum objects like the Wigner function [@wigner] which can be efficiently prepared on quantum computers [@laflamme; @levi].
For the standard audio sampling rate of $44 kHz$ a quantum computer with $20$ qubits (two-level quantum systems, see [@chuang]) can store a mono audio signal of $23$ seconds. A quantum computer with $50$ qubits may store an amount of information exceeding all modern supercomputer capacities (1000 years of sound). Thus the development of readout methods, which in presence of imperfections can recognize and restore the sound signal via a minimal number of quantum measurements, becomes of primary importance.
To study this problem we choose the following soundtrack pronounced by HAL in the Kubrick movie “2001: a space odyssey”: [*“Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. lab in Urbana, Illinois on the 12th of January”*]{} [@hal]. The duration of this recording is 26 seconds and at a sampling rate $f = 8 kHz$ it can be encoded in the wavefunction of a quantum computer with $n_q = 18$ qubits (the HAL speech is thus zero padded to last 32 seconds). This rate gives good sound quality and is more appropriate for our numerical studies. Digital audio signals can be represented by a sequence of samples with values $s_n$ in the interval $(-1, 1)$ so that the $n$-th sample gives the sound at time $t = n / f$. This signal can be encoded on a quantum computer by the following wavefunction $\psi = A \sum_n s_n | n >$, where $A$ is normalization constant. The state $|n>$ represents the multiqubit eigenstate $|a_1 ... a_i ... a_{n_q}>$ where $a_i$ is 0 or 1 corresponding to the lower or upper qubit state, the sequence of $a_i$ gives the binary representation of $n$.
Using numerical simulations we test various approaches to the readout problem of the above signal encoded in the wavefunction of a quantum computer. Direct measurements of the wavefunction do not allow to keep track of the sign of $s_n$ and many measurements are required to determine the amplitude $|s_n|$ with good accuracy. Another strategy is to use the analogy with the MP3 coding. With this aim we divide the sound into consecutive frames of fixed size $\Delta n = 2^{n_f}$ where $n_f$ can be viewed as the number of qubits required to store one frame. We choose these qubits to be the $n_f$ least significant qubits in the binary representation of $n = (a_1 ... a_{n_q-n_f+1} ... a_{n_q})$. Then we perform QFT on these $n_f$ qubits that corresponds to applying FFT to all the $2^{n_q - n_f}$ frames of the signal in parallel. This requires $n_f (n_f + 1) / 2$ quantum gates contrary to $O(n_f 2^{n_f})$ classical operations for FFT. After this transformation the wavefunction represents the instantaneous spectrum of the sound signal evolving in time from one frame to another. This way the most significant $n_q - n_f$ qubits store the frame number $k$ while the least significant $n_f$ qubits give the frequency harmonic number $j$. Hence, after QFT the wave function has the form $\psi = \sum_{k,j} S_{k,j} |k,j>$ where $S_{k,j}$ is the complex amplitude of the $j$-th harmonic in the $k$-th frame. The measurements in this representation gives the amplitudes $|S_{k,j}|$ while phase information is lost. However for sound the main information is stored in the spectrum amplitudes and the ear can recover the original speech even if the phases are all set to zero. Thus the recovered signal is obtained by the inverse classical FFT and is given by $s'_n = \sum_j |S_{k,j}| e^{ 2 \pi i j m / \Delta n } $ with $n = k \; \Delta n + m $ (to listen sound we use $Re (s'_n)$). For time domain measurements of $s_n$ the recovered signal is $\tilde{s}_n = |s_n|$. These expressions for $s'_n$ and $\tilde{s}_n$ hold for an infinite number of measurements. In reality it is important to approximate them accurately with a minimal number of measurements.
=8.5cm
-0.5cm
For our soundtrack we found that the optimal frame size is $\Delta n = 2^9 (n_f=9)$ and we perform $M$ measurements per frame. In Fig. 1 we compare the spectrum of $s'_n$ and $\tilde{s}_n$ with the original signal spectrum. Here only $M = 5$ measurements per frame are performed and the results clearly show that the quality of the restored sound is significantly higher for the spectrum domain measurements. Examples of restored and original sounds are available at [@qaudiosite]. The HAL speech is recognizable from $M = 5$ for spectrum domain measurements while it is distorted beyond recognition for direct time domain measurements even for $M = 100$.
=9.0cm
-0.6cm
Fig. 1 shows the global structure of the signal spectrum. To make comparison more quantitative and visual we show coarse grained color diagrams of the spectrum. The coarse graining is obtained by measuring only certain qubits corresponding for example to $a_1 a_2 a_3 a_4$ and $a_{10} a_{11} a_{12} a_{13}$. For $s'_n$ this gives a coarse grained spectrum $|S_{k,j}|$ in $2^4 \times 2^4$ cells shown in Fig. 2. The same total number of measurements as in Fig. 1 allows to reproduce the original coarse grained diagram with good accuracy. Even if QFT is performed with noisy gates (the angle in the unitary rotations fluctuates with an amplitude $\epsilon \pi = 0.05 \pi$) the spectrum diagram remains stable and is reproduced with good accuracy (see Fig. 2). At the same time the coarse graining in the time domain for the signal $\tilde{s}_n$ shown in Fig. 1 gives the diagram which is very different from the original.
=3.2in =2.6in -0.7cm
The global quality of the recovered signal $\tilde{s}_n$ (or $s'_n$) obtained via a finite number of measurements is convenient to characterize by the fidelity defined as $\tilde{f} =
|\sum_n{ \tilde{s}^{(')*}_n \tilde{s}^{(')}_n(M,\epsilon)}|/R$ with $R=
(\sum_n {|\tilde{s}^{(')}_n|^2}
\sum_n {|\tilde{s}^{(')}_n(M,\epsilon)|^2})^{1/2}$. Here, $\tilde{s}^{(')}_n(M,\epsilon)$ is the signal obtained in a way described above with $M$ measurements per frame in time domain $(\tilde{s}_n(M))$ or in frequency domain after QFT with noisy gates $(s'_n(M,\epsilon))$. The dependence of $\tilde{f}$ on $M$ is shown in Fig. 3. For large $M$ it approaches to unity for both signals $\tilde{s}_n$ and $s'_n$ at $\epsilon =0$. However, for a small number of measurements $(5 \leq M \leq 50)$ the fidelity is significantly higher for measurements performed in the frequency domain after QFT (Fig. 3 inset). The presence of noise in the quantum gates used in QFT for $s'_n$ reduces the value of $\tilde{f}$ but for $5 \leq M \leq 50$ and $\epsilon \leq 0.1$ this reduction is not significant. The drop of $\tilde{f}$ becomes considerable only at relatively large amplitudes with $\epsilon > 0.2$ as it is shown in Fig. 4. The residual level of $\tilde{f}$ at maximal $\epsilon \approx 1$ is in agreement with the statistical estimate according to which $\tilde{f}(\epsilon =1) \approx \sqrt{n_i/2^{n_f}} \approx 0.2$, where $n_i$ is the number of frequencies per frame for the original signal ($n_i \approx 20$ according to Fig. 2). At small $\epsilon$ the drop of $\tilde{f}$ is quadratic in $\epsilon$ ($1-\tilde{f} \sim \epsilon^2 n_f^2$) since each gate transfers about of $\epsilon^2$ amount of probability from ideal computational state to all other states [@levi]. The obtained results show that the MP3-like strategy adapted to the quantum signals allows to recover human speech with a significantly smaller number of measurements with a reduction factor of 10-20.
=3.2in -0.8cm
Above we assumed that the sound signal is already encoded in the wavefunction. For certain quantum objects such an encoding can be done efficiently. As an example we consider the wavefunction evolution described by the quantum sawtooth map $$\overline{\psi}=\hat{U}\psi =
e^{-iT\hat{l}^2/2}
e^{ik\hat{\theta}^2/2}\psi,
\label{qumap}$$ where $\hat{l}=-i\partial/\partial\theta$, $\hbar=1$, $k, T$ are dimensionless map parameter and $\overline{\psi}$ is the value of $\psi$ after one map iteration (we set $\hbar=1$). In the semiclassical limit $k \gg 1$, $T \ll 1$ the chaos parameter of the model is $K=kT=const$. The efficient quantum algorithm for the simulation of this complex dynamics was developed and tested in [@kr; @benenti]. The computation is done for the wavefunction $\psi$ on a discrete grid with $N=2^{n_q}$ points with $\theta_n=2\pi n/N, \; n=1,...,N$ in $\theta$-representation and $l+N/2=1,..,N$ in momentum representation. Here, as before $n_q$ is the number of qubits in a quantum computer and in $\theta$-representation $\psi= \sum_n \psi(\theta_n) |n>$ is encoded in the register $|n> = |a_1...a_i...a_{n_q}>$. The transition between $n$ and $\theta$ representations is done by QFT and one map iteration is computed in $O(n_q^2)$ quantum gates for an exponentially large vector of size $2^{n_q}$ [@benenti]. To study the sound of quantum wavefunctions of map (\[qumap\]) we choose here a case with $K=-0.5$, $T=2\pi/N$ and $n_q=14$ corresponding to a complex phase space structure.
The signal encoded in the wavefunction $\psi(\theta_n)$ after $t$ map iterations can be treated in a way similar to one used before for the HAL speech $s_n$. The measurements in $\theta$-basis give the signal $\tilde{s}_n= |\psi(\theta_n)|$ which however requires a large number of them to suppress noise (also the phase is completely lost). Another method works as for $s'_n$ signal: first QFT is performed on $n_f=5$ less significant qubits giving $\psi = \sum_{k,j} S_{k,j}|k,j>$ and then the measurements are done to determine the instantaneous spectrum amplitudes $|S_{k,j}|$ of $\psi(\theta_n)$ (here $k=1,...,2^9$ is the frame number, $j=1,...,2^5$ is the index of frequency harmonics and $\Delta n = 2^5$). The sound of quantum wavefunction is recovered via the inverse classical FFT giving $s'_n$ signal defined before. Examples of restored sound are given at [@qaudiosite] and clearly show that the quality of MP3-like signal $s'_n$ is much higher compared to $\tilde{s}_n$ (we use sampling rate $f=1$ kHz for this case with $n_q=14$).
=3.2in -0.5cm
A more detailed analysis of the quantum sound $s'_n$ can be obtained from the coarse grained spectrum digram similar to the one in Fig. 2. The coarse graining of $S_{k,j}$ is done by measuring 5 most significant and 5 less significant qubits corresponding to $a_1 a_2 ... a_5$ and $a_{10} a_{11} ... a_{14}$ that gives coarse grained distribution $S^{(g)}$ in $32 \times 32$ cells. The diagrams of $S^{(g)}$ obtained for infinite and finite number of measurements are displayed in Fig. 5 (left top and bottom respectively). The exact diagram shows an interesting structure which is recovered with a finite number of measurements. This structure remains robust against noise in the quantum gates used for computation of $100$ map iterations and final QFT (Fig. 5 right bottom).
The origin of this structure becomes clear after its comparison with the coarse grained Wigner function called the Husimi distribution $h(\theta,l)$ [@levi; @husimi] which is shown in Fig. 5 (right top) which is very close to $S^{(g)}$ (left top). Indeed, $h(\theta,l)$ is defined in the phase space $(l,\theta)$ by $$h(l,\theta)= \sum_{l'=l-N/2}^{l+N/2} G(l'-l) \psi(l') e^{i l' \theta}
\label{husimi}$$ where the gaussian smoothing function is $G(l'-l) =(T/\pi)^{1/4} e^{-T(l'-l)^2/2} /\sqrt{N}$ [@levi; @husimi]. The Husimi distribution is always positive and gives a direct comparison between the classical phase space Liouville density distribution and a quantum wavefunction. In fact the coarse grained distribution $S^{(g)}$ is also given by equation (\[husimi\]) where $G(l')$ is replaced by a constant in the interval $\Delta l' =2^{5}$ and zero outside that corresponds to the application of QFT to less significant qubits $n_f=5$. Such a replacement modifies the values of coarse grained $h(\theta,l)$ but this modification remains small if $\Delta l' \gg 1$ [@frahm]. As a result we may argue that the signal $s'_n$ represents the quantum sound of coarse grained Wigner function. In conclusion, our results show that sound signals stored in a quantum memory can be reliably recognized and recovered on realistic quantum computers. The method proposed allows to obtain sound of quantum wavefunctions that can be useful for future quantum telecommunications.
This work was supported in part by the EC IST-FET project EDIQIP and the NSA and ARDA under ARO contract No. DAAD19-01-1-0553.
[99]{} http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/audio.html M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (2000). N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74**]{}, 145 (2002). P.W.Shor, in [*Proc. 35th Annual Symposium on Foundation of Computer Science*]{}, Ed. S.Goldwasser (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 1994), p.124. Y.S. Weinstein, M.A. Pravia, E.M. Fortunato, S. Lloyd, and D.G. Cory, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 1889 (2001). L.M.K.Vandersypen, M. Steffen, G. Breyta, C.S. Yannoni, M.H. Sherwood, and I.L. Chuang, Nature [**414**]{}, 883 (2001). S.Gulde, M.Riebe, G.P.T.Lancaster, C.Becher, J.Eschner, H.Häffner, F.Schmidt-Kaler, I.L.Chuang and R.Blatt, Nature [**421**]{}, 48 (2003). E. Wigner Phys. Rev. [**40**]{}, 749 (1932); M. V. Berry, Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. [**287**]{}, 237 (1977). C. Miquel, J. P. Paz, M. Saraceno, E. Knill, R. Laflamme and C. Negrevergne, Nature [**418**]{}, 59 (2002). B. Lévi, B. Georgeot and D.L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 046220 (2003). Sound is available at http://www.palantir.net/cgi-bin/file.cgi?file=wav/hal9000.wav http://www.quantware.ups-tlse.fr/qaudio/ B. Georgeot and D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2890 (2001). G. Benenti, G. Casati, S. Montangero and D. L. Shepelyansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 227901 (2001). S.-J. Chang and K.-J. Shi, Phys. Rev. A [**34**]{}, 7 (1986). Detailed analysis of quantum computation of Husimi distribution is done by K.M. Frahm (in preparation, 2003).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Measurement of the substellar initial mass function (IMF) in very young clusters is hampered by the possibility of the age spread of cluster members. This is particularly serious for candidate planetary mass objects (PMOs), which have a very similar location to older and more massive brown dwarfs on the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram (HRD). This degeneracy can be lifted by the measurement of gravity sensitive spectral features. To this end we have obtained medium resolution (R$\approx$5000) Near-infrared Integral Field Spectrometer (NIFS) K band spectra of a sample of late M-/early L-type dwarfs. The sample comprises old field dwarfs and very young brown dwarfs in the Taurus association and in the $\sigma$ Orionis cluster. We demonstrate a positive correlation between the strengths of the 2.21 $\mu$m NaI doublet and the objects’ ages. We demonstrate a further correlation between these objects’ ages and the shape of their K band spectra. We have quantified this correlation in the form of a new index, the H$_{2}$(K) index. This index appears to be more gravity-sensitive than the NaI doublet and has the advantage that it can be computed for spectra where gravity-sensitive spectral lines are unresolved, while it is also more sensitive to surface gravity at very young ages ($<$10 Myr) than the triangular H band peak. Both correlations differentiate young objects from field dwarfs, while the H$_{2}$(K) index can distinguish, at least statistically, populations of $\sim$1 Myr objects from populations of $\sim$10 Myr objects. We applied the H$_{2}$(K) index to NIFS data for one Orion nebula cluster (ONC) PMO and to previously published low resolution spectra for several other ONC PMOs where the 2.21 $\mu$m NaI doublet was unresolved and concluded that the average age of the PMOs is $\sim$1 Myr.'
author:
- |
J. I. Canty$^{1}$[^1] P.W. Lucas$^{1}$ P.F. Roche$^{2}$ D.J. Pinfield$^{1}$\
$^{1}$Centre for Astrophysics Research, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, AL10 9AB, UK\
$^{2}$Astrophysics Department, University of Oxford, 1 Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH
title: Towards Precise Ages and Masses of Free Floating Planetary Mass Brown Dwarfs
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: formation $-$ stars: low-mass, brown dwarfs $-$ stars: luminosity function, mass function $-$ stars: pre-main-sequence.
Introduction
============
Deriving the substellar IMF requires a representative sample of objects whose ages are well-constrained. Evolutionary models can then be used to assign masses and radii to these objects. However, because cooling is more rapid for less massive bodies, brown dwarfs of any given effective temperature have a well known degeneracy between age and mass. In very young (1-10 Myr) brown dwarfs this problem is most serious for the coolest and least massive objects with spectral types $>$ M8 and masses $<$ 25 M$_{\rm{Jup}}$ (see, for example, Figure 5 of @weights09, hereafter W09), where objects with planetary masses and ages of $\sim$1 Myr are not well separated in the HRD from brown dwarfs with ages of $\sim$10 Myr and masses 3 times higher. The Lyon DUSTY isochrones [@allard01] and those of @d'antona97 agree in this. In order to derive the substellar IMF, this age-mass degeneracy must be lifted.
It has been shown that source ages can be measured using gravity sensitive alkali metal absorption lines in the optical or near-infrared (@martin96; @steele95; @gorlova03; @allers07, hereafter A07; @riddick07; @luhman07; @close07). This technique can differentiate 1 Myr objects from 5 Myr objects, and 5-10 Myr objects from field dwarfs, since very young substellar objects rapidly contract to smaller radii. The radii of evolved field brown dwarfs have little dependence on age or mass [@burrows93], while the radii of very young brown dwarfs can be up to six times the size of their final equilibrium radii [@stassun06]. In consequence, their surface gravities ($g=GM/R^2$) can be substantially lower than those of older, more massive dwarfs of the same spectral type.
Theoretical models show that the luminosities of brown dwarfs decrease rapidly over time as they radiate away the internal energy supplied by gravity during the formation process (e.g. @burrows01, hereafter B01). Therefore, many analyses have focussed on young clusters, where the higher luminosities of brown dwarfs at young ages allows the mass function to be derived for masses as low as 5-15M$_{\rm{Jup}}$.
Among the uncertainties in these models are those dealing with the ages of the objects and the accuracy of the models themselves. These uncertainties are most significant in the cases of very young brown dwarfs in pre-main sequence clusters.
One uncertainty concerns a brown dwarf’s initial energy. A ‘hot start’ brown dwarf forms from the collapse of a molecular cloud. A brown dwarf formed in a ‘cold start’ via core accretion has less gravitational potential energy stored as internal energy so that, mass for mass, the brown dwarf is cooler and less luminous than a ‘hot start’ brown dwarf. After $\sim$2 Myr, runaway gas accretion produces a peak in the luminosity of ‘cold start’ brown dwarfs [@marley07]. For the next $\sim$1 Myr and regardless of their mass, ‘cold start’ brown dwarfs outshine their ‘hot start’ counterparts, after which they cool quickly and become less luminous than ‘hot start’ brown dwarfs of a similar mass. This implies that ‘cold start’ brown dwarfs older than a few Myr would need to have higher masses in order to account for their observed luminosities. We note that since ‘cold start’ brown dwarfs form from a protoplanetary disk, this formation model is unlikely to apply to isolated brown dwarfs.
The constant mass accretion rate described in the standard model of star formation ( @shu77; @terebey84) may give rise to the “luminosity problem", exemplified in the case of young nearby T Tauri stars with solar luminosities. These stars are under-powered in the sense that they should have several solar luminosities if they are descending approximately vertical Hayashi tracks on the HRD [@kenyon90], depending on how young they are when they are observed. Time-variable accretion may resolve the “luminosity problem". It has been shown that episodic bouts of accretion rather than a spread of ages can also explain the luminosity spread in young clusters (@baraffe12, hereafter B12).
These various uncertainties become less of a problem after only a few Myr, but they must be considered when dealing with the youngest brown dwarfs.
In this paper we investigate spectral signatures of age for substellar objects in pre-main sequence clusters. Previous work by this group and others has established the existence of a population of PMOs in the ONC (@lucas06, hereafter L06; @riddick07). A statistical analysis of the luminosity function by W09 indicates that most substellar objects in the cluster have ages of order 1 Myr, and it is unlikely that the PMO candidates represent a tail of older and more massive objects. However, the size of the planetary mass population cannot be tightly constrained until their ages are known with better precision.
The observations described in this paper were intended to produce the highest resolution spectra yet obtained (R$\approx$5000) of three PMOs in the ONC and a sample of brighter calibrator brown dwarfs with known ages and/or gravities, including three objects on the deuterium-burning threshold in the $\sigma$ Orionis cluster. In the event, we were unable to obtain useful data for two of the three ONC targets. However, the high quality of the data obtained for all of the calibrators has enabled a useful investigation of the effects of surface gravity on the K band spectra of very young brown dwarfs.
Our aim was to use medium resolution spectroscopy to investigate the sensitivity of the NaI doublet at 2.21$\mu$m to surface gravity, and hence age, while using the CaI line at 2.26$\mu$m and the CO absorption bands at 2.29$\mu$m and 2.32$\mu$m to correct for any metallicity variations or veiling by hot dust. It was also intended to use these spectra to provide more precise spectral types than had been possible previously, and also to confirm that the IMF extends below 10M$_{\rm{Jup}}$. An unexpected by-product of the investigation was the discovery that the slope of the K band also has strong sensitivity to gravity, which appears to provide a useful age indicator. While the effect of surface gravity on the K band spectra of pre-main sequence brown dwarfs has previously been noted (@luhman04a; A07), it has not been studied in detail.
Structure of this Paper
=======================
Section 3 of this paper describes how our sample of brown dwarf calibrators and PMOs were chosen.
Section 4 describes how these objects were observed, and how their spectra were extracted.
Results are reported in Section 5. Section 5.1 contains the objects’ K band spectra. Section 5.2 describes how the strengths of the NaI lines and other spectral features were determined. Section 5.3 deals with the objects’ revised spectral types.
Section 6 relates our findings regarding collisionally induced absorption by H$_2$ in the K bandpass. Section 6.1 describes the derivation of a new index, the H$_{2}$(K) index, to measure this absorption and how the index is related to the objects’ ages. Section 6.2 uses models to show changes in the K band slope with surface gravity. Section 6.3 tests the H$_{2}$(K) index for the effects of hot dust, extinction, noise and metallicity, and examines whether the H$_{2}$(K) index varies as a function of spectral type.
Section 7 describes how the H$_{2}$(K) index was examined using an extended dataset of spectra from the literature.
Our results are discussed in Section 8. Section 8.1 contains a more detailed discussion of the results for our sample of brown dwarf calibrators. Section 8.2 discusses our observed spectrum of an ONC PMO. Section 8.3 describes a distinctive water absorption pattern in the K band which may be an additional diagnostic in classifying spectra.
Section 9 compares the strength of neutral alkali metal lines with the H$_{2}$(K) index as age indicators.
Section 10 contains our conclusions.
Selection of Targets
====================
In the last few years, large populations of brown dwarfs have been discovered in several very young clusters where the mass function appears to extend below the deuterium-burning threshold of 0.012-0.013M$_{\odot}$ (@lucas00; @zapatero00; @scholz11; @scholz12). The ONC contains the largest known sample of very young brown dwarfs, and therefore is an ideal site to obtain good statistics on the IMF at planetary masses and to gain insights into low-mass brown dwarf formation processes. The formation mechanism responsible for the low masses of the substellar objects is currently unknown.
The three ONC PMOs are 183$-$729 (18), 152$-$717 (27) and 137$-$532 (172) (@lucas00; @lucas05, hereafter LRT05) (the numbers in brackets are the source catalogue numbers quoted in LRT05). They were selected because each has a bright star $I_{MAG}$=15$-$16 and $R_{MAG}$=17$-$18 within $\sim$25$\arcsec$ that could potentially be used as a tip/tilt guide star for laser-guided adaptive optics (AO) and they are bright enough for medium resolution ground based spectroscopy. We note that there is only a modest range of apparent K magnitudes amongst the spectroscopically confirmed PMOs in L06. Their PMO status is based on their spectral types of $\sim$M9$-$L0, their low surface gravities (L06; W09), and their low luminosities. Low gravity was determined by comparing these objects’ H and K band pseudo-continuum profiles with those of other low gravity brown dwarfs and high gravity field dwarfs in low resolution spectra. These features confirmed that these objects were cluster members, and therefore that their ages are unlikely to be more than $\sim$10 Myr. The PMOs are within a few arcminutes of the centre of the ONC, so they are likely to be very young ($\sim$1 Myr) objects, rather than members of the more dispersed and slightly older population that extends over a few degrees on the sky.
In the event, useful observations were obtained for only one ONC PMO, 152$-$717. This source has apparent magnitude K=17.6, which is typical of the sample in L06. It was not possible to obtain a guide star lock for the other two PMOs, owing to the bright background of the nebulosity. We note that this observing method could be more successfully employed in future when the patrol radius of the Gemini Altair AO system has been increased, allowing the use of brighter guide stars.
The calibrators consisted of two field dwarfs, 2MASS 0345+25, hereafter 2MASS 0345 [@kirkpatrick97], BRI 0021$-$0214, hereafter BRI 0021 [@irwin91], three 3-7 Myr objects, $\sigma$ Orionis 51 [@zapatero00], $\sigma$ Orionis 71 [@barrado02], $\sigma$ Orionis J053849.5$-$024934, hereafter $\sigma$ Orionis J053$-$024, and five 1-2 Myr objects, KPNO-Tau 1 [@briceno02], KPNO-Tau 4 [@briceno02], KPNO-Tau 12 [@luhman03], 0457$+$3015, and 2MASS 0535$-$0546 [@stassun06].
The calibrators were all chosen because they have similar spectral types to the ONC PMOs, with the exception of the eclipsing binary 2MASS 0535$-$0546 (type M7) which was felt to be worthy of observation owing to the precisely known surface gravities of the components.
The three $\sigma$ Orionis objects were selected because there was fairly good prior evidence that they were bona fide cluster members, as opposed to contaminating field dwarfs in front of this rather diffuse cluster. This evidence was either from previous spectroscopy of alkali metal lines ($\sigma$ Orionis 51, [@mcgovern04]) or from detection of mid-infrared excess and/or spectroscopic evidence ($\sigma$ Orionis 71, $\sigma$ Orionis J053$-$024, [@caballero07]). Being older, they can be used to compare objects of slightly greater mass and gravity.
Further selection criteria for the 1-2 Myr calibrators in the Taurus-Auriga molecular cloud complex and field dwarf calibrators were that they are bright objects with little or no extinction and that previous studies have found them to be fairly typical objects with no obvious veiling by a circumstellar accretion disc (see above references). While the 1-2 Myr calibrators are more massive than the ONC PMOs, the Lyon DUSTY isochrones predict that they also have larger radii, such that their surface gravities are very similar.
{height="4.35in" width="2.in"}
{height="4.35in" width="2.in"}
{height="4.35in" width="2.in"}
{height="4.35in" width="2.in"}
{height="4.35in" width="2.in"}
{height="4.35in" width="2.in"}
Observations & Data Reduction
=============================
Observations of the ten calibrators were made over eight nights between 23 August 2008 - 29 October 2009. Observations of the PMOs were made on 16 October 2009. Observations were made using the 8m Gemini Telescope at Gemini North with NIFS [@mcgregor03]. The latter was fitted with the K band grating, centred at 2.2$\mu$m. Observations were normally made in an ABBA pattern to facilitate the removal of the sky background and dark current. Some characteristics of the brown dwarf calibrators and of the observed PMO, together with some observational notes including the S/N range of the NaI absorption feature for each object are shown in Table 1. These ranges were chosen as they are typical of the S/N for each observation.
[c c c c c c]{} & K band Magnitude & Integration Time (s) & S/N & Aperture Size ($\prime\prime$)\
\[0.5ex\] 2MASS 0345$+$25 & 12.7 & 480 & 80$-$116 & 0.5\
BRI 0021$-$0214 & 10.6 & 480 & 158$-$184 & 0.6\
$\sigma$ Orionis 51 & 16.1 & 3600 & 29$-$59 & 0.23$^{1}$\
$\sigma$ Orionis 71 & 16.1 & 3600 & 34$-$73 & 0.26$^{1}$\
$\sigma$ Orionis J053$-$024 & 16.2 & 3600 & 22$-$44 & 0.26$^{1}$\
KPNO-Tau 1 & 13.7 & 1000 & 96$-$123 & 0.5\
KPNO-Tau 4 & 13.3 & 1000 & 102$-$133 & 0.5\
KPNO-Tau 12 & 14.9 & 1800 & 52$-$119 & 0.5\
2MASS 0535$-$0546 & 13.8 & 500 & 84$-$131 & 0.45\
0457$+$3015 & 14.5 & 1800 & 63$-$129 & 0.44\
\[1ex\]
152$-$717 & 17.6 & 6300 & 4$-$8 & 0.2$^{1}$\
\[1ex\] $^{1}$Observed using Adaptive Optics
\[tab:1\]
Raw data were reduced using the GEMINI NIFS package within IRAF. The reduction was made in three steps: a baseline calibration to produce a shift reference file, a flat field file, a flat bad pixel mask file, a wavelength referenced arc file, and a spatially referenced ronchi file; a telluric calibration reduction to produce a 1D spectrum of the standard star to be used for telluric calibration of the science data; and a science data reduction to produce a 3D data cube which has been sky subtracted, flat fielded, cleaned of bad pixels, and telluric corrected.
The first two steps in the reduction process were completed by editing processing scripts supplied by the Gemini Observatory. The science reduction also largely followed a Gemini script. However, several additional steps were required to complete the reduction. In particular, the hydrogen Br$\gamma$ absorption line at 2.1661$\mu$m in the spectrum of the standard star chosen for the telluric calibration of each science object had to be removed, the modified spectrum then being divided by the star’s blackbody spectrum and normalised before being divided into the extracted 1D science object spectrum to correct the latter for telluric absorption features.
The spectra were extracted using an aperture size of 1.5 times the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of each object, as determined from the dispersed images, see Table 1.
Observations in the K band are susceptible to contamination by telluric OH sky lines. For the fainter objects observed here, the flux in the sky lines often varied sufficiently during the exposures that the lines were poorly subtracted in the reduction. To remove these lines as well as cosmic ray strikes and the general background, the data were processed using our own scripts to subtract the residual background along each column and interpolate across isolated pixels with highly anomalous counts. Care was taken to ensure that the scripts removed only noise features, using a comparison of the many image slices within each dispersed image to distinguish real features from noise.
We used the IRAF task [continuum]{} to normalise each science spectrum and remove the slope. We then fitted a second order chebyshev function to define a local pseudo-continuum. This pseudo-continuum set the flux level for measuring the equivalent widths of spectral features. While we experimented with higher-order fits, none differed significantly from the second-order fit. For this reason, the flux level of the pseudo-continuum was excluded as a source of error when we came to determine the uncertainties in our measurements. To obtain a representative pseudo-continuum, the fit excluded the NaI lines and the CO absorption bands starting at 2.29$\mu$m. Generally, the wavelength range for the fit was from 2.1$\mu$m $\rightarrow$ 2.2$\mu$m, and 2.21$\mu$m $\rightarrow$ 2.29$\mu$m. As a pseudo-continuum was used to measure these equivalent widths, they are more accurately referred to as pseudo-equivalent widths (pEWs). Spectral features were deblended using the IRAF task [splot]{} and the pEWs derived by fitting Voigt functions to the deblended lines.
Results
=======
K band Spectra
--------------
The extracted 1D spectra of nine brown dwarf calibrators are shown in Figure 1. All spectra were smoothed using three pixel boxcars.
Age (Myr) pEW NaI (Å) pEW CaI (Å) pEW CO (Å)
----------------------------- ------------ --------------- --------------- ----------------
2MASS 0345+25 $\geq$1000 4.1$\pm$ 0.2 1.1$\pm$ 0.1 15.1$\pm$ 0.2
BRI 0021$-$0214 $\geq$1000 2.2$\pm$ 0.1 1.3$\pm$ 0.1 18.8$\pm$ 0.1
$\sigma$ Orionis 51 3-7 1.0$\pm$ 0.5 0.5$\pm$ 0.3 9.3$\pm$ 0.6
$\sigma$ Orionis 71 3-7 1.8$\pm$ 0.5 $-$ 8.4$\pm$ 0.5
$\sigma$ Orionis J053$-$024 3-7 2.1$\pm$ 0.6 $-$ 9.4$\pm$ 0.5
KPNO-Tau 1 1-2 1.8$\pm$ 0.2 0.3$\pm$ 0.1 12.4$\pm$ 0.2
KPNO-Tau 4 1-2 1.0$\pm$ 0.1 0.6$\pm$ 0.1 10.3$\pm$ 0.1
KPNO-Tau 12 1-2 1.2$\pm$ 0.3 $-$ 9.8$\pm$ 0.2
2MASS 0535$-$0546 1-2 1.1$\pm$ 0.1 0.9$\pm$ 0.1 10.4$\pm$ 0.1
0457$+$3015 1-2 1.7 $\pm$ 0.3 0.9 $\pm$ 0.1 10.5 $\pm$ 0.2
\[1ex\]
\[tab:2\]
Rotational Velocity (v sin i) kms$^{-1}$
----------------------------- ------------------------------------------ --
2MASS 0345+25 25$^{1}$
BRI 0021$-$0214 40$^{2}$
$\sigma$ Orionis 51 $-$
$\sigma$ Orionis 71 $-$
$\sigma$ Orionis J053$-$024 $-$
KPNO-Tau 1 5.5$^{3}$
KPNO-Tau 4 10$^{3}$
KPNO-Tau 12 5$^{3}$
2MASS 0535$-$0546 10$^{4}$
0457+3015 $-$
\[1ex\] $^{1}$ @antonova08
$^{2}$ @reid99
$^{3}$ @mohanty05
$^{4}$ @reiners07
\[tab:3\]
Equivalent Widths
-----------------
pEWs of the NaI doublet (2.206$\mu$m and 2.209$\mu$m) and of the CO band head starting at 2.294$\mu$m were obtained for all brown dwarf calibrators. pEWs of the CaI triplet (2.261$\mu$m, 2.263$\mu$m and 2.265$\mu$m) were obtained for both field dwarfs, one 3-7 Myr old object, and four 1-2 Myr old objects. These results are shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows, where known, the rotational velocities of the calibrators (obtained from the literature). Figure 2 shows the pEWs and their associated uncertainties. For comparison, Figure 2 also shows the NaI EWs of a sample of field dwarfs, M8 $\rightarrow$ M9.5, from the IRTF Spectral Library, contained in @cushing05 \[C05\] and @rayner09 \[R09\].
The pEW uncertainties in our sample of calibrator brown dwarfs were determined from the objects’ dispersed 2D images. The image (before sky subtraction) was used to compute the total number of photons over the region containing the absorption feature. The width of this region was determined from the NIFS instrument profile and was found to be $\sim$2.2040$\mu$m - 2.2095$\mu$m for all our objects. The sky-subtracted 2D image of this region was used to determine the signal. The photon noise was then calculated using Poisson statistics.[^2]
Our sample consists of objects in two known age groups, $\sim$1-2 Myr, $\sim$3-7 Myr, and those in the field. The age of the field objects is unknown, but they are significantly older than the objects in the known age groups. It would be interesting to examine the pEWs of gravity-sensitive features in objects with ages of a few 100 Myr. For example, the Pleiades cluster ($\sim$120 Myr) is known to contain a number of late M/early L dwarfs (@bihain10, hereafter B10). (Note that later in this paper we examine an extended dataset, in which we derive the H$_{2}$(K) indices of several Pleiades objects.) We examined whether the CaI triplet and the CO trough at 2.29$\mu$m are also affected by surface gravity. For both these features, the pEWs of the two field dwarfs are larger than those of the other objects in our sample, particularly in the case of the CO trough, while the pEWs for these features among the two sets of younger calibrators are broadly similar.
. \[fig:fig2\]
### Age Spreads
Does the spread of values of pEW in each age category represent a real spread in ages? The spectrum either side of the NaI feature contains molecular absorption features which deepen with decreasing T$_{eff}$ (see Section 8.3). These features depress the local pseudo-continuum, leading to lower values of pEW. If our sample contained a wide range of spectral types, this is a possible cause of the spread of values of pEW. However, with one exception, our sample are spectral types M8.5$-$L0. An ($I, I-J$) colour-magnitude study of 35 $\sigma$ Orionis cluster members found evidence of a spread in ages from 1-7 Myr [@kenyon01]. A later survey of the $\sigma$ Orionis cluster found a large spread in measured values of Li pEW [@kenyon05], indicating a spread of ages. The authors did not reach any conclusions as to the cause of this spread in Li pEW, but noted that similar spreads in Li pEW have been observed among low mass objects in the Chamaeleon I cluster (@joergens01; @natta04). A study of the luminosity spread in the HRD of the ONC argued that there was little evidence to support age spreads greater than a few Myr [@jeffries11].
There is some debate whether star formation is a slow process, taking place over several Myr, or whether it takes only as much time as is required for a sound wave to cross a molecular cloud. The sound crossing time depends on the radius of the cloud and on the sound speed, but @elmegreen00 has suggested that star formation could take as little as 1 Myr or less.
In the case of the $\sigma$ Orionis objects, $\sigma$ Orionis 51’s pEW is 1.5$\sigma$ from the mean pEW of its siblings which might indicate an age spread. The scatter in the pEWs of the 1-2 Myr objects is also slightly greater than would be expected from the 1$\sigma$ uncertainties. However, the scatter in the data could have other causes. For example, magnetic activity can produce surface spots, so that in order to maintain its luminosity, an object has to increase in size. This results in the object having a lower surface gravity than it would have without any magnetic activity. An investigation of magnetic activity in field M dwarfs has suggested that activity peaks around M7, with significant activity continuing into later spectral types [@hawley00]. Magnetic activity could be even greater among younger objects. A recent paper has suggested that the temperature reversal observed in 2MASS 0535$-$0546 could be due to magnetic fields inhibiting convection [@mohanty12].
While age spreads could explain the scatter in pEW values, our small sample size and the magnitude of the uncertainties on our data do not allow us to infer age spreads in young clusters. For example, the spread in data values could be due to observational scatter or may arise from differing formation mechanisms and accretion histories (B12). To settle the question of age spreads, we would need a sufficiently large sample of objects in order to undertake a rigorous statistical analysis.
---------------------------------- ------------------------ --------- ----------------------- ---------------
Object Previous Spectral Type Revised Spectral Type
WK QK
2MASS 0345$+$25$^{1}$ L0 $-$ $-$ $-$
BRI 0021$-$0214$^{1}$ M9.5 $-$ $-$ $-$
$\sigma$ Orionis 51 M9 $>$M9.5 $>$M9.5 L0$\pm$0.5
$\sigma$ Orionis 71 L0 M7.8 M8.3 M8$\pm$0.5
$\sigma$ Orionis J053$-$024 M9.5 M8.1 M9.3 M8.75$\pm$0.5
KPNO-Tau 1 M8.5 M8.3 M9.1 M8.75$\pm$0.5
KPNO-Tau 4 M9.5 $>$M9.5 $>$M9.5 L0$\pm$0.5
KPNO-Tau 12 M9 M9.1 M9.3 M9.25$\pm$0.5
0457+3015 M9.25 M9.1 M9.4 M9.25$\pm$0.5
\[1ex\] 152$-$717 M9 $>$M9.5 M9.3 M9.5$\pm$1.0
\[1ex\] $^{1}$Old field objects.
---------------------------------- ------------------------ --------- ----------------------- ---------------
\[tab:tab4\]
Spectral Typing
---------------
We took this opportunity to use our higher resolution spectra to re-examine the spectral typing of the younger objects in our sample, including the PMO. We used the WK and QK spectral indices previously defined by our group (L06), and the fits to these spectral indices used to characterise the GNIRS and NIRI data in L06 (W09). These indices provide spectral types consistent with the Luhman system of optical classification of spectra [@luhman99]. QK is a reddening independent index, whereas WK requires knowledge of the extinction toward the source. For the PMO 152$-$717, the extinction A$_V$ = 3.7 (L06). Thus, we were able to use the dereddened spectrum in determining its spectral type. For the $\sigma$ Orionis objects it is known that A$_V$ $\leq$ 1 mag, and, in most cases, changing A$_V$ by $\pm$ 2 mag alters the derived spectral type by $<$ 0.5 types [@bejar01]. Thus, we do not expect these spectra to be significantly affected by reddening. The same conclusion was made in the case of the Taurus association objects. While the WK index is sensitive to reddening, and therefore should be dereddened where possible, we have used it as a check on the spectral type derived from the more accurate QK index. We did not re-examine the spectral types of the field dwarfs in our dataset, as our spectral indices are only applicable to young objects. Our results are shown in Table 4.
Spectral types were rounded to the nearest 0.25 subtype (which is the practice in the Luhman system). To assign a spectral type, we took the mean of the spectral types derived using the WK and QK indices. To determine the uncertainties in spectral types, we first measured the scatter in the fits to the WK and QK indices in the M8 to M9.5 interval in W09. This was added in quadrature to the mean average difference (0.3 sub-types) derived from the difference between the WK-based and QK-based spectral types, averaged over the 5 objects in this spectral type interval. Uncertainties were rounded up to the nearest 0.25 subtype. As the fits derived by W09 are uncalibrated beyond M9.5, when both WK and QK indices indicated a spectral type later than M9.5, we compared our spectra with the spectra of early L-type brown dwarfs in the Upper Sco association described in @lodieu08, hereafter L08. As a result, we assigned a spectral type of L0 to these objects with an uncertainty of 0.5 spectral types.
We should qualify this re-examination of previously published spectra by saying that our classifications are based solely on our K band spectra. Spectral classifications using other near-infrared or optical wavebands may produce slight differences for different objects. To examine this, we recalculated the spectral types of the Upper Sco objects in L08 using our indices and found that our indices tended to produce spectral types $\sim$0.5 spectral types earlier than those in L08. The variations are close to our estimated uncertainties, however, and we feel justified in this exercise based on the high quality of our data.
![Variations of the K band slope with surface gravity are easily discernible in low resolution spectra. Here we plot smoothed versions of the NIFS spectra of 2MASS 0345 (field dwarf, solid line), $\sigma$ Orionis 71 (3-7 Myr, dashed line), and KPNO-Tau 4 (1-2 Myr, dotted line). The revised spectral types of these objects are indicated on the figure. The shaded areas are the wavelength regions over which the H$_{2}$(K) index is calculated.[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](1Myr_sigma_field_smoothed_010813.pdf)
**H$_2$** Collision Induced Absorption in the K band
====================================================
It has previously been observed that the F$_\lambda$ spectra of young, late M-type brown dwarfs have a flat maximum between 2.18$\mu$m and 2.28$\mu$m [@luhman04a], while mature field dwarfs of the same spectral type have a peak between 2.14$\mu$m and 2.18$\mu$m then decline between 2.18$\mu$m and 2.29$\mu$m (L06). In other words, the K band spectra of younger objects appear redder than the K band spectra of older objects. This change in the K band spectrum is believed to be caused by increased collision-induced absorption (CIA) by H$_2$ in the atmosphere, owing to the increase in surface gravity with age ( @saumon12, hereafter S12). We wanted to see whether this behaviour was evident in our sample, and, if it was, to quantify it.
Measuring H$_2$ CIA
-------------------
We used the smoothed NIFS spectra of our brown dwarf calibrators to identify the locations of the peaks in their continua. Figure 3 demonstrates how smoothed spectra can be used to trace the shape of the K band slope.
Notice that the 1-2 Myr object has a positive slope in the region of interest, while the older objects have negative slopes. Note also that while $\sigma$ Orionis 71 is only a few Myr older than KPNO-Tau 4, its slope is already negative. We expect that as $\sigma$ Orionis 71 ages, its peak emission will not move far from its present wavelength value, but its K band slope will become more negative, similar to the field dwarf calibrators. Thus, the slope of the K band should be useful in differentiating very young pre-main sequence objects from older objects.
We found that the location of the peak in the continuum varies, depending on the surface gravity of the object. For objects with the largest surface gravity (the field dwarfs), the mean peak was at 2.17$\mu$m, while for objects with the smallest surface gravity (the 1-2 Myr objects), the mean peak was at 2.24$\mu$m. Using the unsmoothed spectrum, the ratio of the median flux over a range of 0.02$\mu$m, centred at these wavelengths, defined an index, H$_{2}$(K),
$$H_{2}(K)=\frac{F_\lambda(2.17\mu\rm{m})}{F_\lambda(2.24\mu\rm{m})}$$
For young objects, with a positive, or at least flat slope, between these limits, the index returns a value $\le$ 1. For older objects, whose slope is negative, the index is $>$ 1.
The H$_{2}$(K) indices for our sample of brown dwarf calibrators are shown in Figure 4 and in Table 5. They are consistent with the results for the correlation of age with pEW shown in Figure 2. The uncertainties on the indices were determined using the standard error on the mean in the 0.02$\mu$m intervals over which the indices were calculated.
![H$_{2}$(K) index as a function of age for our brown dwarf calibrators. The red diamonds are the mean H$_{2}$(K) indices for each age bin. The ages of the objects are as described in Figure 2. Again, notice the position of $\sigma$ Orionis 51.[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](age_index_data_260613.pdf)
H$_{2}$(K) Index ${\lambda_{F_{MAX}}}$ ($\mu$m) $\bar{x}_{\rm{H_{2}(K)}}$ $\sigma$
----------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------- --------------------------- ---------- --
2MASS 0345+25 1.053$\pm$0.004 2.16 1.059 0.008
BRI 0021$-$0214 1.064$\pm$0.004 2.16
$\sigma$ Orionis 51 0.977$\pm$0.006 2.26 [^3] 1.014 0.032
$\sigma$ Orionis 71 1.030$\pm$0.006 2.16
$\sigma$ Orionis J053$-$024 1.036$\pm$0.008 2.19
KPNO-Tau 1 0.992$\pm$0.005 2.23 0.987 0.018
KPNO-Tau 4 0.962$\pm$0.005 2.25
KPNO-Tau 12 1.006$\pm$0.006 2.17
0457+3015 0.988$\pm$0.005 2.25
Among the calibrators, one 1-2 Myr object (KPNO-Tau 12) has a H$_{2}$(K) value $>$ 1, implying a negative slope (if only slightly). Also, $\sigma$ Orionis 51 has an unusually low H$_{2}$(K) value. This is consistent with this object’s NaI pEW. One should not use a single age/gravity indicator to infer the values of either of these quantities in one object. However, $\sigma$ Orionis 51 has two indicators of low gravity. While this spread in data values may be due to differing formation mechanisms and/or accretion histories, it can also result from an age spread in the $\sigma$ Orionis cluster.
Although the ONC PMO 152$-$717 is not one of our brown dwarf calibrators, the object’s data were obtained in this observation and we think it is appropriate to discuss the results here. While the S/N of the extracted spectrum was too low to allow us to measure the NaI pEW, we were able to calculate its H$_{2}$(K) index. With a value of 0.914$\pm$0.013, 152$-$717’s H$_{2}$(K) index is consistent with 152$-$717 being a low gravity object. Its value is also consistent with the values of the H$_{2}$(K) indices for the other ONC PMOs in the extended dataset (see Section 7 and Table 6). This highlights an important benefit of this method of constraining the surface gravity, and hence age, of these objects. Since the H$_{2}$(K) index is obtained by sampling the slope of the K band, this technique allows us to obtain indications of surface gravity using spectra which are too noisy or where $\lambda\//\Delta\lambda$ is too low to resolve narrow spectral features.
The Model H$_{2}$(K) Indices
----------------------------
### Modelling H$_2$ CIA in the K band
The objects in our sample of brown dwarf calibrators are of a similar spectral type. They differ most significantly in age, and therefore in surface gravity. Molecular hydrogen is the most abundant constituent of brown dwarf atmospheres and H$_2$ CIA is positively correlated to density. At any given metallicity, objects with greater surface gravity will show enhanced H$_2$ CIA.
H$_2$ absorption in the K band has been examined before (@tokunaga99, hereafter T99). T99 defined two parameters. The first parameter, K1, measures the slope of the spectrum between 2.00$\mu$m and 2.14$\mu$m. The second parameter, K2, measures the strength of H$_2$ absorption between 2.14$\mu$m and 2.24$\mu$m. T99 suggested that the K2 parameter could be used to estimate an object’s T$_{eff}$. They did not apply this index to constrain an object’s age other than to say that the K2 parameter was generally negative for field dwarfs. In a subsequent survey of young cluster members, the K2 parameter was typically positive (L08).
To further examine the effect of H$_2$ CIA on the shape of the K band, we used newly computed models of H$_2$ CIA in the atmospheres of late-type brown dwarfs to generate synthetic spectra at T$_{eff}=$ 2200K (the typical T$_{eff}$ of an M9.5$-$L0 dwarf), over a range of surface gravities from log g $=$ 3.5$\;\rightarrow\;$5.5 \[S12\]. The results are shown in Figure 5. These Saumon & Marley models assume that the dwarfs’ atmospheres are cloudy $(F_{sed}=2)$ and of solar metallicity.
The models show a change of slope in the region 2.16$\mu$m - 2.28$\mu$m, with the slope decreasing with increasing gravity. They predict that the rate of change of the slope increases with increasing gravity. They also predict that the spectra should show greatest sensitivity to the increasing contribution of CIA H$_2$ to the opacity of the atmosphere in the K band at log g $>$ 4.5, rather than at the lower gravities expected in pre-main sequence clusters. The data imply a stronger dependence of CIA H$_2$ opacity on gravity than the models predict, particularly at log g $<$ 4.5.
In Figure 6, we used Lyon DUSTY isochrones (@chabrier00; @baraffe02) to estimate the surface gravities of our brown dwarf calibrators (see Section 8.1). We took the mean surface gravity for each age group of brown dwarf calibrators, and assigned to that gravity the mean H$_2$(K) index for that age group. We then plotted the Saumon & Marley 2200K model H$_{2}$(K) indices as a function of surface gravity, fitted a simple polynomial to the data points and interpolated between the points to determine the values of the model H$_{2}$(K) indices at the surface gravities of the brown dwarf calibrators. We repeated the procedure using an extended dataset (seen Section 7), and found a similar relationship between data and models.
The disparity between models and data at lower gravities is clear. The changes in the H$_2$(K) index at lower gravities are much larger for the data than for the models. It may be that the models overestimate the significance of dust opacity at these lower gravities. It is possible that young objects can have higher T$_{eff}$ than field dwarfs of the same spectral type [@luhman03b]. This higher T$_{eff}$ may prevent dust condensation, allowing H$_2$ CIA opacity to play a greater role.
The degeneracy in the data at log g $\sim$5 may be due to the very low resolution (R $\approx$ 50) of the data point at log g $=$ 4.90 (Teide 1, a Pleiades object from the extended dataset (see Section 7)). It is also possible that the H$_2$(K) index becomes saturated at log g $\geq$ 5. While this behaviour is not shown by the model spectra, we note that the other Pleiades objects in the extended dataset, HII 1248B and BPL 62, have H$_2$(K) indices of 1.068 and 1.138 respectively. We assume that these objects have similar surface gravities. If the H$_{2}$(K) index does saturate at these values of log g, this would imply an upper limit on the age sensitivity of the index.
Figure 7 shows a strong correlation between the NaI pEWs and the H$_2$(K) indices calculated from our dataset of brown dwarf calibrators and from the Saumon & Marley 2200K models. The strength of gravity-sensitive neutral alkali metal lines is a well-proven method in establishing the ages of late-type M dwarfs. This correlation suggests that the H$_2$(K) index is at least as good an age indicator. (See Section 9 for a more detailed comparison of the two age indicators.)
![The relationship between the mean H$_{2}$(K) indices of our original dataset (triangles), the extended dataset (squares) and the model H$_2$(K) indices. The observed dependence of the H$_{2}$(K) index as a function of gravity appears to be substantially steeper than predicted by the models at low surface gravities.[]{data-label="fig:fig6"}](H2K_SM2200_DATA_110313.pdf)
![The correlation between NaI pEWs and H$_{2}$(K) indices for our original dataset (triangles, solid line) and the Saumon & Marley model spectra (circles, dashed line). Note that we have used the means of these values for the original dataset.[]{data-label="fig:fig7"}](NaI_H2K_040213.pdf)
Testing the H$_{2}$(K) Index
----------------------------
### The Effect of Dust and Extinction
In cases of unresolved binarity, emission from a disc, non-sphericity, etc, the K band may exhibit a flux excess, affecting the H$_{2}$(K) index. A common cause of K band flux excess in young objects is emission from a dusty accretion disc. To examine the effect of dust emission on the K band of a typical 1-2 Myr calibrator (KPNO-Tau 4), it was assumed that half the calibrator’s flux was produced by dust, simulated by a blackbody function. This is the level of contamination we would expect to find in the K band spectra of very dusty objects. We performed two simulations of the blackbody function, at 900K and 1200K respectively, see Figure 8. The 1200K blackbody spectrum peaks at $\sim$2.4$\mu$m. The combined 1200K blackbody and science object spectrum (dotted line) peaks at $\sim$2.25$\mu$m, relatively close to KPNO-Tau 4’s peak flux (solid line). The blackbody spectrum is flatter near its peak so adding a large component of this flux to the spectrum of KPNO-Tau 4 causes the latter to similarly flatten, increasing its H$_{2}$(K) index. The 900K blackbody spectrum peaks at $\sim$3.2$\mu$m. The combined 900K blackbody and science object spectrum (dashed line) peaks at $\sim$2.28$\mu$m. This has the opposite effect, steepening KPNO-Tau 4’s spectrum and decreasing its H$_{2}$(K) index.
The H$_{2}$(K) index samples the K band flux, the region of the near infrared most susceptible to contamination by dust emission. While the effect of contamination by dust emission is somewhat mitigated by the narrow baseline (0.07$\mu$m) over which the index is calculated, the emission from the dusty objects simulated in Figure 8 does alter the H$_{2}$(K) index of KPNO-Tau 4 by $\sim\pm$0.02. While this is significant, we note that the presence of such large amounts of emission from a dusty disc becomes obvious in the spectrum (see Figure 8), so that such objects can be excluded when calculating an average H$_{2}$(K) index for a population.
The H$_{2}$(K) index will be affected by extinction. For example, assuming $A_{\textit{v}}=~5$ magnitudes, the H$_{2}$(K) index of a noiseless model spectrum decreases from 0.97 to 0.95. However, in most cases it will be possible to deredden a spectrum accurately, thereby minimising the effect.
![The effect of dust emission on K band spectra. Emission from blackbodies at 900K and at 1200K are added to the smoothed spectrum of KPNO-Tau 4 (dashed line and dotted line, respectively) and contrasted with the original spectrum (solid line). The shaded areas are as described in Figures 3 and 5.[]{data-label="fig:fig8"}](KPNOTau4_DUST_103pix_010813.pdf)
![The effect of noise on the H$_{2}$(K) index. Randomly generated noise was added to a model spectrum ($T_{eff}$ 2200K, log g = 5.5).[]{data-label="fig:fig9"}](2200_NOISE_H2K_081112.pdf)
### The Effect of Noise
We carried out a Monte Carlo analysis to examine the effect of noise on the H$_{2}$(K) index. We chose a noiseless model spectrum and added successively larger fractions of noise. The noise was added randomly to each pixel of the model spectrum, at the spectral resolution of our NIFS spectra. After 10${^4}$ iterations of each stage we measured the mean absolute change in the H$_{2}$(K) index. The results are shown in Figure 9. The change in the H$_{2}$(K) index exceeds $\pm$ 0.02 when noise comprises $>$ 20% of the flux.
### The Effect of Metallicity
Our discussion on 2MASS 0535$-$0546 (see Section 8.1.3) concludes that alkali metal absorption features in mid to late M dwarfs are almost pure measures of surface gravity, with very little dependence on temperature. While surface gravity is probably the largest factor in determining the shape of the K band slope, metallicity is likely to have some effect. Reducing the metallicity removes H$_2$O and CO opacity from the K band while other transmission windows (YJH) become more transparent since they don’t have as much H$_{2}$ CIA absorption. Thus, the K band flux decreases relative to YJH (D.Saumon, private communication). Increasing the metallicity has the opposite effect.
In summary, K band flux is reduced in the case of low metallicity or high gravity, and enhanced where there is low gravity or high metallicity [@leggett07].
While variations in metallicity may affect the K band slope, the objects we have examined in this paper reside in regions of solar metallicity where variations in metallicity are negligible [@santos08].
### The H$_{2}$(K) index as a Function of Spectral Type
We looked at variations in the H$_{2}$(K) index due to the spectral type of the objects in our complete dataset. In Figure 10 we plot these objects’ H$_{2}$(K) indices as a function of their spectral types. The plot shows no clear trend and a simple linear fit to the data has a correlation coefficient of $<$0.1.
![The H$_{2}$(K) indices of the complete dataset, plotted as a function of spectral type. Red diamonds are the mean H$_{2}$(K) index values. Errorbars are shown for the outlying objects at each spectral type.[]{data-label="fig:fig10"}](h2k_spt_260613.pdf)
Extending the Dataset
=====================
To further test the correlation of the H$_{2}$(K) index with surface gravity, and hence age, we examined an extended dataset from the literature, containing field dwarfs and objects in clusters with constrained ages. Although we have not found the H$_{2}$(K) index to be sensitive to spectral type over the range M8 to L0, in our dataset of calibrator brown dwarfs, objects in the extended dataset were selected to cover the same range of spectral types to keep the analyses comparable. We should also point out that despite constraints, the ages of these clusters are not certain and our analysis should be interpreted in the light of this fact. For example, @pecaut12 have argued that Upper Sco is 11 Myr old, compared to previous estimates of $\sim$5 Myr. Pecaut et al’s argument is compelling and we have used their revised age for Upper Sco in our extended dataset.
We were particularly keen to obtain spectra from clusters with ages $\geq$ 100 Myr since the older objects among our brown dwarf calibrators are field dwarfs of indeterminate age. We searched the literature for good quality K band spectra of members of clusters such as the Pleiades, Hyades and Praesepe, but found spectra of only three objects in the Pleiades and none at all in the Hyades or Praesepe. Our attempt to constrain the H$_{2}$(K) index has been hindered by this lack of high quality K band spectra of objects in older clusters.
The extended dataset comprises
[$\circ$]{}
an M8.5 field dwarf described in @geballe02 \[G02\];
an M8.5 field dwarf described in @leggett01 \[L01\];
seven field dwarfs, M8 $\rightarrow$ M9.5, obtained from the IRTF Spectral Library, described in C05 and R09;
Teide 1, an M8 dwarf in the $\sim$120 Myr Pleiades cluster, described in B10;
HII 1248 B, an M8 $\pm$ 1 substellar companion to the Pleiad H11 1348 A, described in @geissler12 \[G12\];
BPL 62, an M8.3 dwarf in the Pleiades cluster. This is an unpublished spectrum taken by D. J. Pinfield. The object is described in @pinfield00 \[P00\] and @pinfield03 \[P03\];
GSC08047 B, an M9.5 dwarf in the $\sim$30 Myr Tuc-Hor association, described in @patience12 \[P12\];
13 M8 $\rightarrow$ L0 brown dwarfs in the $\sim$11 Myr old Upper Sco association, described in L08;
TWA 5B, an M8/M8.5 dwarf in the $\sim$8 Myr TW Hya association (TWA), described in @neuhauser09 \[N09\];
DENIS J124514.1-442907 and 2MASSW J1139511-31592 (2MASS 1139-3159), M8 $\rightarrow$ M9.5 objects in TWA, described in @looper07 \[L07\];
2MASS J12073346-3932539 (2M1207A), a TWA object, described in P12;
CT Cha B, an M8 $\sim$2 Myr object described in @schmidt08 \[S08\];
four brown dwarfs in the Taurus association, M8.25 $\rightarrow$ M9.25, described in @luhman04b \[L04b\];
LRL 405, an M8 $\sim$1-2 Myr object in the IC 348 nebula, described in @muench07 \[M07\];
four ONC PMOs, M8 $\rightarrow$ M9.5, described in W09;
The results are shown in Figure 11 and Table 6.
![The H$_{2}$(K) indices of the extended dataset, plotted as a function of age. Triangles are the GNIRS PMOs and 152$-$717, inverted triangles are the Taurus objects from L04b, diamonds are the Upper Sco objects described in L08, the pentagons are the TW Hya objects, the hexagon is GSC08047 B and the squares are the Pleiades substellar objects. The field dwarfs’ H$_{2}$(K) indices have not been plotted as the ages of these objects are uncertain. Red diamonds are the mean values at each age bin. Note that the rate of increase in the index is greatest for the youngest objects, as would be expected for rapidly contracting objects. The Taurus and ONC objects probably have similar ages so are shown offset slightly either side of 1 Myr, and share a common mean. For clarity, the Upper Sco objects are offset 0.5 Myr either side of 11 Myr. The cyan circles are the H$_{2}$(K) indices of our brown dwarf calibrators.[]{data-label="fig:fig11"}](age_index_exdata_means_040413.pdf)
[l l l l l l l l l l l]{} & Ref & Sp Type & $\sim\;$Age (Myr) & H$_2$(K) Index & $\rm{\lambda_{max}}$ ($\rm{\mu}$m) & $\bar{x}_{\rm{H_{2}(K)}}$ & $\sigma$\
SDSS 2255 & G02 & M8.5 & Field & 1.061$\pm$0.012 & 2.17 & 1.030 & 0.016 & &\
T 513 & L01 & M8.5 & Field & 1.043$\pm$0.003 & 2.15 & & & &\
2MASS J07464256+2000321AB & C05 & L0.5 & Field & 1.046$\pm$0.004 & 2.17 & & & &\
DENIS-P J104814.7-395606.1 & R09 & M9 & Field & 1.026$\pm$0.004 & 2.17 & & & &\
LP 944-20 & C05, R09 & M9 & Field & 1.017$\pm$0.003 & 2.15 & & & &\
LHS 2065 & R09 & M9 & Field & 1.021$\pm$0.003 & 2.14 & & & &\
LHS 2924 & C05, R09 & M9.5 & Field & 1.016$\pm$0.004 & 2.23 & & & &\
Gl 752B & C05, R09 & M8 & Field & 1.022$\pm$0.004 & 2.14 & & & &\
LP 412-31 & R09 & M8 & Field & 1.022$\pm$0.003 & 2.14 & & & &\
Teide 1 & B10 & M8 & 120 & 1.057$\pm$0.015 & 2.17 & 1.088 & 0.044\
HII 1348B & G12 & M8 $\pm$ 1 & 120 & 1.068$\pm$0.023 & 2.19 & &\
BPL 62 & P00, P03 & M8.3 & 120 & 1.138$\pm$0.009 & 2.15 & &\
GSC08047 B & P12 & M9.5 & 30 & 1.004$\pm$0.006 & 2.18 & 1.004 &\
USco J161047$-$223949 & L08 & M9 & 11 & 1.012$\pm$0.007 & 2.16 & 1.005 & 0.014\
USco J160648$-$223040 & L08 & M8 & 11 & 1.006$\pm$0.006 & 2.18 & &\
USco J160606$-$233513 & L08 & L0 & 11 & 1.018$\pm$0.006 & 2.17 & &\
USco J160714$-$232101 & L08 & L0 & 11 & 0.976$\pm$0.011 & 2.24 & &\
USco J160737$-$224247 & L08 & L0 & 11 & 0.988$\pm$0.007 & 2.22 & &\
USco J160818$-$223225 & L08 & L0 & 11 & 0.999$\pm$0.006 & 2.25 & &\
USco J160830$-$233511 & L08 & M9 & 11 & 1.024$\pm$0.004 & 2.17 & &\
USco J160847$-$223547 & L08 & M9 & 11 & 1.011$\pm$0.005 & 2.17 & &\
USco J161227$-$215640 & L08 & L0 & 11 & 0.999$\pm$0.019 & 2.22 & &\
USco J161302$-$212428 & L08 & L0 & 11 & 1.001$\pm$0.009 & 2.20 & &\
USco J155419$-$213543 & L08 & M8 & 11 & 1.015$\pm$0.005 & 2.17 & &\
DENIS 161103$-$242642 & L08 & M9 & 11 & 0.996$\pm$0.006 & 2.19 & &\
SCH 162528$-$165850 & L08 & M8 & 11 & 1.020$\pm$0.006 & 2.17 & & &\
\
TWA 5B & N09 & M8/M8.5 & 8 & 1.027$\pm$0.004 & 2.17 & 0.997 & 0.025 &\
DENIS J124514.1-442907 & L07 & M9.5 & 8 & 0.974$\pm$0.008 & 2.25 & &\
2MASS 1139-3159 & L07 & M9 & 8 & 0.980$\pm$0.003 & 2.23 &\
2M1207A & P12 & M8 & 8 & 1.008$\pm$0.003 & 2.23 &\
\
CT Cha B & S08 & $\geq$M8 & 2 & 0.982$\pm$0.007 & 2.29 & 0.986 & 0.010\
04574903 & L04b & M9.25 & 1-2 & 0.992$\pm$0.004 & 2.23 & &\
KPNO-Tau 6$^{1}$ & L04b & M8.5 & 1-2 & 0.996$\pm$0.004 & 2.24 & &\
KPNO-Tau 7$^{1}$ & L04b & M8.25 & 1-2 & 0.998$\pm$0.004 & 2.20 & &\
KPNO-Tau 9 & L04b & M8.5 & 1-2 & 0.975$\pm$0.008 & 2.25 & &\
LRL 405 & M07 & M8 & 1-2 & 0.975$\pm$0.005 & 2.25 & &\
\
152$-$717 & This work & M9.5 $\pm$0.5 & 1 & 0.914$\pm$0.013 & 2.27 & 0.959 & 0.041\
057-247 & L06 & $\geq$M9.5 & 1 & 0.918$\pm$0.038 & 2.22 & &\
107-453 & L06 & M8.0$\pm$2.0 & 1 & 0.972$\pm$0.022 & 2.22 & &\
137-532 & L06 & $>$M9.5 & 1 & 0.984$\pm$0.024 & 2.22 & &\
183-729 & L06 & $\geq$M9.5 & 1 & 1.006$\pm$0.036 & 2.22 & &\
\
$^{1}$ Possible IR excess\
\[tab:6\]
Among the Pleiades objects described in B10, Calar 3 has an exceptionally low H$_2$(K) index (0.978$\pm$0.020). This result may be associated with unresolved questions of Calar 3’s binarity and variability (P03, @bailer-jones01). Therefore, we have excluded Calar 3 from the extended dataset.
Among the Upper Sco objects, USco J154722$-$213914 has a relatively high H$_{2}$(K) index (1.041), typical of an older object. This object has a flux excess from 1.9$\mu$m $\rightarrow$ 2.1$\mu$m which L08 were unable to explain. This flux excess may have affected the object’s H$_{2}$(K) index. Therefore, we have excluded USco J154722$-$213914 from the extended dataset. Otherwise, the Upper Sco objects’ H$_{2}$(K) indices are scattered about 1.00, reflected in a mean H$_{2}$(K) index of 1.005.
While some of the $\sim$8 Myr old TWA objects have relatively low H$_{2}$(K) indices, a number of Upper Sco objects have similarly low indices. The TWA objects are one of the smaller subsets in our extended dataset, and we would need more objects to obtain a more rigorous mean value of H$_{2}$(K) for this association. Note that 2M1207A is known to have a circumstellar disc (@gizis02; @sterzik04; @scholz05).
Among the 1-2 Myr old objects, KPNO-Tau 6 and KPNO-Tau 7 have the largest H$_{2}$(K) indices. These objects (as well as KPNO-Tau 12) have strong H$\alpha$ emission, indicating the presence of an accretion disc [@muzerolle05]. In addition, KPNO-Tau 6 and KPNO-Tau 7 have significant mid-IR excesses in the [*Spitzer*]{}/IRAC passbands [@guieu07]. The youth of these objects is unquestioned. It is possible that their IR flux excesses slightly modify the shape of their K band spectra, producing larger than expected H$_{2}$(K) indices, even though these objects form part of a sample with low extinction and no obviously unusual infrared spectroscopic features (K.Luhman, private comm.) That being so, the scatter in the H$_{2}$(K) index for the Taurus objects is very small.
There is significant research to show that the ONC is very young, with an average age of $\leq$1 Myr (@prosser94; @hillenbrand97; @palla99; @riddick07). In general, the H$_{2}$(K) indices of the ONC PMOs in the extended dataset are as low, or lower, than those of the 1-2 Myr objects in the same dataset, indicating that they have similar surface gravities. We noted earlier that the Lyon models predict similar gravities for brown dwarfs and PMOs of a given age, with little dependence on mass. This therefore indicates that the age of the ONC PMOs is $\sim$1 Myr, on average.
Discussion
==========
The Brown Dwarf Calibrators
---------------------------
### The Field Dwarfs
BRI 0021’s NaI pEW is substantially weaker than the same feature in the spectrum of the other field dwarf, 2MASS 0345. BRI 0021’s rotational velocity (v sin i) is $\sim$ twice that of 2MASS 0345 (@antonova08; @reid99), and the strengths of stellar absorption lines are known to vary according to a star’s rotational velocity and angle of inclination [@guthrie65], but the variation is unlikely to be sufficient to explain this discrepancy [@stoeckley68]. Rapid rotation may alter the cloud structure, and thus may affect the observed spectrum. However, BRI 0021’s H$_{2}$(K) index is similar to that of 2MASS 0345. We therefore conclude that both field dwarfs have similar surface gravities.
The ages of these objects are unknown but assuming an age of 1 Gyr for both field dwarfs, at a distance of $\sim$27pc [@faherty09] and m$_{\rm{K}}$=12.7 for 2MASS 0345, and at a distance of $\sim$11.8pc [@faherty09] and m$_{\rm{K}}$=10.6 for BRI 0021, the Lyon group DUSTY model isochrone predicts 0.08M$_{\odot}<$ M $<$ 0.09M$_{\odot}$ and 5.28 $<$ log g $<$ 5.32 for both objects. If these objects are as old as 10 Gyr, the mass range for both objects is unchanged, while their surface gravities now range from 5.29 $<$ log g $<$ 5.34.
### $\sigma$ Orionis Objects
$\sigma$ Orionis 71 and $\sigma$ Orionis J053$-$024 have flux excesses between 3.6$\mu$m and 8$\mu$m [@caballero07]. These are strong indicators of the presence of a disc. Emission from a disc could weaken an object’s NaI EW, thereby reducing its apparent surface gravity. If the strength of the EWs are due to gravity plus veiling, this effect should correlate inversely with age. However, the effect could introduce more scatter both through geometric (viewing angle) effects, and if disc dispersal timescales vary from cluster to cluster. (For the effect of dust emission on the H$_{2}$(K) index, see Section 6.3.1.) Since discs may persist for 10 Myr after birth (@jayawardhana99; @sterzik04), their detection is not inconsistent with these objects being categorised as the “older" of the young objects in this sample.
$\sigma$ Orionis 51’s NaI pEW and H$_{2}$(K) index are markedly different from the corresponding values for $\sigma$ Orionis 71 and $\sigma$ Orionis J053$-$024. If $\sigma$ Orionis 51 is younger than its siblings, it is more likely to be a member of the $\sigma$ Orionis cluster, while admitting the likelihood that $\sigma$ Orionis 71 and $\sigma$ Orionis J053$-$024 are also cluster members. The age of the $\sigma$ Orionis cluster is believed to be $\leq$ 10 Myr [@barrado01]. If star formation occurred episodically over several Myr, it is not unreasonable to find objects with ages less than the maximum age of the cluster. Thus age spreads of a few Myr are plausible.
At a distance of $\sim$385pc [@bejar11], assuming an age of 3 Myr, and with m$_{\rm{K}}$=16.1 for $\sigma$ Orionis 51 and $\sigma$ Orionis 71, and 16.2 for $\sigma$ Orionis J053$-$024, the Lyon group DUSTY model isochrones predict 0.017M$_{\odot}<$ M $<$ 0.018M$_{\odot}$. Assuming an age of 7 Myr, the model masses are 0.022M$_{\odot}<$ M $<$ 0.024M$_{\odot}$. Over this age range, the model gravities are 3.75 $<$ log g $<$ 3.93.
### The 1-2 Myr Objects
2MASS 0535$-$0546, a member of the ONC, is an eclipsing binary in which the masses and radii of the components have been determined [@stassun06]. Thus the surface gravity of each component can be precisely known. For both primary (A1) and secondary (A2), the surface gravity is consistent with youthful objects, log g (A1) $=$ 3.52 $\pm$ 0.03, log g (A2) $=$ 3.54 $\pm$ 0.03 (@gomez09, hereafter G09). Also, the large radii of the primary and secondary components (R1 $=$ 0.675R$_{\rm{\odot}}$ $\pm$ 0.023, R2 $=$ 0.486R$_{\rm{\odot}}$ $\pm$ 0.018 (G09)), are consistent with model predictions for 1 Myr old objects.
The NaI pEW determined here also supports the case for 2MASS 0535$-$0546 being among the youngest objects in our sample. 2MASS 0535$-$0546 has an earlier spectral type than the rest of the sample (M7), implying that the binary has a higher T$_{eff}$. The K band NaI doublet is temperature sensitive in that it usually becomes much weaker in early L dwarfs (C05) and somewhat weaker in early M dwarfs but there does not appear to be a strong temperature dependence between M7 and M9 in that work. Therefore, it is reasonable to include the NaI pEW of this object with those of the other 1-2 Myr objects. We note that the doublet remains strong in our spectrum of the L0 dwarf 2MASS 0345 (see Figure 1 and Table 2).
KPNO-Tau 4 and KPNO-Tau 12, have NaI pEWs consistent with low surface gravity. Although KPNO-Tau 1 has a NaI pEW suggesting it has a higher surface gravity, its H$_{2}$(K) index is consistent with it being a low surface gravity object. This disagreement shows the danger of using single indicators to infer an age or even a surface gravity for individual objects.
The Taurus objects we chose for our sample, as well as those in the extended dataset, have a K band magnitude distribution that is typical for the objects in this cluster (@jayawardhana03; L04b). Therefore we are confident we have not introduced a bias in favour of younger objects in selecting our sample.
At a distance of 140pc [@guieu06], with m$_{\rm{K}}$ between 13.7 and 14.9, for 1 Myr old objects the Lyon DUSTY model isochrones predict 0.02M$_{\odot}<$ M $<$ 0.03M$_{\odot}$ and 3.72 $<$ log g $<$ 3.79 for KPNO-Tau 1 and KPNO-Tau 4, and 0.006M$_{\odot}<$ M $<$ 0.007M$_{\odot}$ and 3.50 $<$ log g $<$ 3.51 for KPNO-Tau 12. At a distance of 435pc [@stassun06], with m$_{\rm{K}}$ $ = $ 13.8, the Lyon DUSTY model isochrones predict a total mass M $ = $ 0.07M$_{\odot}$ and log g $=$ 3.54 for 2MASS 0535$-$0546. Note that the surface gravities have been calculated for both components of this binary and are in close agreement with the model values.\
152$-$717
---------
![The spectrum of 152$-$717 after 3 pixel boxcar smoothing. With a S/N of 5, narrow, gravity-sensitive spectral features are not discernible.[]{data-label="fig:fig12"}](152_717_010813.pdf)
Owing to the difficulty in maintaining a guide star lock even in the fainter parts of the Orion nebula, the integration time for 152$-$717 was shorter than requested. As a result, the extracted spectrum is not of sufficient quality to detect weak features such as the NaI doublet. Nonetheless, the spectrum shows the characteristic H$_2$O absorption of a young, late M-type object and the CO ($v$=2$-$0) absorption trough and the bandheads at 2.29$\mu$m, 2.32$\mu$m, 2.35$\mu$m and 2.38$\mu$m are clearly measured for the first time. See Figure 12.
152$-$717’s H$_2$(K) index is at the lower end of the range of H$_2$(K) indices for the ONC PMOs in the extended dataset (Table 6). This is consistent with 152$-$717 being among the youngest of the ONC PMOs. However, as we only have a single surface gravity/age indicator, we caution against interpreting this object’s H$_2$(K) index as proof of its youth.
We were also able to derive a revised spectral type. We calculate that 152$-$717 has a spectral type M9.5$\pm1.0$. At a distance of $\sim$450pc [@luhman00], assuming an age of 1 Myr and m$_{\rm{K}}$=17.6, the Lyon group DUSTY model isochrone predicts 0.005M$_{\odot} <$ M $<$ 0.006M$_{\odot}$ and 3.47 $<$ log g $<$ 3.50 for this object (@chabrier00; @baraffe02).
Water Absorption in the K band
------------------------------
It was noted that a number of M-dwarf spectra exhibit similar spectral structure in the vicinity of the 2.206 $\mu$m NaI absorption feature. The pattern is a feature of late-type dwarfs. (Synthetic spectra produced for objects with T$_{\rm{eff}}$ from 2500K$\;\rightarrow\;$3300K show this pattern weakening with increasing T$_{\rm{eff}}$ [@lyubchik12]). It is reproduced in the synthetic spectra used to model CIA opacity in this paper \[S12\] and arises from water absorption (D.Saumon, private communication). See Figure 13.
Comparing the Age Indicators
============================
We used our dataset of calibrator brown dwarfs to study the merits of each age indicator. We computed the mean value of NaI pEW and H$_{2}$(K) index for the Taurus and $\sigma$ Orionis objects and found that the means agreed to within 0.75$\sigma$. This increased to 1.31$\sigma$ for the H$_{2}$(K) index. While the H$_{2}$(K) index performs significantly better, neither method categorically differentiates the populations.
When we carried out the same exercise for the Taurus objects and our field dwarfs, the confidence level rose to 1.86$\sigma$ (NaI pEW) and 6.76$\sigma$ (H$_{2}$(K) index).
The dataset of brown dwarf calibrators contains only a few objects in each age group. To minimise the uncertainty in the H$_{2}$(K) index, we examined the larger population of objects contained in our extended dataset. We compared the mean H$_{2}$(K) index for the 1-2 Myr objects in the extended dataset with that of the Upper Sco objects and derived a 3.37$\sigma$ confidence that these objects are from separate populations. The confidence level increased to 3.96$\sigma$ when we compared the means of the 1-2 Myr objects with those of the Pleiades objects in our sample. The Pleiades have a wide scatter due to one object. This scatter could be reduced with the addition of more high quality K band spectra.
These results suggest that the H$_{2}$(K) index is more gravity-sensitive than the NaI pEW. We have shown that the mean H$_{2}$(K) index can change significantly between 1-2 Myr clusters and clusters $\geq$10 Myrs. It therefore appears to be more gravity-sensitive at very young ages than the triangular H-band continuum which is found in cluster objects with ages $\leq$ 5 Myr and in young field dwarfs, but which can persist for several tens of Myr (A07). The H$_{2}$(K) index is applicable to lower resolution spectra. This has allowed us to suggest that the PMO in our original dataset has low surface gravity. Since narrow spectral features were not resolved in the spectrum of this PMO, this would not have been possible had we depended only on the NaI pEW of the object.
We conclude that the H$_{2}$(K) index is a more sensitive age indicator.
Conclusions
===========
The K band slope is a good indicator of an object’s surface gravity, provided the object has solar metallicity. While most nearby star formation regions tend to have solar metallicity, individual objects’ metallicities should be taken into account when considering the object’s surface gravity.
We have defined a new spectral index, H$_{2}$(K), which is a good indicator of surface gravity, particularly for the youngest sources (1-10 Myr), where it is more sensitive to surface gravity than the triangular H band peak. It is at least as good as the equivalent width of the 2.21$\mu$m NaI doublet in differentiating the surface gravities of late-type objects, and does so with less scatter and without the need for high-resolution spectra. This has allowed us to examine other datasets, obtaining similar results to those obtained from our own brown dwarf calibrators. All datasets show some scattering of H$_{2}$(K) indices within a cluster. Considering the uncertainties associated with the data, it is unclear whether or not this scatter reflects a genuine spread of ages.
We have shown that the H$_{2}$(K) index and the EW of the 2.21$\mu$m NaI doublet can find the difference, at least statistically, between a population of $\sim$1 Myr objects and field dwarfs. In addition, the H$_{2}$(K) index can statistically differentiate a population of $\sim$1 Myr objects and a population of $\sim$10 Myr objects. The H$_{2}$(K) index can also be used to separate low-mass members from foreground and background objects in young clusters and associations.
By comparing the H$_{2}$(K) indices of 152$-$717 and the ONC PMOs from L06 to the H$_{2}$(K) indices of our 1-2 Myr calibrators, we infer that, on average, the ONC PMOs and our 1-2 Myr calibrators have a similar age.
The $\sigma$ Orionis objects’ H$_{2}$(K) indices and NaI pEWs are consistent with one object being significantly younger than the others. If true, this would indicate a variation of ages within the cluster, rather than suggesting that the older objects are not cluster members. Indeed, if these objects were contaminants, they could only be much older field objects, and this is clearly not the case.
Given the differences in H$_{2}$(K) index among the Pleiades objects and that some of their spectra have quite low S/N in the K band, it would be worthwhile obtaining higher S/N K band spectra of objects in clusters with well constrained ages so that these surface gravity indicators can be investigated.
We have shown that it is not necessary to have high-resolution spectra of these objects to be able to constrain the size of their population in young clusters and the low-mass end of the IMF.
We now have two gravity-sensitive methods of differentiating late-type dwarfs, the EW of neutral alkali metal lines and the H$_{2}$(K) index, both of which show good correlations with age and which will allow researchers to ascribe statistical ages to samples of brown dwarfs in pre-main sequence clusters. These can then be used to distinguish between planetary mass objects and somewhat older brown dwarfs with a similar luminosity and temperature.
An object of future research is to determine the extent to which scatter in these measures of surface gravity is due to an age spread.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank the referee for their helpful comments and suggestions.
This paper is based on observations obtained in programmes GN-2008B-Q-20 and GN-2009B-Q-57 at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: The National Science Foundation (USA), the Science and Technology Facilities Council (UK), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia). CNPq (Brazil) and CONICET (Argentina).
J. I. Canty is supported by a University of Hertfordshire PhD studentship.
Allen P. R., Koerner D. W., Reid I. N., Trilling D. E., 2005, ApJ, 625, 385
Allard F., Hauschildt P. H., Alexander D. R., Tamanai A., Schweitzer A., 2001, ApJ, 556, 357
Allers, K. N., Jaffe, D. T., Luhman, K. L., et al. 2007, ApJ, 657, 511 \[A07\]
Antonova A., Doyle J. G., Hallinan G., Bourke S., Golden A., 2008, A&A, 487, 317
Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Mundt R., 2001, A&A, 367, 218
Baraffe I., Chabrier G., Allard F., Hauschildt P. H., 2002, A&A, 382, 563
Baraffe I., Vorobyov E., Chabrier G., 2012, ApJ, 756, 118 \[B12\]
Barrado y Navascu[é]{}s D., Zapatero Osorio M. R., B[é]{}jar V. J. S., Rebolo R., Mart[í]{}n E. L., Mundt R., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., 2001, A&A, 377, L9
Barrado y Navascu[é]{}s D., Zapatero Osorio M. R., Mart[í]{}n E. L., B[é]{}jar V. J. S., Rebolo R., Mundt R., 2002, A&A, 393, L85
B[é]{}jar V. J. S., et al., 2001, ApJ, 556, 830
B[é]{}jar V. J. S., Zapatero Osorio M. R.,Rebolo R., Caballero J. A., Barrado D., Mart[í]{}n E. L., Mundt R., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., 2011, ApJ, 743, 64
Bihain G., Rebolo R., Zapatero Osorio M. R., B[é]{}jar V. J. S., Caballero J. A., 2010, A&A, 519, A93 \[B10\]
Brice[ñ]{}o C., Luhman K. L., Hartmann L.,Stauffer J. R., Kirkpatrick J. D., 2002, ApJ, 580, 317
Burrows A., Liebert J., 1993, RvMP, 65, 301
Burrows A., Hubbard W. B., Lunine J. I., Liebert J., 2001, RvMP, 73, 719 \[B01\]
Caballero J. A., et al., 2007, A&A, 470, 903
Chabrier G., Baraffe I., Allard F., Hauschildt P., 2000, ApJ, 542, 464
Close L. M., et al., 2007, ApJ, 660, 1492
Cushing M. C., Rayner J. T., Vacca W. D., 2005, ApJ, 623, 1115 \[C05\]
D’Antona F., Mazzitelli I., 1997, MmSAI, 68, 807
Elmegreen B. G., 2000, ApJ, 530, 277
Faherty J. K., Burgasser A. J., Cruz K. L., Shara M. M., Walter F. M., Gelino C. R., 2009, AJ, 137, 1
Geballe T. R., et al., 2002, ApJ, 564, 466 \[G02\]
Gei[ß]{}ler K., Metchev S. A., Pham A., Larkin J. E., McElwain M., Hillenbrand L. A., 2012, ApJ, 746, 44 \[G12\]
Gizis, J. E. 2002, ApJ, 575, 484
G[ó]{}mez Maqueo Chew Y., Stassun K. G., Pr[š]{}a A., Mathieu R. D., 2009, ApJ, 699, 1196 \[G09\]
Gorlova N. I., Meyer M. R., Rieke G. H., Liebert J., 2003, ApJ, 593, 1074
Guieu S., Dougados C., Monin J.-L., Magnier E., Mart[í]{}n E. L., 2006, A&A, 446, 485
Guieu S., et al., 2007, A&A, 465, 855
Guthrie B. N. G., 1965, PROE, 3, 264
Hawley, S., Reid, I. N., & Gizis, J. 2000, From Giant Planets to Cool Stars, 212, 252
Hillenbrand L. A., 1997, AJ, 113, 1733
Irwin M., McMahon R. G., Reid N., 1991, MNRAS, 252, 61P
Jayawardhana R., Hartmann L., Fazio G.,Fisher R. S., Telesco C. M., Pi[ñ]{}a R. K., 1999, ApJ, 521, L129
Jayawardhana R., Ardila D. R., Stelzer B.,Haisch K. E., Jr., 2003, AJ, 126, 1515
Jeffries R. D., Littlefair S. P., Naylor T., Mayne N. J., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1948
Joergens V., Guenther E., 2001, A&A, 379, L9
Kenyon S. J., Hartmann L. W., Strom K. M., Strom S. E., 1990, AJ, 99, 869
Kenyon M. J., Jeffries R. D., Naylor T., 2001, astro, arXiv:astro-ph/0109099
Kenyon M. J., Jeffries R. D., Naylor T., Oliveira J. M., Maxted P. F. L.,2005, MNRAS, 356, 89
Kirkpatrick J. D., Beichman C. A., Skrutskie M. F., 1997, ApJ, 476, 311
Leggett S. K., Allard F., Geballe T. R., Hauschildt P. H., Schweitzer A., 2001, ApJ, 548, 908 \[L01\]
Leggett S. K., Saumon D., Marley M. S.,Geballe T. R., Golimowski D. A., Stephens D., Fan X., 2007, ApJ, 655, 1079
Looper D. L., Burgasser A. J., Kirkpatrick J. D., Swift B. J., 2007, ApJ, 669, L97 \[L07\]
Lodieu N., Hambly N. C., Jameson R. F., Hodgkin S. T., 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1385 \[L08\]
Lucas P. W., Roche P. F., 2000, MNRAS, 314, 858
Lucas P. W., Roche P. F., Tamura M., 2005, MNRAS, 361, 211
Lucas P. W., Weights D. J., Roche P. F., Riddick F. C., 2006, MNRAS, 373, L60
Luhman K. L., 1999, ApJ, 525, 466
Luhman K. L., Rieke G. H., Young E. T., Cotera A. S., Chen H., Rieke M. J.,Schneider G., Thompson R. I., 2000, ApJ, 540, 1016
Luhman K. L., Brice[ñ]{}o C., Stauffer J. R., Hartmann L., Barrado y Navascu[é]{}s D., Caldwell N., 2003, ApJ, 590, 348
Luhman K. L., Stauffer J. R., Muench A. A., Rieke G. H., Lada E. A., Bouvier J., Lada C. J., 2003, ApJ, 593, 1093
Luhman K. L., Peterson D. E., Megeath S. T., 2004, ApJ, 617, 565
Luhman K. L., 2004, ApJ, 617, 1216 \[L04b\]
Luhman K. L., Allers K. N., Jaffe D. T., Cushing M. C., Williams K. A., Slesnick C. L., Vacca W. D., 2007, ApJ, 659, 1629
Lyubchik Y., Jones H. R. A., Pavlenko Y. V., Pinfield D. J., Covey K. R., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 2195
McGovern M. R., Kirkpatrick J. D., McLean I. S., Burgasser A. J., Prato L., Lowrance P. J., 2004, ApJ, 600, 1020
Marley M. S., Fortney J. J., Hubickyj O., Bodenheimer P., Lissauer J. J., 2007, ApJ, 655, 541
Martin E. L., Rebolo R., Zapatero-Osorio M. R., 1996, ApJ, 469, 706
Bejar V. J. S., 1998, ApJ, 499, L61
McGregor P. J., et al., 2003, SPIE, 4841,1581
Mohanty S., Jayawardhana R., Basri G., 2005, ApJ, 626, 498
Mohanty S., Stassun K. G., 2012, ApJ, 758, 12
Muench A. A., Lada C. J., Luhman K. L., Muzerolle J., Young E., 2007, AJ, 134, 411 \[M07\]
Muzerolle J., Luhman K. L., Brice[ñ]{}o C., Hartmann L., Calvet N., 2005, ApJ, 625, 906
Natta A., Testi L., Muzerolle J., Randich S., Comer[ó]{}n F., Persi P., 2004, A&A, 424, 603
Neuh[ä]{}user R., Schmidt T. O. B., Seifahrt A., Bedalov A., Helling C., Witte S., Hauschildt P., 2009, AIPC, 1094, 844 \[N09\]
Palla F., Stahler S. W., 1999, ApJ, 525, 772
Patience J., King R. R., De Rosa R. J., Vigan A., Witte S., Rice E., Helling C., Hauschildt P., 2012, yCat, 354, 9085 \[P12\]
Pecaut M. J., Mamajek E. E., Bubar E. J., 2012, ApJ, 746, 154
Pinfield D. J., Hodgkin S. T., Jameson R. F., Cossburn M. R., Hambly N. C., Devereux N., 2000, MNRAS, 313, 347 \[P00\]
Pinfield D. J., Dobbie P. D., Jameson R. F., Steele I. A., Jones H. R. A., Katsiyannis A. C., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1241 \[P03\]
Prosser C. F., Stauffer J. R., Hartmann L., Soderblom D. R., Jones B. F., Werner M. W., McCaughrean M. J., 1994, ApJ, 421, 517
Rayner J. T., Cushing M. C., Vacca W. D., 2009, ApJS, 185, 289 \[R09\]
Reid I. N., Kirkpatrick J. D., Gizis J. E., Liebert J., 1999, ApJ, 527, L105
Reiners A., Seifahrt A., Stassun K. G., Melo C., Mathieu R. D., 2007, ApJ, 671, L149
Riddick F. C., Roche P. F., Lucas P. W., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1077
Santos N. C., Melo C., James D. J., Gameiro J. F., Bouvier J., Gomes J. I., 2008, A&A, 480, 889
Saumon D., Marley M. S., Abel M., Frommhold L., Freedman R. S., 2012, ApJ, 750, 74 \[S12\]
Schmidt T. O. B., Neuh[ä]{}user R., Seifahrt A., Vogt N., Bedalov A., Helling C., Witte S., Hauschildt P. H., 2008, A&A, 491, 311 \[S08\]
Scholz, A., Jayawardhana, R., & Brandeker, A. 2005, ApJL, 629, L41
Scholz A., Muzic K., Geers V., Jayawardhana R., Tamura M., Dawson P., Ray T. P., 2011, sca..conf, 250
Scholz A., Muzic K., Geers V., Bonavita M., Jayawardhana R., Tamura M., 2012, ApJ, 744, 6
Shu F. H., 1977, ApJ, 214, 488
Stassun K. G., Mathieu R. D., Valenti J. A., 2006, Natur, 440, 311
Steele I. A., Jameson R. F., 1995, MNRAS, 272, 630
Sterzik M. F., Pascucci I., Apai D., van der Bliek N., Dullemond C. P., 2004, A&A, 427, 245
Stoeckley T. R., 1968, MNRAS, 140, 149
Terebey S., Shu F. H., Cassen P., 1984, ApJ, 286, 529
Tokunaga A. T., Kobayashi N., 1999, AJ, 117, 1010
Weights D. J., Lucas P. W., Roche P. F., Pinfield D. J., Riddick F., 2009, MNRAS, 392, 817 \[W09\]
Zapatero Osorio M. R., B[é]{}jar V. J. S.,Mart[í]{}n E. L., Rebolo R., Barrado y Navascu[é]{}s D., Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Mundt R., 2000, Sci, 290, 103
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
[^2]: We note that the VAR (variance) FITS extensions in the science data cannot be used for this purpose, owing to a problem with the GEMINI NIFS software package in [IRAF]{}. The Gemini [IRAF]{} team intends to fix this in a later release of the software.
[^3]: Note that the peak flux occurs at a wavelength more typical of a younger object.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We have analyzed the singularities of a triangle loop integral in detail and derived a formula for an easy evaluation of the triangle singularity on the physical boundary. It is applied to the $\Lambda_b \rightarrow J/\psi K^{-} p$ process via $\Lambda^*$-charmonium-proton intermediate states. Although the evaluation of absolute rates is not possible, we identify the $\chi_{c1}$ and the $\psi(2S)$ as the relatively most relevant states among all possible charmonia up to the $\psi(2S)$. The $\Lambda(1890)\, \chi_{c1}\, p$ loop is very special as its normal threshold and triangle singularities merge at about 4.45 GeV, generating a narrow and prominent peak in the amplitude in the case that the $\chi_{c1}\, p$ is in an $S$-wave. We also see that loops with the same charmonium and other $\Lambda^*$ hyperons produce less dramatic peaks from the threshold singularity alone. For the case of $\chi_{c1}\, p \rightarrow
J/\psi\, p$ and quantum numbers $3/2^-$ or $5/2^+$ one needs $P$- and $D$-waves, respectively, in the $\chi_{c1}\, p$, which drastically reduce the strength of the contribution and smooth the threshold peak. In this case we conclude that the singularities cannot account for the observed narrow peak. In the case of $1/2^+$, $3/2^+$ quantum numbers, where $\chi_{c1}\, p \rightarrow J/\psi\, p$ can proceed in an $S$-wave, the $\Lambda(1890)\,\chi_{c1}\,p$ triangle diagram could play an important role, though can neither assert their strength without further input from experiments and lattice QCD calculations.
author:
- 'Melahat Bayar$^{1,2}$, Francesca Aceti$^{2}$, Feng-Kun Guo$^{3}$ and Eulogio Oset$^{2}$'
title: |
A Discussion on Triangle Singularities in the $\Lambda_b \to
J/\psi K^{-} p$ Reaction
---
Introduction
============
Triangle singularities in physical processes were introduced by Landau [@Landau:1959fi] and stem from Feynman diagrams involving three intermediate particles when the three particles can be placed simultaneously on shell and the momenta of these particles are collinear (parallel or antiparallel) in the frame of an external decaying particle at rest. In one of the cases (we call it parallel), two of the particles in the loop will go in the same direction and might fuse into other external outgoing particle(s) [@Coleman:1965xm], so that the rescattering process can even happen as a classical process. In this case, the decay amplitude has a singularity close to the physical region[^1] and, thus, can produce an enhancement. One of the classical cases would be given when the two on shell particles move in the same direction and with similar velocities. In the center-of-mass frame of the rescattering particles, these two particles would also be at rest and the triangle singularity is then located around the threshold.
One very successful example of effects of the triangle singularity was shown in the decay of $ \eta(1405) \rightarrow \pi a_{0}(980)$ and $ \eta(1405)
\rightarrow \pi f_{0}(980)$ in Refs. [@Wu:2011yx; @Wu:2012pg]. The second reaction breaks isospin symmetry. However, the process $
\eta(1405)\rightarrow K^{*} \bar{K}$ followed by $K^{*} \rightarrow K \pi$ and the fusion of $K\bar{K}\to f_{0}(980)$ enhances drastically the rate of $
\eta(1405) \rightarrow \pi f_{0}(980)$ relative to other isospin violating processes. Experimentally the ratio of rates for $ \eta(1405) \rightarrow \pi^0
f_{0}(980)\to\pi^0\pi^+\pi^-$ and $ \eta(1405) \rightarrow \pi^0
a_{0}(980)\to\pi^0\pi^0\eta$ is measured to be $(17.9\pm4.2)\%$ [@BESIII:2012aa], a huge number for an isospin breaking magnitude. The work of [@Wu:2011yx; @Wu:2012pg] was continued in [@Aceti:2012dj] where the precise rates, as well as the shapes of the two reactions, are well described.
Another striking example of triangle singularities is the one discussed in Refs. [@Ketzer:2015tqa; @Aceti:2016yeb], where an interpretation for the “$a_{1}(1420)$“ peak seen by the COMPASS Collaboration [@Adolph:2015pws] is given in terms of a decay of the $a_{1}(1260)$ into $K^{*}\bar{K}$, followed by $K^{*} \rightarrow \pi K$ and fusion of $K\bar{K}\to f_{0}(980)$, with $\pi f_{0}(980)$ being the decay channel where the ”$a_{1}(1420)$" peak is observed. A recent discussion of the effects of triangle singularities on other reactions in hadron physics can be found in Refs. [@Wang:2013hga; @Achasov:2015uua; @Lorenz:2015pba; @Szczepaniak:2015eza; @Szczepaniak:2015hya; @Liu:2015taa].
With the discovery of the hidden charm pentaquark-like structures in the $\Lambda_b \rightarrow J/\psi K^{-} p$ reaction in the $ J/\psi p$ spectrum [@Aaij:2015tga; @Aaij:2015fea], the possibility that the narrow peak observed at 4.45 GeV might be due to a triangle singularity was immediately noted [@Guo:2015umn; @Liu:2015fea]. Recently, the LHCb collaboration has reanalyzed [@Aaij:2016ymb] the data of the $\Lambda_b \rightarrow J/\psi
\pi^{-} p$ decay [@Aaij:2014zoa] and found them consistent with the states reported in [@Aaij:2015tga; @Aaij:2015fea]. The possibility that this is due to another triangle singularity is discussed in Ref. [@Guo:2016bkl].
In Ref. [@Guo:2015umn] it is pointed out that the location of the $P_c(4450)$ structure coincides with the $\chi_{c1}p$ threshold and, more importantly, with the leading Landau singularity of the triangle diagram with the $\Lambda^*(1890)$, $\chi_{c1}$ and proton in the intermediate state. Such a diagram represents the following processes: the $\Lambda_b\to
\Lambda^*(1890)\chi_{c1}$ is followed by the decay of $\Lambda^*(1890)\to K^-
p$ and the proton, then, rescatters with the $\chi_{c1}$ into the $J/\psi p$ in the region where the invariant mass distribution shows up as a narrow sharp peak, which might cause a resonance-like structure as the $P_c(4450)$. However, the fact that one finds a singularity at a certain energy does not mean that one should see a peak in the reaction. The location of a triangle singularity is purely kinematic, yet the strength is controlled by dynamics as reflected by the coupling strengths of all of the three vertices involved. In this sense, the cases in the light meson sector discussed in Refs. [@Wu:2011yx; @Wu:2012pg; @Aceti:2012dj; @Ketzer:2015tqa; @Aceti:2016yeb] are nice examples of clearly showing the enhancement due to triangle singularities, since all involved couplings are relatively well known. In the case of the $P_c$, neither the weak decay rate of $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda^*\chi_{c1}$ nor the rescattering strength for $\chi_{c1}\,p\to J/\psi\, p$ is known and, thus, it is difficult to assert the importance of the triangle singularities. However, it is also obvious that triangle singularities need to be taken into account, unless the strength is so small that they can be safely neglected. At this point, we want to emphasize that the purpose of Refs. [@Guo:2015umn; @Guo:2016bkl] is not to show that the $P_c(4450)$ structure is due to triangle singularities instead of hadronic resonances, but to show that there exist such singularities around $m_{J/\psi p}=4.45$ GeV, and their consequences need to be carefully explored.
In the present paper we shall make an exhaustive study of possible triangle singularities involving various $\Lambda^*$ and charmonium intermediate states in the range of the $ J/\psi p$ invariant mass in the $\Lambda_b \rightarrow
J/\psi K^{-} p$ reaction. There can be many combinations of a $\Lambda^*$ hyperon and a charmonium in the triangle diagram. However, as we shall see, since the condition for a triangle singularity to show up as a prominent enhancement in the relevant invariant mass distribution is rather strict (for recent discussions, see Refs. [@Liu:2015taa; @Szczepaniak:2015eza; @Guo:2015umn]), only a few of them deserve special attention, and the one discussed in Ref. [@Guo:2015umn] is the most special one. We will show them in the paper and discuss their possible repercussion in the $J/\psi p$ spectrum of the LHCb experiment.
Detailed analysis of the triangle singularity
===============================================
![\[fig:feynman\] Triangle diagram for $\Lambda_b \rightarrow J/\psi K^{-} p$ decay, where $\Lambda^{*}$ stands for the different $\Lambda^{*}$ considered in the analysis of [@Aaij:2015tga; @Aaij:2014zoa] and $c\bar{c}$ stands for different charmonium states. In brackets, the momenta of the corresponding lines are given. ](Lambdab.eps){width="50.00000%"}
We are going to study the singularities that emerge from the diagram of Fig. \[fig:feynman\]. As in [@Guo:2015umn; @Liu:2015fea] we assume that $\Lambda_b $ decays first to a $\Lambda^{*}$ and a charmonium state, the $\Lambda^{*} $ decays into $K^{-}
p$ and then the charmonium state and the $p$ react to give the $J/\psi \,p$. Thus we have $J/\psi K^{-} p$ in the final state as in the experiment of [@Aaij:2015tga].
The triangle singularities can be easily obtained by solving the Landau equation [@Landau:1959fi], as done in, e.g., Ref. [@Guo:2015umn]. Whether the solutions are located on the physical boundary, i.e., whether they can produce a prominent effect on the amplitude in the physically allowed region, is determined by the Coleman–Norton theorem [@Coleman:1965xm]. It turns out that after fixing the masses of the proton and charmonium in the cases under consideration, only when the $\Lambda^*$ mass is located in a small range there is a triangle singularity on the physical boundary. Since the mass region is small, the singularity is also close to the $\Lambda^*$–charmonium threshold (see, e.g., Refs. [@Szczepaniak:2015eza; @Liu:2015taa; @Guo:2015umn; @Guo:2016bkl]). Rather than using the Landau equation to get the singularities of the amplitude for the diagram of Fig. \[fig:feynman\], we find instructive to perform the loop integration of the three propagators explicitly. Let us consider the scalar three-point loop integral $$\begin{aligned}
I_1 = i\int \frac{d^4 q}{(2\pi)^4} \frac1{\left(q^2-m_{c\bar
c}^2+i\,\epsilon\right)\left[(P-q)^2-m_{\Lambda^*}^2+i\,\epsilon\right]
\left[(P-q-k)^2-m_p^2+i\,\epsilon\right]} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Since we are interested in the region where the $\Lambda^*$ may be treated nonrelativistically, we can safely neglect the negative energy pole from the $\Lambda^*$ propagator. We then perform the integral over $q^0$ analytically using the residue theorem and get, by taking the $\Lambda_b $ at rest[^2], $$\begin{aligned}
I_{1}&=& \int \dfrac{d^{3}q}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \dfrac{1}{8~\omega_{X}(\vec
q)~E_{\Lambda}(\vec q)~E_{p}(\vec{k} +\vec{q}\,)} \nonumber\\
&& \times
\dfrac{1}{k^{0}-E_{p}(\vec{k} +\vec{q}\,)-E_{\Lambda}(\vec q\,)}
~~\dfrac{1}{P^{0}+\omega_{X}(\vec q\,)+E_{p} (\vec{k}
+\vec{q}\,) -k^{0}} \\
&&\times\dfrac{2\,P^{0}\omega_{X}(\vec q\,)+2\,k^{0}E_{p}(\vec{k} +\vec{q}\,)-
2\left[\omega_{X}(\vec q\,)+E_{p}(\vec{k} +\vec{q}\,)\right]\left[\omega_{X}(\vec
q\ )+E_{p}(\vec{k} +\vec{q}\,)+E_{\Lambda}(\vec
q\ )\right]}{\left[P^{0}-\omega_{X}(\vec q\,)-E_{p}(\vec{k}
+\vec{q}\,)-k^{0}+i\,\epsilon\right]\left[
P^{0}-E_{\Lambda}(\vec q\,)-\omega_{X}(\vec q\,)+i\,\epsilon\right]}, \nonumber
\label{Eq:I1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{X}(\vec q\,)=\sqrt{m^{2}_{c\bar{c}}+\vec{q}^{\,2}}$, $E_{\Lambda}
(\vec q\,)=\sqrt{m^{2}_{\Lambda^{*}}+\vec{q}^{\,2}}$, $E_{p}(\vec{k} + \vec q\,)=
\sqrt{M^{2}_{p}+(\vec{k}+\vec{q}\,)^{2}}$, $P^{0}=M_{\Lambda_{b}}$, and $k^{0}=
\sqrt{m^{2}_{K}+\vec{k}^{\,2}}$.
We immediately observe that the poles of the propagators correspond to having pairs of intermediate particles on shell. The conditions for all the three intermediate particles to be on shell are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:cond1}
P^{0}-E_{\Lambda}(\vec q\,)-\omega_{X}(\vec q\,) & =& 0 \, , \\
P^{0}-k^{0}-\omega_{X}(\vec q\,)-E_{p}(\vec{k} +\vec{q}\,) & =& 0 \, .
\label{Eq:cond2}\end{aligned}$$ The other propagators do not lead to singularities, since a $K^{-}$ cannot decay into a $p$ and a $\Lambda^{*}$ and $P^0+\omega_X+E_p$ is always larger than $k^0$, and we thus have dropped the corresponding $i\,\epsilon$.
From Eqs. and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:qon}
q_\text{on}&=&\dfrac{\lambda^{1/2}(M_{\Lambda_{b}}^{2},m^{2}_{\Lambda^{*}},m^{2}_{X})}
{2~M_{\Lambda_{b}}} \, , \\
\label{Eq:won}
\omega_{X}(q_\text{on})&=&\dfrac{M_{\Lambda_{b}}^{2}+m^{2}_{X}-m^{2}_{\Lambda^{*}}}
{2~M_{\Lambda_{b}}} \, , \\
\label{Eq:Eon}
E_{\Lambda}(q_\text{on})&=&\dfrac{M_{\Lambda_{b}}^{2}+m^{2}_{\Lambda^{*}}-m^{2}_{X}}
{2~M_{\Lambda_{b}}} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $\lambda(x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^2-2xy-2yz-2xz$.
In addition, we have from energy conservation for the process $\Lambda_b
\rightarrow J/\psi K^{-} p$ with $J/\psi~ p$ with an invariant mass $m_{23}$, $$\begin{aligned}
k^{0}=\dfrac{M_{\Lambda_{b}}^{2}+m^{2}_{K}-m^{2}_{23}}{2~M_{\Lambda_{b}}}\,,~~~
k=\dfrac{\lambda^{1/2}(M_{\Lambda_{b}}^{2},m^{2}_{K},m^{2}_{23})}
{2~M_{\Lambda_{b}}} \, .
\label{Eq:k0}\end{aligned}$$
Then Eq. (\[Eq:cond2\]) leads immediately to $$\dfrac{m^{2}_{23}+m^{2}_{\Lambda^{*}}-m^{2}_{K}-m^{2}_{X}}{2~M_{\Lambda_{b}}}-
\sqrt{m_{p}^{2}+(\vec{q} + \vec{k})^{2}}=0\,,
\label{Eq:d1}$$ which is the equation providing the singularities of the integrand of the loop integral in Eq. . However, a singularity of the integrand is not necessarily the singularity of the integral. If we can deform the integration contour in the complex plane to avoid the singularity, the integral would be regular. In the following two cases, one cannot deform the contour and a singularity develops: when the singularity of the integrand is located at the endpoint of the integration, and when two or more singularities of the integrand pinch the contour. They correspond to the cases of endpoint and pinch singularities, respectively. We now apply this knowledge to the problem at hand.
![A triangle diagram showing the notations used in the general discussion of triangle singularities, where $m_i$’s denote the masses of the intermediate particles, and $P$, $p_{13}$, $p_{23}$ correspond to the four-momenta of the external particles. The two dashed vertical lines correspond to the two relevant cuts. \[fig:triangle\] ](trianglediag){width="45.00000%"}
We notice that, in order to analyze the singularity structure, it is sufficient to focus on the following integral: $$\begin{aligned}
I(m_{23}) &=& \int d^3q\,
\frac{1}{
\left[ P^{0}-\omega_1(\vec q\,)-\omega_{2}(\vec q\,)+i\,\epsilon\right]
\left[E_{23}-\omega_{2}(\vec q\,)-\omega_{3}(\vec{k} +\vec{q}\,)
+i\,\epsilon\right] }
\nonumber\\
&=& 2\,\pi\int_0^\infty d q\,\,
\frac{q^2}{P^{0}-\omega_1(q)-\omega_2(q)+i\,\epsilon} f(q)\,,
\label{Eq:I}\end{aligned}$$ where, in the rest frame of the decaying particle and with the more general notation as labelled in Fig. \[fig:triangle\], $\omega_{1,2}(q)=\sqrt{m_{1,2}^2+q^2}$, $\omega_3(\vec q+\vec
p_{13})=\sqrt{m_3^2+(\vec q+\vec p_{13})^2}$, $E_{23}=P^{0}-p_{13}^0$, and $$f(q) = \int_{-1}^1 dz\,\frac1{ E_{23}-\omega_{2}(q) -
\sqrt{m_3^2+q^2+k^2+2\,q\,k\,z} + i\,\epsilon} \, , \label{Eq:fq}$$ where $k=|\vec{p}_{13}|=\sqrt{\lambda(M^2,m_{13}^2,m_{23}^2)}/(2M)$, with $M=\sqrt{P^2}$ and $m_{13,23}=\sqrt{p_{13,23}^2}$, and $q=|\vec q\,|$. The integral $I(m_{23})$ is in fact a function of all involved masses and external momenta, and here we only show $m_{23}$ since we will discuss the singularities in this variable. It becomes clear that we need to analyze the singularity structure of a double integration: one over $q$ and one angular integration over $z$. The two factors in the denominator of the integrand of $I(m_{23})$ correspond to the two cuts depicted in Fig. \[fig:triangle\]. The cut crossing particles 1 and 2 provides a pole of the integrand of $I(m_{23})$ given by $$P^0 - \omega_1(\vec q\,) - \omega_2(\vec q\,) + i\,\epsilon = 0\, , \label{Eq:cut1}$$ which is just Eq. by identifying $m_1 = m_{\Lambda^*}$ and $m_2=m_{c\bar c}$. However, we have kept the $i\,\epsilon$ here explicitly, which is important to determine the singularity locations in the complex-$q$ plane. The pertinent solution is $$q_{{\rm on}+} = q_{\rm on} + i\,\epsilon\, ~~\text{with}~~ q_{\rm on} =
\frac1{2 M} \sqrt{\lambda(M^2,m_1^2,m_2^2)}\, .$$
The function $f(q)$ has endpoint singularities, which are logarithmic branch points, given when the denominator of the integrand vanishes for $z$ taking the endpoint values $\pm1$, i.e., the solutions of $$E_{23}-\omega_{2}(q) -
\sqrt{m_3^2 + q^2+k^2\pm2\,q\,k} + i\,\epsilon = 0\, ,
\label{Eq:cut2}$$ which is just Eq. by identifying $m_2=m_{c\bar c}$ and $m_3=m_p$. The $+$ and $-$ signs correspond to $z=+1$ and $-1$, i.e., the situations for the momentum of particle 2 to be anti-parallel and parallel to the momentum of the (2,3) system in the frame with $\vec P=0$, respectively. These endpoint singularities of $f(q)$ provide logarithmic branch point singularities to the integrand of $I(m_{23})$, in addition to the pole given by the first cut. Whether they induce singularities in $I(m_{23})$ needs to be further analyzed and we do it in the following.
For $z=-1$, Eq. has two solutions: $$\begin{aligned}
q_{a+} = \gamma \left( v \, E_2^* + p_2^* \right) + i\,\epsilon\,, \qquad
q_{a-} = \gamma \left( v \, E_2^* - p_2^* \right) - i\,\epsilon\, ,
\label{Eq:qa}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
v &= \frac{k}{E_{23}}\,, &\gamma &= \frac1{\sqrt{1-v^2}} =
\frac{E_{23}}{m_{23}}\, , \nonumber\\
E_2^* &= \frac1{2 m_{23}}\left( m_{23}^2+m_2^2-m_3^2 \right),
&p_2^* &= \frac1{2 m_{23}} \sqrt{\lambda(m_{23}^2,m_2^2,m_3^2)} \, .
\label{Eq:Lorentz}\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to realize that $E_2^*$ and $p_2^*$ are the energy and the magnitude of the 3-momentum of particle-2 in the center-of-mass frame of the (2,3) system, $v$ is the magnitude of the velocity of the $(2,3)$ system in the rest frame of the decaying particle and $\gamma$ is the Lorentz boost factor. Therefore, the two solutions given above correspond to the momentum of particle-2 in the rest frame of the decaying particle in different kinematic regions, which will be discussed later.
For $z=1$, the two solutions of Eq. are: $$\begin{aligned}
q_{b+} = \gamma \left( - v \, E_2^* + p_2^* \right) + i\,\epsilon\,, \qquad
q_{b-} = - \gamma \left( v \, E_2^* + p_2^* \right) - i\,\epsilon\, .
\label{Eq:qb}\end{aligned}$$ The second one, $q_{b-}$ is irrelevant since it is always negative when $\epsilon=0$, and is never realized in the integral on the momentum modulus in Eq. . It might be worthwhile to emphasize that all of $q_{a\pm}$ and $q_{b\pm}$ are singularities of the integrand of $I(m_{23})$ simultaneously. However, depending on the value of $m_{23}$ (for real $m_{23}$), either $\lim_{\epsilon\to0}(q_{a-})$ or $\lim_{\epsilon\to0}(q_{b+})$, but not both, is positive and appears in the relevant integration range of $q$ from 0 to $+\infty$. These two cases are shown in Fig. \[fig:sing1\] and Fig. \[fig:sing2\], respectively.
![ Pertinent singularities of the integrand of $I(m_{23})$ when $\lim_{\epsilon\to0}(q_{a-})$ is positive. (a) is for the case without any pinching, (b) shows the case when the integration path is pinched between $q_{a+}$ and $q_{a-}$, which gives the two-body threshold singularity, and (c) is for the case when the pinching happens between $q_{{\rm on}+}$ and $q_{a-}$, which gives the triangle singularity. The dashed lines correspond to possible integration paths. \[fig:sing1\] ](singularities_a){width="98.00000%"}
Let us discuss Fig. \[fig:sing1\] first. In the integration range of $q$, the integrand has three relevant singularities: a pole $q_{{\rm on}+}$ and two logarithmic branch points $q_{a\pm}$. Their locations are determined by kinematics. It can happen that all of them are located at different positions, and one can deform the integration path freely as long as it does not hit any singularity of the integrand. One such path is shown as the dashed line segments in Fig. \[fig:sing1\] (a). In such a kinematic region, $I(m_{23})$ is analytic. Since $q_{a-}$ is in the lower half of the complex-$q$ plane while $q_{\rm on+}$ and $q_{a+}$ are in the upper half plane, it could happen that the integration path is pinched between $q_{a-}$ and one of $q_{\rm on+}$ and $q_{a+}$ or even both of them. Then one cannot deform the integration path away from the singularities of the integrand and $I(m_{23})$ will be nonanalytic as well. If the integration path is pinched between $q_{a-}$ and $q_{a+}$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:sing1\] (b), which happens when $m_{23}=m_2+m_3$ or $p_2^*=0$, one gets the normal two-body threshold singularity which is a square-root branch point. If the integration path is pinched between $q_{a-}$ and $q_{\rm on+}$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:sing1\] (c), one gets the triangle singularity or anomalous threshold which is a logarithmic branch point. Therefore, the condition for a triangle singularity to emerge is given mathematically by $$\lim_{\epsilon\to 0} \left( q_{\rm on+} - q_{a-} \right) = 0 \, .
\label{eq:trianglesing}$$ This is only possible when all three intermediate particles are on shell and meanwhile $z=-1$, $\omega_1(q_{\rm on}) - p_{13}^0 - \sqrt{ m_3^2 +
(q_{\rm on}-k)^2 } = 0$ (it has another solution $q_{a+}$). The location of the triangle singularity in the variable $m_{23}$ is found by solving the above equation. It could also happen that both $q_{\rm on+}$ and $q_{a+}$ pinch the integration path with $q_{a-}$ at the same time, and then the triangle singularity coincides with the normal threshold at $m_{23}=m_2+m_3$. Yet, although this requires a very special kinematic configuration, it does happen at $M_{J/\psi p}\simeq4.45$ GeV for the $\Lambda^*(1890)$–$\chi_{c1}$–proton diagram contribution to the $\Lambda_b\to K J/\psi p$ as discussed in Ref. [@Guo:2015umn].
It is important to understand the kinematic region where the triangle singularity can occur. Since $q_{a-}$ is the singularity of $f(q)$ at the endpoint $z=-1$, the momentum of particle-3 in the rest frame of the decaying particle is thus $\vec p_3 = - \vec q - \vec p_{13} = (k - q) \hat{q}$, where $\hat{q}$ stands for the unit vector along the direction of $\vec q$. From Eqs. and , it is easy to see that $k>\lim_{\epsilon\to0}(q_{a-})$ for $m_{23}\geq m_2+m_3$. Thus, particles 2 and 3 move in the same direction in this reference frame. Another condition for $q_{a-}$ to be relevant becomes clear by checking the expression of $q_{a-}$ in Eq. , which is the Lorentz boost of the momentum of particle-2 from the center-of-mass frame of the (2,3) system to the rest frame of the decaying particle. The negative sign in front of $p_2^*$ in Eq. means that the direction of motion of particle-2 in the center-of-mass frame of the $(2,3)$ system is opposite to the one in the rest frame of the decaying particle, while the direction of motion of particle-3 is the same in both reference frames. This implies that particle-3 moves faster than particle-2 in the latter reference frame. Therefore, the triangle singularity happens only when particle-3 moves along the same direction as particle-2, and has a larger velocity in the rest frame of the decaying particle. This, together with having all intermediate particles on their mass shells, gives the condition for having a triangle singularity. One can realize that this is in fact the Coleman–Norton theorem [@Coleman:1965xm]: the singularity is on the physical boundary if and only if the diagram can be interpreted as a classical process in space-time.
For given $m_2$, $m_3$ and invariant masses for external particles, one can also work out the range of $m_1$ where the triangle singularity shows up, as well as the range of the triangle singularity in $m_{23}$. For $q_{\rm on}$ and $q_{a-}$ (taking $\epsilon=0$) taking values in their physical regions, one needs to have $m_1\leq M-m_2$ and $m_{23}\geq m_2+m_3$. Using Eq. , we find that when $$m_1^2 \in \left[ \frac{M^2 m_3 + m_{13}^2 m_2}{m_2+m_3} - m_2 m_3\,,~
\left(M-m_2 \right)^2 \right],
\label{Eq:m1range}$$ $I(m_{23})$ has a triangle singularity, and it is within the range $$m_{23}^2 \in \left[ (m_2+m_3)^2,~ \frac{M m_3^2 - m_{13}^2
m_2}{M-m_2} + M m_2 \right].
\label{Eq:m23range}$$ These are in fact the ranges discussed in Refs. [@Guo:2015umn; @Guo:2016bkl] derived from the point of view of the Coleman–Norton theorem.
The kinematic region where particle-2 moves faster than particle-3 but in the same direction corresponds to the case that the three-momentum of the on shell particle-2 takes the value of $q_{a+}$. One then has $\lim_{\epsilon\to0}(q_{a+}-q_{a-})>0$ (it would be equal to 0 if the two particles move with the same speed in the rest frame of the decaying particle), and $I(m_{23})$ has no singularity. From the point of view of the Coleman–Norton theorem [@Coleman:1965xm], particle-3 emitted from the decay of particle-1 cannot catch up with particle-2 so that the rescattering between them in the triangle diagram cannot be interpreted as a classical process. This case corresponds to Fig. \[fig:sing1\] (a).
![ Pertinent singularities of the integrand of $I(m_{23})$ when $\lim_{\epsilon\to0}(q_{b+})$ is positive. \[fig:sing2\] ](singularities_b){width="33.00000%"}
There is the possibility that $q_{a-}<0$ (here and in the following when we talk about the sign or relative size of $q_{a\pm}$ and $q_{b\pm}$, $\epsilon$ takes the value of 0) and, thus, this solution is unphysical for on-shell intermediate particles. In this case, solving numerically Eq. with $\vec q$ and $\vec k$ in opposite directions will give only one positive $q$ solution, which, by necessity, is $q_{a+}$. Note that $q_{a-}<0$ means $q_{b+}=-q_{a-}>0$, so that $q_{b+}$ is in the physical range of $q$. We show this case in Fig. \[fig:sing2\], where only the positive singularities of the integrand, which are the ones in the physical range of $q$ for on-shell intermediate particles, are depicted. Since $q_{a-}<0$ in this case, and $q_{b-}<0$, and furthermore $q_{\rm on+}$, $q_{a+}$ and $q_{b+}$ are on the same side of the Re$\,q$ axis, no pinching can occur and, hence, none of these singularities of the integrand turns into a singularity of the integral $I(m_{23})$. The condition for $q_{a-}<0$ is $p_2^*> v\, E_2^*$, i.e., the magnitude of velocity of particle-2 in the (2,3) center-of-mass frame (which is equal to the one for particle-3) is larger than the velocity of the $(2,3)$ system in the rest frame of the initial particle. It implies that particle-2 and particle-3 move in opposite directions in the latter frame and thus particle-3, emitted from the decay of particle-1, which moves also opposite to particle-2 in the rest frame of the initial particle, cannot rescatter with particle-2 in a classical picture with energy-momentum conservation, in accordance with the conclusion of Ref. [@Coleman:1965xm].
Results
========
Now let us turn to the problem of possible triangle singularities contributing to the $\Lambda_b\to K^- J/\psi\, p$ from triangle diagrams with a $\Lambda^*$ hyperon, a charmonium and a proton as the intermediate states. The $\Lambda^{*}$ states considered in the fit of data by the LHCb Collaboration include [@Aaij:2015tga]: $\Lambda(1405)$, $\Lambda(1520)$, $\Lambda(1600)$, $\Lambda(1670)$, $\Lambda(1690)$, $\Lambda(1800)$, $\Lambda(1810)$, $\Lambda(1820)$, $\Lambda(1830)$, $\Lambda(1890)$, $\Lambda(2100)$, $\Lambda(2110)$, $\Lambda(2350)$, $\Lambda(2585)$ which as seen in [@pdg] couple to $K^{-}
p$. As to the charmonium states we take $\eta_{c}(1S)$, $J/ \psi$, $\chi_{cJ}
(1P)$ ($J=0,1,2$), $h_{c} (1P)$, $\eta_{c}(2S)$, and $\psi(2S)$. From the discussion in the preceding section and Eqs. and we can see which is the mass range allowed for the $\Lambda^*$ particles, for a certain charmonium state, in order to have a triangle singularity.
$c\bar c$ Most relevant range of $M_{\Lambda^*}$ (MeV) Range of triangle singularity (MeV)
---------------- ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
$\eta_{c}$ \[2226, 2639\] \[3919, 4283\]
$J/\psi$ \[2151, 2523\] \[4035, 4366\]
$\chi_{c0}$ \[1949, 2205\] \[4353, 4588\]
$\chi_{c1}$ \[1887, 2109\] \[4449, 4654\]
$\chi_{c2}$ \[1858, 2063\] \[4494, 4686\]
$h_{c1}$ \[1878, 2094\] \[4464, 4664\]
$\eta_{c}(2S)$ \[1806, 1983\] \[4575, 4741\]
$\psi(2S)$ \[1774, 1933\] \[4624, 4775\]
: For each charmonium, the triangle singularity produces prominent effects if the $\Lambda^*$ mass takes a value within the the range given in the second column and the singularity range is shown in the last column correspondingly. As seen from Eq. , the first number in each row of the last column corresponds to the threshold of the proton and the corresponding charmonium. \[tab:ranges\]
In Table \[tab:ranges\], we give these values as well as the range of the corresponding invariant mass of the (2,3) system ($J/\psi\,p$) at which the triangle singularity appears. We can then select the $\Lambda^*$’s fulfilling these requirements, that will be shown later after the following discussions on the experimental production rates and relevance of these different charmonia.
As discussed in the preceding section, we expect to have contributions from the triangle singularity, which is a logarithmic branch point, and from the two-body threshold, which is a square-root branch point. While the first one does indeed lead to an infinite contribution if all of the involved masses take real values, the second one gives a finite contribution. Yet, the triangle singularity turns into a finite contribution because particle-1 necessarily decays into particle-3 and the external (1,3) particle(s) (the $K^-$ in the problem at hand), providing a width to particle-1 and, hence, replacing the $i\,\epsilon$ by $i\,\Gamma/2$ ($i\,\Gamma_{\Lambda^*}/2$ in the present case). Of course, the $\Lambda^*$ has more decay channels than just the one into particle-3 plus the $(1,3)$ system and the full width needs to be used for $\Gamma$. Now the two singularities of the integrand $q_{\rm on+}$ and $q_{a-}$ that were pinching before in Fig. \[fig:sing1\] (c) are now separated such that we obtain a finite result for the integral $I(m_{23})$, and for the decay amplitude involving the triangle loop as well, which has memory of the singularity and produces an enhancement in this integral.
![The value of $|I_1|$ (Eq. (\[Eq:I1\])) for $\Lambda^{*}\chi_{c1} $ with a width $\Gamma=100$ MeV for the hyperon. []{data-label="fig:new3"}](Lamda1890.eps){width="70.00000%"}
In what follows we would like to discuss which charmonium states are relevant from a physical point of view.
We can have an idea of strength of the $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda c\bar c$ for the different charmonium statethe s by looking at the related rates of $B\to c\bar c
\bar K$. In Table \[tab:brates\] we collect the rates given by the PDG in all these cases. This means that one can neglect the $\chi_{c2}$ and $h_{c1}$ cases. The $\chi_{c0}$ has also a factor three smaller rate. On the other hand, the $\chi_{c0}\,p\to J/\psi\, p$ amplitude is of the same order of magnitude as the $\chi_{c1}\,p\to J/\psi\, p$ [@Guo:2015umn]. Altogether, we have about a factor three reduction in the triangle diagram and we can dismiss this term as subdominant. The $\eta_c(2S)$ has $J^P=0^-$ and the $c\bar c$ with $0^-$ has to be converted into $1^-$ for the $J/\psi$ in the $\eta_{c}(2S)\,p\to J/\psi\, p$ reaction and this implies a spin flip of the charmed quarks. This should be much suppressed by heavy quark spin symmetry.
Finally, the $\psi(2S)$ has a $B\to c\bar c\, \bar K$ branching fraction about 1.5 times bigger than the $\chi_{c1}$. The $\psi(2S)\,p\to J/\psi\, p$ amplitude has two sources, one from soft gluon exchange, that would be suppressed for the $\psi(2S)\,p\to J/\psi\, p$ with respect to the $\chi_{c1}\,p\to J/\psi\, p$, because of the smaller overlap between the radial wave functions, and another source is given by the subsequent exchange of $D^*$ or $D$ as done in Refs. [@Wu:2010jy; @Uchino:2015uha]. In this latter case, we do not find a strong reason why the latter mechanism should be much reduced with respect to the case of $\chi_{c1}\,p\to J/\psi\, p$.
We also admit that all the $c\bar c\, p\to J/\psi\, p$ amplitudes are OZI suppressed and that, at this moment we have no elements to evaluate the strength of these amplitudes nor the $\Lambda_b\to \Lambda^*\,c\bar
c$ ones. Hence, the global strength of these singularities is unknown at present.
[| c | c | ]{} $c\bar c$ & $BR(B\to c\bar c \bar K)$\
$\chi_{c0}$ &
-----------------------------------
$1.5 \cdot 10^{-4}$ (neutral $B$)
$1.3 \cdot 10^{-4}$ (charged $B$)
-----------------------------------
: Branching ratios for $B\to c\bar c \bar K$ [@pdg]. Here we only quote the central values. \[tab:brates\]
\
$\chi_{c1}$ &
-----------------------------------
$4.0 \cdot 10^{-4}$ (neutral $B$)
$4.6 \cdot 10^{-4}$ (charged $B$)
-----------------------------------
: Branching ratios for $B\to c\bar c \bar K$ [@pdg]. Here we only quote the central values. \[tab:brates\]
\
$\chi_{c2}$ & $<1.5 \cdot 10^{-5}$\
$h_{c1}$ & $<3.8 \cdot 10^{-5}$\
$\eta_{c}(2S)$ & $3.4 \cdot 10^{-4}$\
$\psi(2S)$ & $6.26 \cdot 10^{-4}$\
Let us first discuss the $\chi_{c1}$ intermediate charmonium and assume the $\chi_{c1}\, p$ in the $\chi_{c1}\, p \to J/\psi\, p$ amplitude to be in an $S$-wave and, similarly, we do not pay attention to the particular structure of the other vertices (this will be done in the next section). We plot the contribution to $|I_1|^2$ from a selected choice of the $\Lambda^*$ states discussed above in Fig. \[fig:new3\]. We can see that all of them peak around $m_{23}=4450$ MeV, which is the $\chi_{c1}\, p$ threshold. The largest strength, with the sharpest shape, comes from the $\Lambda(1890)$, which is the one discussed in Ref. [@Guo:2015umn]. We should note that in this case the threshold and the triangle singularities merge, and we attribute the prominent role of this $\Lambda^*$ state to this feature.
The cusp structure in the curve for the $\Lambda(1670)$ comes from the threshold singularity (see in the second column of Table \[tab:ranges\] that this mass is far outside the range of the $\Lambda^*$ mass for having a triangle singularity). The peak of the $\Lambda(1810)$ is sharper, for, even if the $\Lambda^*$ mass is outside the range of the triangle singularity (see Table \[tab:ranges\]), it is not too far away, but the most relevant factor in the structure is the threshold singularity.
The case of the $\Lambda(2100)$ is special: indeed, as seen in Table \[tab:ranges\], this mass is inside the range of the triangle singularities and we can easily see, using Eq. , that it appears at 4592 MeV. Hence, the structure of $I_1$ for this $\Lambda^*$ state shows a bump, in addition to the normal threshold cusp, around that energy, as a consequence of the smearing of the triangle singularity by the width of the $\Lambda^*$, as discussed before.
For the $\psi(2S)$ case, one finds a similar pattern but we shall discuss in more detail this case, by comparing it to the $\chi_{c1}$ case, in the next section.
Detailed analysis of the $S$ and $P$-wave amplitudes for $\chi_{c1} $ and $\psi(2S)$ and $\Lambda(1890)$
========================================================================================================
In this section, we will discuss the structure of triangle loops involving the $\Lambda(1890)$ and the $\chi_{c1}$ or $\psi(2S)$, taking into account the necessary operator structures.
Let us look at Fig. \[fig:feynman\]. Since the spin of the $\Lambda(1890)$ is 3/2, the $\Lambda_b \to \Lambda(1890)\,c\bar c$ vertex can be accommodated with the operator $\vec S^{\dag} \cdot \vec \epsilon $, with $\vec S^{\dag}$ the spin transition operator from a spin-$1/2$ to spin-$3/2$ state and $\vec\epsilon$ the polarization of the spin-1 charmonium. The $\Lambda(1890) \to K^- p$ vertex is of the type $\vec S \cdot \vec k$. Finally in the $c \bar{c} ~p \to J/ \psi ~p$ we have several situations:
1. The quantum numbers of the $J/ \psi\, p$, those for the $P_c(4450)$, are $J^P=3/2^-$:
1. $c \bar{c} =\chi_{c1}$: This requires a $P$-wave in the $\chi_{c1}\, p$ system which can be accommodated with the operator $(\vec
\sigma \cdot \vec q^{\,*} ~ \vec \epsilon \cdot \vec \epsilon\,')/m_p$, where $\vec\sigma$ are the Pauli matrices, $\vec q^{\,*}$ is the momentum of $ \chi_{c1}$ in the loop in the $ \chi_{c1}\, p $ center-of-mass frame, and $\vec\epsilon$ and $\vec\epsilon\,'$ are the polarization vectors of the $\chi_{c1}$ and $J/ \psi$ respectively).
2. $c \bar{c}= \psi(2S)$: This requires an $S$-wave in both the $\psi(2S)\, p$ and $J/ \psi\, p$ channels. We thus take a constant, which is normalized to the former amplitude at a scale of the $q^*$ momentum equal to the mass of the proton.
2. The quantum numbers of the $J/ \psi\, p$ are $J^P=1/2^+$ or $3/2^+$:
1. $c \bar{c} =\chi_{c1}$: In this case the $\chi_{c1} p$ system is in an $S$-wave and the $J/\psi p$ in a $P$-wave. The roles of the $\chi_{c1}$ and $J/\psi$ are reverted with respect to the case (1.a) and we then have the same amplitude as in the case of (1.a), interchanging the momenta of the $\chi_{c1}$ and the $J/ \psi$, hence $(\vec \sigma \cdot \vec p\,^*\, \vec
\epsilon \cdot \vec \epsilon\,')/m_p$, with $\vec p\,^*$ the momentum of the $J/\psi$ in the $J/\psi\,p$ center-of-mass frame.
2. $c \bar{c}= \psi(2S)$: this requires a $P$-wave in both the $\psi(2S)
p$ and $J/ \psi p$ systems, and will not play a role in the discussion.
In the case (1.a) the spin-momentum structure of the integrand of the triangle diagram is then $$\vec S\cdot \vec k\, \vec S^{\dag}\!\cdot\vec \epsilon\, \vec\sigma \cdot
\vec q\,^*\, \vec\epsilon \cdot \vec\epsilon\,' .
\label{Eq:spinmom}$$ Using the Lorentz boost formula in the compact form as given in Ref. [@FernandezdeCordoba:1993az], we can express $\vec q\,^*$ in the center-of-mass frame of the $J/\psi\,p$ (or $\chi_{c1}\,p$) in terms of the quantities in the rest frame of the $\Lambda_b$, where the loop integral was evaluated in former sections. Noticing that the former frame is moving with a momentum $-\vec k$ in the latter frame, we get $$\vec q\,^* = \left[ \left( \frac{E_{R}}{m_{23}}-1\right) ~\dfrac{\vec q \cdot
\vec k}{\vec k^2}+\dfrac{q^0}{m_{23}}\right] \vec k+\vec q\, ,
\label{Eq:qcm}$$ where $m_{23}$ is the invariant mass of the $J/ \psi\, p$ system, $E_R=
\sqrt{m_{23}^2+\vec k^2}$ and $q^0=\sqrt{m_{\chi_{c1}}^2+\vec q\,^2}$, with $\vec k$ the momentum of the kaon and $\vec q$ the momentum of the $\chi_{c1}$ in the loop. Next we take into account that, since $\vec k$ is the only vector not integrated in the integral of $I_1$, we can write $$\int d^{3}q\, A(\vec q\,) q_i=k_i \int d^{3} \vec q\, A(\vec q\,)\,
\frac{\vec k \cdot \vec q}{\vec k^2}\, ,$$ where $A(\vec q\,)$ stands for the rest part of the loop integrand. This means that, because of the $P$-wave between the $\chi_{c1}$ and proton, $\vec q\,^*$ in Eq. in the integrand of the triangle loop can be replaced by the following factor: $$\vec k \left(\frac {E_R \,\vec q \cdot \vec k }{m_{23}\,\vec
k^2}+ \frac{q^0}{m_{23}}\right) .$$ With the following integral $$\begin{aligned}
I_{2} = \int \dfrac{d^{3} \vec q}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \left(\frac {E_R \,\vec
q \cdot \vec k }{m_{23}\,\vec k^2}+ \frac{q^0}{m_{23}}\right)
\times(\text{integrand of }I_1) \, ,
\label{Eq:I2}\end{aligned}$$ we can get the amplitude $T$ for the $\Lambda_b\to K^- J/\psi\, p$ decay process via the pertinent triangle diagram. After carrying the sum and average of the polarizations given in Eq. , we obtain the factor $2\,\vec k^4/(3\,m_p^2)$. Hence, we obtain for the case (1.a) $$\vert T_{(1.a)} \vert^2 = \frac{2\,\vec k^4}{3\,m_p^2} \vert I_2 \vert^2 \,.$$
In the case (2.a), we have the same spin-momentum factor as Eq. substituting $\vec \sigma\cdot \vec q\,^* $ by $\vec\sigma\cdot \vec p\,^* $, and the final result is $$\vert T_{(2.a)} \vert^2 = \frac{2\,\vec k^2\,\vec p^{\,*\,2}}{3\,m_p^2} \vert
I_1 \vert^2 \, .$$
In the case (1.b), the expression of Eq. is substituted by $\vec S \cdot \vec k \, \vec S^{\dag}\!\cdot\vec\epsilon\, \vec\epsilon\cdot
\vec\epsilon\,' $, and we obtain $$\vert T_{(1.b)} \vert^2 = \frac{2\,\vec k^2}{3} \vert I_1 \vert^2 \, .$$ The pre-factors of momentum are numerically very similar and we may eliminate them for the discussion and hence use only the $|I_{1,2}|^2$ part. The results for the cases (1.a) and (1.b) are shown in Figw. \[fig:pwaveXc1\] and \[fig:swavePsi\], respectively; the result for the case (2.a) has already been given as the solid curve in Fig. \[fig:new3\].
![The value of $|I_2|^2$ for $P$-wave $\Lambda(1890)\chi_{c1}$. A constant width of $\Gamma=100$ MeV is used for the $\Lambda(1890)$. []{data-label="fig:pwaveXc1"}](pwaveXc1.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![The value of $|I_1|^2$ for $S$-wave $\Lambda(1890)\psi(2S) $. A constant width of $\Gamma=100$ MeV is used for the $\Lambda(1890)$. []{data-label="fig:swavePsi"}](swavePsi.eps){width="70.00000%"}
We can see that, in the case of $3/2^-$ for the $J/\psi\,p$ final states and $
\chi_{c1}\,p $, which requires a $P$-wave, the amplitude is very much suppressed with respect to the case where one has the $c \bar c\,p$ in $S$-wave. This is natural since the singularity appears when putting the $ \chi_{c1}\, p$ on shell and at threshold, where the $P$-wave factor vanishes. We can see that the strength at the peak is about 20 times smaller than the one in the $S$-wave case. We also see that the $S$-wave structure is very much peaked and narrow, while the one of the $P$-wave has a “background" below the peak, accumulating more strength than the peak. Also the shape is too broad to associate it to the observed narrow pentaquark in the experiment.
There is another factor to take into account. In this case the contribution of the $\psi(2S)\,p$, which proceeds via an $S$-wave, would give us a narrow peak around 4624 MeV, much stronger than the one provided by the $P$-wave $
\chi_{c1}\,p $, assuming the rescattering strengths are comparable. An inspection of the experimental data shows that the $J/ \psi p$ invariant mass distribution in this region is flat. These arguments lead to the conclusion that, if the narrow $J/\psi\,p$ structure has quantum numbers $3/2^-$, one of the choices in the experimental analysis, the triangle singularities due to $\Lambda^*\,c\bar c\,p$ intermediate states cannot play an important role in the decay $\Lambda_b\to K^- J/\psi\,p$.
The other quantum numbers preferred in the current experimental analysis for the narrow state are $5/2^+$. In this case, one needs a $D$-wave in $ \chi_{c1}\,
p$ and the situation is worse. We have checked that numerically but there is no need to discuss it.
We pass now to discuss the possibility that the $J/\psi\,p$ system in the narrow structure takes the quantum numbers $1/2^+$ or $3/2^+$. In this case the $
\chi_{c1}\, p$ amplitude proceeds via an $S$-wave and we would have the situation shown as the solid curve in Fig. \[fig:new3\]. The peak is narrow enough and located at the right position. Furthermore, the $\Lambda(1890)\,\chi_{c1}\,p$ triangle diagram reinforces by merging the triangle singularity with the normal $\chi_{c1}\,p$ threshold at 4.45 GeV, which makes the peak more prominent than in the other cases. This was pointed out in Ref. [@Guo:2015umn], which tried to draw attention to the complications of interpreting the $P_c(4450)$.[^3] In this case, the contribution from the $\psi(2S)$ intermediate state would proceed with $\psi(2S)\,p$ in a $P$-wave and would be drastically reduced with respect to the one shown in Fig. \[fig:swavePsi\].
Conclusions
============
We have analyzed in detail when the singularities of the triangle amplitude appear with a different formalism than the one normally used, which allows for a complementary understanding of their origin, as well as for an easy evaluation of the singularities. They are generated by a genuine triangle singularity or from threshold effects. We applied the method to the $\Lambda_b\to J/\psi K^- p$ decay and discussed all possible triangle singularities that might affect the $J/\psi\, p$ mass distribution from a triangle diagram involving a charmonium, a proton and a $\Lambda^*$ hyperon. We stressed that, should the $\chi_{c1}\, p$ in the $\chi_{c1}\, p \to J/\psi\,p$ amplitude be in an $S$-wave, the intermediate $\chi_{c1}\, \Lambda(1890)$ pair plays a very special role, since the threshold and triangle singularities merge. In many of the other cases we see that they do not develop a triangle singularity, but the threshold cusp is always present as it should.
We also made a study of the different cases using dynamical features and some phenomenology and concluded that the relevant singularities, if strong enough to be observable, should develop from $\chi_{c1}\,p$ and $\psi(2S)\,p$ intermediate states. Then we saw that in the case of $J^{P}=\frac{3}{2}^-,~\frac{5}{2}^+$ for the narrow $P_c$, as presently favoured by the experiment, the $\chi_{c1}\,p \to J/\psi\, p$ transition requires $L=1$ in $\chi_{c1}\,p $ in the first case and $L=2$ in the second. This feature smoothens very much the peak to the point that the interpretation of the experimental peak on this singularity runs into obvious inconsistencies. In this case a singularity stemming from the $\psi(2S)\,p$ intermediate state proceeds with $\psi(2S)\,p$ in an $S$-wave, located at around 4624 MeV in the $J/\psi\, p$ invariant mass. The flat distribution in the experimental data would mean that the $\psi(2S)\,p\to J/\psi\, p$ is not strong enough to make the triangle singularity observable. These considerations lead us to conclude that if the narrow $P_c(4450)$ has quantum numbers $J^{P}=\frac{3}{2}^-,~\frac{5}{2}^+$, reported as the preferable quantum numbers in the LHCb analysis of their data, it would have an origin other than a triangle singularity from the $\Lambda^*$–charmonium–proton intermediate states.
Should this narrow peak correspond to $J^{P}=\frac{1}{2}^+$ or $\frac{3}{2}^+$, the $\chi_{c1}\,p $ can proceed in $S$-wave. In such a case we could show that the $\chi_{c1}\,p $ intermediate state and the $\Lambda(1890)$ would be favoured over the other possible $\Lambda^*\,c\bar
c\,p$ intermediate states. This was because the mass of the $\Lambda(1890)$ makes the triangle and threshold singularities merge at the same energy. We also saw that in this case the contribution of the other $\Lambda^*$ states could provide a relevant contribution due to the threshold singularity. We admit that the $\chi_{c1}\,p
\to J/\psi\, p$ amplitude is OZI suppressed, and we do not know its strength. However, we also notice that the NPLQCD Collaboration recently reported possible existence of charmonium-nucleus bound states in their lattice QCD calculation even when extrapolated to the physical pion mass [@Beane:2014sda].
The spin and parity assignment to the two $P_c$ structures reported in Ref. [@Aaij:2015tga] is not fully settled and further work continues in the collaboration to be more assertive in the near future[^4]. Further stimulus for this task stems from the recent work [@Roca:2016tdh], which shows that from the $K^-\,p$ and $J/\psi\,p$ invariant mass distributions alone, one cannot asset the spin and parity of the two $P_c$ structures, nor the need for the broad $P_c(4380)$ state. The work also shows that contact terms, that turn out to be negligible in the experimental analysis, can make up for the effect of the $P_c(4380)$ in the invariant mass distributions. Of course, the experiment contains and analyzed far more data than the invariant mass distributions, and, in particular, angular correlations are essential to determine the spin-parity of the structures. Yet, whether or not and how possible triangle singularities discussed in Ref. [@Guo:2015umn; @Liu:2015fea] might affect the experimental fits and the determination of quantum numbers are still open questions. An important step towards revealing the exotic nature of the $P_c(4450)$ can be made once they are answered.[^5] At last, it is worthwhile to mention that even if it will be shown experimentally that there is a pentaquark state at around 4.45 GeV, the triangle singularity could play a role of enhancing the peak signal.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Ulf-G. Meißner and Juan Nieves for comments and a careful reading of the manuscript. This work is partly supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad and European FEDER funds under the contract number FIS2011-28853-C02-01, and the Generalitat Valenciana in the program Prometeo II, 2014/068, by the Spanish Excellence Network on Hadronic Physics FIS2014-57026-REDT, by DFG and NSFC through funds provided to the Sino-German CRC 110 “Symmetries and the Emergence of Structure in QCD” (NSFC Grant No. 11621131001), by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. QYZDB-SSW-SYS013), and by the Thousand Talents Plan for Young Professionals. FKG and EO would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics of Kyoto University and the Institute of Modern Physics of CAS, where part of this work was done.
[38]{}
L. D. Landau, Nucl. Phys. [**13**]{}, 181 (1959).
S. Coleman and R. E. Norton, Nuovo Cim. [**38**]{}, 438 (1965).
J. J. Wu, X. H. Liu, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 081803 (2012) \[arXiv:1108.3772 \[hep-ph\]\].
X. G. Wu, J. J. Wu, Q. Zhao and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 014023 (2013) \[arXiv:1211.2148 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \[BESIII Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 182001 (2012) \[arXiv:1201.2737 \[hep-ex\]\].
F. Aceti, W. H. Liang, E. Oset, J. J. Wu and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 114007 (2012) \[arXiv:1209.6507 \[hep-ph\]\].
M. Mikhasenko, B. Ketzer and A. Sarantsev, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 094015 (2015) \[arXiv:1501.07023 \[hep-ph\]\].
F. Aceti, L. R. Dai and E. Oset, arXiv:1606.06893 \[hep-ph\].
C. Adolph [*et al.*]{} \[COMPASS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 082001 (2015) \[arXiv:1501.05732 \[hep-ex\]\].
Q. Wang, C. Hanhart and Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B [**725**]{}, 106 (2013) \[arXiv:1305.1997 \[hep-ph\]\].
N. N. Achasov, A. A. Kozhevnikov and G. N. Shestakov, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 036003 (2015) \[arXiv:1504.02844 \[hep-ph\]\].
I. T. Lorenz, H.-W. Hammer and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 034018 (2015) \[arXiv:1506.02282 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Lett. B [**747**]{}, 410 (2015) \[arXiv:1501.01691 \[hep-ph\]\].
A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Lett. B [**757**]{}, 61 (2016) \[arXiv:1510.01789 \[hep-ph\]\].
X. H. Liu, M. Oka and Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B [**753**]{}, 297 (2016) \[arXiv:1507.01674 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 072001 (2015) \[arXiv:1507.03414 \[hep-ex\]\].
R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], Chin. Phys. C [**40**]{}, 011001 (2016) \[arXiv:1509.00292 \[hep-ex\]\].
F.-K. Guo, U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, W. Wang and Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 071502 (2015) \[arXiv:1507.04950 \[hep-ph\]\].
X. H. Liu, Q. Wang and Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B [**757**]{}, 231 (2016) \[arXiv:1507.05359 \[hep-ph\]\].
R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 082003 (2016) \[arXiv:1606.06999 \[hep-ex\]\].
R. Aaij [*et al.*]{} \[LHCb Collaboration\], JHEP [**1407**]{}, 103 (2014) \[arXiv:1406.0755 \[hep-ex\]\].
F.-K. Guo, U.-G. Mei[ß]{}er, J. Nieves and Z. Yang, arXiv:1605.05113 \[hep-ph\].
F. Aceti, J. M. Dias and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A [**51**]{}, 48 (2015) \[arXiv:1501.06505 \[hep-ph\]\]. K. A. Olive [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], Chin. Phys. C [**38**]{}, 090001 (2014).
M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 1215 (1985).
J. J. Wu, R. Molina, E. Oset and B. S. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 232001 (2010) \[arXiv:1007.0573 \[nucl-th\]\].
T. Uchino, W. H. Liang and E. Oset, Eur. Phys. J. A [**52**]{}, 43 (2016) \[arXiv:1504.05726 \[hep-ph\]\].
P. Fernandez de Cordoba, Y. Ratis, E. Oset, J. Nieves, M. J. Vicente-Vacas, B. Lopez-Alvaredo and F. Gareev, Nucl. Phys. A [**586**]{}, 586 (1995).
S. R. Beane, E. Chang, S. D. Cohen, W. Detmold, H.-W. Lin, K. Orginos, A. Parreño and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 114503 (2015) \[arXiv:1410.7069 \[hep-lat\]\].
L. Roca and E. Oset, arXiv:1602.06791 \[hep-ph\].
[^1]: It is in fact located away from the real energy axis, which prevents the physical amplitude from diverging, when a finite width is considered for the decaying particle in the triangle loop.
[^2]: The expression can also be found in Eq. (19) of [@Aceti:2015zva]. A simpler expression can be obtained if we neglect the negative energy poles for the $c\bar c$ and proton as well, which still retains the two relevant poles.
[^3]: In Ref. [@Guo:2015umn], the authors did not claim that the $P_c(4450)$ is due to the triangle singularity. On the contrary, a method discriminating the true resonance explanation from the $\Lambda(1890)\,\chi_{c1}\,p$ triangle singularity was proposed.
[^4]: Sheldon Stone, private communication.
[^5]: One possibility would be to analyze the data by replacing the resonance parameterization for the $P_c(4450)$ by the amplitudes for the $\Lambda^*\,\chi_{c1}\,p$ triangle diagram as well as other possible triangle singularities discussed in Ref. [@Liu:2015fea].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Donors in silicon are now demonstrated as one of the leading candidates for implementing qubits and quantum information processing. Single qubit operations, measurements and long coherence times are firmly established, but progress on controlling two qubit interactions has been slower. One reason for this is that the inter donor exchange coupling has been predicted to oscillate with separation, making it hard to estimate in device designs. We present a multivalley effective mass theory of a donor pair in silicon, including both a central cell potential and the effective mass anisotropy intrinsic in the Si conduction band. We are able to accurately describe the single donor properties of valley-orbit coupling and the spatial extent of donor wave functions, highlighting the importance of fitting measured values of hyperfine coupling and the orbital energy of the $1s$ levels. Ours is a simple framework that can be applied flexibly to a range of experimental scenarios, but it is nonetheless able to provide fast and reliable predictions. We use it to estimate the exchange coupling between two donor electrons and we find a smoothing of its expected oscillations, and predict a monotonic dependence on separation if two donors are spaced precisely along the \[100\] direction.'
author:
- 'G. Pica'
- 'B. W. Lovett'
- 'R. N. Bhatt'
- 'S. A. Lyon'
title: 'Exchange coupling between silicon donors: the crucial role of the central cell and mass anisotropy'
---
I. Introduction
===============
It is now fifteen years since Kane proposed his blueprint for building a quantum computer using phosphorus donors in silicon (Si:P) [@kane98]. After years of steady progress towards realising this dream, recent remarkable experiments on uncoupled donors have brought it much closer to reality. The longest nuclear spin coherence time for (Si:P) now exceeds an astonishing thirty-nine minutes at room temperature [@saeedi13], and electron spin coherence survives for more than one second [@tyryshkin12]. It has also been possible to measure [@morello10] and manipulate [@pla13] an individual P-donor nuclear spin. However, still lacking is a way of controllably coupling multiple donors together to generate the kinds of correlated quantum states required for universal quantum information processing.
Perhaps the most conceptually straightforward way of coupling two donors together is exactly as Kane proposed: to place two donors closely enough that their electronic wave functions overlap (Fig. \[densityplots\]). This results in an interaction between donors that is Coulombic in nature, and depends strongly on the electronic density of both donors involved. The spatial region which gives the largest contribution to the interaction is concentrated around the inter-donor separation axis, midway between the nuclei; varying the potential of a surface electrostatic gate may then modulate this overlap [@externalexchange], enabling a controllable switching of the donors’ coupling. A critical question then is how large the coupling can be, and how accurately the donors must be placed for gates to be robust to variations in the coupling strength.
Previous work employing an effective mass theory of Si:P [@oscilla; @oscilla2; @zalba] predicts strong oscillations in the dependence of the coupling on distance, and is based on earlier work [@bhatt] which investigated the effect of valley-mixing in multi-valley semiconductors like silicon. This may cause larger changes in coupling strength in silicon, as a donor is moved from one lattice site to the next, than would be expected for semiconductors with non-degenerate conduction band minima.
![Plots of the spatial electronic densities around two adjacent implanted donor nuclei, in a plane containing the vector separation $\textbf{d}$. The two panels above refer to $\textbf{d}$ along \[100\], those below to \[110\]. Left panels are calculated with the wave functions used in the MV EMT theory, and show stronger concentration of the density around nuclei (hence larger hyperfine coupling) than the right panels which use KL wave functions [@kohnlut]. Red dots highlight the positions of the Si nuclei of the underlying lattice. The mismatch between their locations and the local critical points of the density is a result of the nontrivial structure of the Si conduction band.[]{data-label="densityplots"}](fig1){width=".5\textwidth"}
Such a situation represents a tough experimental challenge since it suggests that donors need to be placed very accurately. A more recent numerical calculation going beyond effective mass theory finds that the oscillations are suppressed relative to the Kohn-Luttinger effective mass approximation (KL). In this work, we consider the donor problem within a multi-valley effective mass theory (MV EMT) including effects of both the central cell and mass anisotropy present for Si:P. Our approach not only allows the entire $1s$ manifold of the binding energies of the isolated donor electron to be accurately described, but crucially it also allows a correct description of the hyperfine coupling to the donor nucleus, as measured in experiments. The most important consequence is our finding that the spread of the electronic wavefunction was significantly overestimated by previous treatments, which only relied on fitting of orbital energies. Building on this result, we will show how the anisotropy of the donor wave function leads to a suppression in the oscillatory nature of the exchange coupling, especially for certain geometries. Similar effects have been previously predicted , but we are able to clarify their origin and to improve their evaluation through correct fitting of the short-range behaviour of the donor wave function. This improvement in turn modifies intermediate and long range wave function shape and extent, and so strongly influences our exchange coupling estimates. In addition, our theory is much less numerically intensive and easily adaptable to more complicated electromagnetic environments and different donor species.
In the next section, we survey previous theoretical approaches of the same problem, and derive the multi-valley EMT equation we are going to use. We discuss known limitations of our theory and explain why it is still useful for our purposes, and then we fit experimental quantities of interest with only two free parameters. In section III, we discuss the method used for direct evaluation of donor-donor exchange coupling as a function of donor separation: and present our results. We are able to provide a clear physical explanation for our predictions, based on the analytic nature of our treatment, and point out interesting consequences for experimental implementations. We conclude in Section IV.
II. Theory
==========
We start with the Hamiltonian: $$\label{eqbase}
H \Psi(\textbf{r})= [-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2 m_{0}}\nabla^{2} + V^{0}(\textbf{r}) + U(\textbf{r}) ]\Psi(\textbf{r})= E \Psi(\textbf{r}),$$ where $\Psi(\textbf{r})$ is the wave function of the donor electron, $m_{0}$ is its rest mass, $V^{0}(\textbf{r})$ is the periodic potential of the undoped silicon crystal, and $U(\textbf{r})$ accounts for the interaction with the impurity ion. $E$ stands for the resulting energy eigenvalues.
The exact solution to the undoped Si case, with $U(\textbf{r})=0$, is provided by the Bloch functions $\phi_{n}(\textbf{k},\textbf{r})=u_{n}(\textbf{k},\textbf{r})e^{i \textbf{k} \cdot \textbf{r}}$ [@yucardona] (where $n$ is the band index, $\textbf{k}$ lies within the first Brillouin zone, and $u_{n}(\textbf{k},\textbf{r})$ has the periodicity of the lattice). Then, bound donor electrons can be described with $U(\textbf{r})=- \frac{e^{2}}{\epsilon_{Si}|\textbf{r}|}$, i.e. a screened attractive Coulomb interaction with the extra positive charge of the substitutional impurity. Since the effective Bohr radius of shallow donor bound states is expected to be considerably larger than the lattice spacing, Kohn and Luttinger [@originalemt] showed that it is reasonable to write $\Psi(\textbf{r})$ as an expansion in the Bloch states above, restricted to the deepest conduction band ($n=0$). Included in their wave function were only the Bloch states around one of the six degenerate minima in silicon; these ‘valleys’ are placed at $\textbf{k}_{0\mu}=\frac{2 \pi }{a_{Si}}0.85(\pm \hat{\textbf{x}},\pm \hat{\textbf{y}},\pm \hat{\textbf{z}})$ ($a_{Si}=5.43$Å is the silicon lattice constant). The coefficients of such expansion are called EMT envelopes, and satisfy a simpler equation than the full Eq. \[eqbase\]. Even though the new equation is not analytically solvable, an excellent approximation to the exact solution can be achieved via variational minimization of the expectation value of the energy. Such approximations, though, fail to describe the $s$-donor levels, and especially the ground electronic state, because the short-range impurity potential unique to each chemical donor species - the so called ‘central cell’ correction [@ningsah] - is not properly captured. Moreover, this potential shows strong variations within the unit cell surrounding the impurity nucleus, so that all the six valleys are coupled (valley-orbit interactions). For this reason we use a multi-valley EMT and expand $\Psi(\textbf{r})$ in terms of the Bloch functions close (in $k$-space) to each of those six minima [@hui]: $$\label{expansion}
\Psi(\textbf{r})=\sum_{\mu=1}^{6}\alpha_{\mu}\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \int \tilde{F}_{\mu}(\textbf{k}_{\mu}+\textbf{k}_{0\mu})\phi_{0}(\textbf{k}_{\mu}+\textbf{k}_{0\mu},\textbf{r}) d\textbf{k}_{\mu},$$ where $\tilde{F}_{\mu}(\textbf{k}_{\mu}+\textbf{k}_{0\mu})$ is the expansion coefficient for the Bloch function $\phi_{0}(\textbf{k}_{\mu}+\textbf{k}_{0\mu},\textbf{r})$ centered around the $\mu$th valley.
Even without precise knowledge of $U(\textbf{r})$, the residual $T_{d}$ symmetry of the system dictates the shape of the eigenstates into which the previously degenerate $1s$ ground state is split: a singlet $A_{1}$, a triplet $T_{2}$, and a doublet $E$. The singlet is an equal symmetric superposition of all six valleys ($\{\alpha_{i}(A_{1})\}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(1,1,1,1,1,1)$), with the other states forming orthogonal combinations of the $\{\alpha_{i}\}$.
We now take the expectation value of Eq. \[eqbase\] with respect to Eq. \[expansion\] [@shindonara] and go through the usual EMT approximations to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}\label{intermezzo}
0=\int d\textbf{r} \sum_{\mu=1}^{6}\alpha^{\ast}_{\mu}F^{\ast}_{\mu}(\textbf{r}) [\alpha_{\mu} (\textbf{p}\cdot \textbf{A}_{\mu}\cdot \textbf{p}-E)F_{\mu}(\textbf{r}) + \\
\sum_{\nu=1}^{6} \alpha_{\nu} e^{-i(\textbf{k}_{0\mu}-\textbf{k}_{0\nu})\cdot \textbf{r}} u_{0}^{\ast}(\textbf{k}_{0\mu},\textbf{r})u_{0}(\textbf{k}_{0\nu},\textbf{r}) U(\textbf{r}) F_{\nu}(\textbf{r}) ] ,
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where $\textbf{A}_{\mu}$ is the anisotropic inverse effective mass tensor for silicon, which describes the curvature of bands parallel and perpendicular to the wave vector locating each of the band minima within the Brillouin Zone: $m^{\ast}_{\perp}=0.191 m_{0}$ and $m^{\ast}_{\parallel}=0.916 m_{0}$. Using $u_{0}^{\ast}(\textbf{k},\textbf{r})u_{0}(\textbf{k}',\textbf{r})=\sum_{\textbf{G}}C_{\textbf{G}}(\textbf{k},\textbf{k}') e^{i \textbf{G}\cdot \textbf{r}}$ (where $\textbf{G}$ runs over the vectors of the silicon reciprocal lattice) [@originalemt], and neglecting the $\textbf{G}\neq 0$ terms [^1] leads to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{definitiva}
\begin{aligned}
\int d\textbf{r} \sum_{\mu=1}^{6}\alpha^{\ast}_{\mu}F^{\ast}_{\mu}(\textbf{r}) \times [\alpha_{\mu} (\textbf{p}\cdot \textbf{A}_{\mu}\cdot \textbf{p}-E)F_{\mu}(\textbf{r}) +\\
\sum_{\nu=1}^{6} \alpha_{\nu} e^{-i(\textbf{k}_{0\mu}-\textbf{k}_{0\nu})\cdot \textbf{r}} C_{\textbf{0}}(\textbf{k}_{0\mu},\textbf{k}_{0\nu}) U(\textbf{r}) F_{\nu}(\textbf{r})] =0
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{0}(\textbf{k}_{0q},\textbf{k}_{0q}) = 1, C_{0}(\textbf{k}_{0q},-\textbf{k}_{0q})= -0.1728 $ and $ C_{0}(\textbf{k}_{0q},\textbf{k}_{0\pm p}) = 0.4081$ ($p \neq q$), values taken from a calculation with the pseudo-potential form factors of the periodic undoped silicon crystal [@cohen], performed by Shindo and Nara [@shindonara] to describe its band structure.
We use the impurity potential first proposed by Ning and Sah [@ningsah]: $$U(\textbf{r})=-\frac{e^{2}}{\epsilon_{Si}|\textbf{r}|}(1-\text{e} ^{- b |\textbf{r}|}+ B |\textbf{r}| \text{e} ^{- b |\textbf{r}|}).$$ $b$ and $B$ are parameters that are fit to experimental data. The potential resembles the screened hydrogenic Coulomb interaction at large distances, while at extremely short range it mimics the extra nuclear charges embedded in the substitutional donor impurity. In essence, the potential is an average of the oscillations over the central-cell lengthscale with a phenomenological model potential $U(\textbf{r})$ that still satisfies the EMT assumptions above - most importantly, smoothness [@shindonara] - but gives a good description of the experimentally determined valley-orbit energies. Our method proceeds as follows: for each trial calculation, we first fix $b$ and $B$ and then we use the following ansatz for the envelopes [@kohnlut], e.g. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{trials}\nonumber
F_{\pm z}= \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi a_{D}^{2}b_{D}}} \exp\left(-\sqrt{\frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{a^{2}_{D}}+\frac{z^{2}}{b^{2}_{D}}}\right),
\\
F_{\pm x}= \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi a_{D}^{2}b_{D}}} \exp\left(-\sqrt{\frac{z^{2}+y^{2}}{a^{2}_{D}}+\frac{x^{2}}{b^{2}_{D}}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We now minimize the expectation values of the energies of the three split $1s$ levels according to equation (\[definitiva\]) by varying $a_{D}$ and $b_{D}$ separately for each. We then find the best values of $b$ and $B$ by finding a good match between our predictions and measured ground state donor energy [@aggarwal] and hyperfine coupling [@feher; @fletcher] for Si:P. We emphasize that, unlike some previous multi-valley EMT treatments, the envelopes we have used have the crucial property of anisotropy. This is vital for calculations of properties of a donor-donor system, which clearly has a broken symmetry along the vector connecting the two donors. Isotropic envelopes provide predictions of exchange coupling that can be qualitatively different to those we present here.
With $b=19.96$nm$^{-1}$ and $B=246.1$nm$^{-1}$ we obtain $E_{A_{1}}=-45.5$meV, $E_{T_{2}}=-36.0$meV, $E_{E}=-33.0$meV, which must be compared with the experimental [@aggarwal] $E_{A_{1}}=-45.57$meV, $E_{T_{2}}=-33.74$meV, and $E_{E}=-32.37$meV: other than the fitted singlet, the agreement is very good for the doublet, and somewhat less accurate for the triplet, but not unacceptably so. In addition, we can fit the value of the squared electron wave function at the donor nucleus $|\psi(0)|^{2}$, which is proportional to the hyperfine coupling between the impurity nucleus and the donor electron, by expressing it as $|\psi(0)|^{2}\approx 6 \eta |F(0)|^{2}$. Here $\eta=|u_{0}(\textbf{k}_{0},0)|^{2}/\langle |u_{0}(\textbf{k}_{0},\textbf{r})|^{2}\rangle_{\text{unit cell}} =186\pm 18$. We set this to match the $|\Psi_{A_{1}}(0)|^{2}=4.4\times 10^{29}$m$^{-3}$ [@fletcher] extracted from experimental measurements of the hyperfine constant. [^2]
III. Donor-donor exchange
=========================
We used the Heitler-London (HL) approach [@hl] to evaluate the exchange splitting between two adjacent P donor electrons in a Si layer. HL uses a smart guess of the ground and first excited molecular orbital states of the two-particle system, based on single particle ground state orbitals. The two resulting states have a difference in energy of $J=E_{T}-E_{S}$, where the spin-singlet $|S\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|\hspace{-1.5mm}\uparrow \downarrow -\hspace{-1.5mm} \downarrow \uparrow\rangle$ and the spin-triplet $T_{0,+,-}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|\hspace{-1.3mm} \uparrow \downarrow +\hspace{-1.3mm} \downarrow \uparrow\rangle, |\hspace{-1mm} \uparrow\uparrow\rangle, |\hspace{-1.5mm} \downarrow\downarrow\rangle $ have spatial wave functions made up of a symmetric and an antisymmetric combination of the single particle orbitals respectively. The convention we have chosen for the sign of the $H$ ensures that $J$ is positive; this must indeed be the case at zero magnetic field, by the Lieb-Mattis theorem [@mattis]. This Coulomb interaction can then be effectively described as a spin Hamiltonian term coupling the two donor electrons: $$H=J \textbf{S}_{1}\cdot\textbf{S}_{2}.$$ The evaluation of exchange coupling has been attempted by several different theoretical approaches. Andres [*et al.*]{} [@bhatt] first emphasized that, unlike the monotonic decay of $J(d)$ characteristic of the H$_{2}$ molecule in vacuum, the exchange coupling was expected to show oscillations as a function of the donor separation, because the conduction-band minima in Si are away from the Brillouin zone center, and the corresponding Bloch functions interfere with one another. As further pointed out in [@oscilla] and [@oscilla2], this can lead to serious difficulties when trying to harness exchange coupling for quantum computation. The resolution of the donor positioning during the implantation process is not refined enough to ensure that all donors within a Si layer would experience even the same order of magnitude of $J$.
In a numerical solution of the full Hamiltonian describing the donor electron is proposed, obtained through exact diagonalization in the basis of the undoped crystal Bloch functions - the Band Minima Basis method (BMB). Predictions made using this method are not limited by any of the EMT approximations, but only by the convergence and numerical accuracy of the computation, and by the validity of the pseudopotential used [@pantelides]. Such detailed and numerically intensive microscopic calculations predict that the strength of the coupling is reduced, and its oscillations have their amplitude decreased as compared to the calculations performed with the multi-valley wave function involving Kohn and Luttinger envelopes [@originalemt]. This happens since the KL approach includes the correct valley structure without taking into account its consequences on the donor Hamiltonian, i.e. central cell corrections. However, all calculations so far still fail to get a reliable description of the electronic density in the region close to the donor nucleus.
We now explore two donor coupling with our new MV EMT which, unlike the KL method, does account for the effect of central cell corrections on the donor, and does accurately predict single particle properties. The two-particle integrals entering $J$ were computed with a fast Monte-Carlo algorithm for adaptive multidimensional integration (cubature) [@johnson], and each data point takes only a few minutes to compute. Fig. \[wash\] shows our evaluation of $J$ for donor separation $d$ in the \[110\] and \[100\] spectroscopic directions, compared with corresponding values we determined using KL [@kohnlut].
![The exchange splitting between electrons pertaining to adjacent Si:P donors is shown as a function of their separation $d$ along (a) the \[110\] axis and (b) the \[100\] axis $b)$. The range of $d$ displayed refers to the realistic uncertainty in the resolution of the placement of donors in the Si layer during the implantation process. The solid lines are only a guide to the eye, providing a rough interpolation between the calculated data points. We display both the KL solution of the donor Hamiltonian (blue crosses) and our MV EMT (red stars). The large difference in the scale of the two y-axes makes apparent the discrepancy between the two calculations. The inset in (a) shows the juxtaposition of our results with those obtained from BMB (green squares), extracted from . The most striking property of the $d$ dependence we have calculated for the \[100\] axis is the absence of the oscillations expected from other theories [@oscilla; @oscilla2], a finding explained in detail in the text.[]{data-label="wash"}](fig2){width=".5\textwidth"}
The biggest difference between the two theories lies in the magnitude of the exchange splittings: the extra localization in real space provided by the strong short range potential of the impurity for MV EMT leads to a shrinking of the effective Bohr radii of the ground state envelopes ($a_{D}=1.15$nm, $ b_{D}=0.61$nm), when compared to KL ($a_{D}=2.509$nm, $ b_{D}=1.443$nm [@oscilla2]). This is illustrated by the electron density plots shown in Fig. \[densityplots\].
For the \[110\] direction, the same qualitative behavior predicted in is apparent, but we find shallower oscillations. To explain this, consider the following approximation of the whole exchange splitting calculated here, the so-called indirect exchange integral [@bhatt]. It has the advantage of clear analytical structure, and the has the same qualitative behaviour as $J(\textbf{d})$: $$j(\textbf{d})=\sum_{\mu,\nu}|\alpha_{\mu}|^{2}|\alpha_{\nu}|^{2}j_{\mu\nu}(\textbf{d})\cos(\textbf{k}_{0\mu}-\textbf{k}_{0\nu})\cdot \textbf{d}.
\label{eq:exchange}$$ where $j_{\mu\nu}(\textbf{d})$ is the indirect exchange integral between the envelopes $F_{\mu}(\textbf{r}_{1})$ and $F_{\nu}(\textbf{r}_{2})$: $$\label{simpler}
\int d\textbf{r}_{1}d\textbf{r}_{2}F^{\ast}_{\mu}(\textbf{r}_{1})F^{\ast}_{\nu}(\textbf{r}_{2}-\textbf{d})\frac{e^{2}}{\epsilon |\textbf{r}_{1}-\textbf{r}_{2}|}F_{\mu}(\textbf{r}_{1}-\textbf{d})F_{\nu}(\textbf{r}_{2})$$
The sinusoidal terms arise from the periodic parts of the Bloch states. The *longitudinal* $j_{\mu \nu}^{l}$, where either $\textbf{k}_{0\mu}$ or $\textbf{k}_{0\nu}$ has some component along $\textbf{d}$, give oscillating contributions to $j(\textbf{d})$ and are responsible for the large oscillations apparent in the KL (and BMB) cases. The *transverse* $j_{\mu\nu}^{t}$ where $\textbf {k}_{0 \mu}\cdot \textbf{d}=\textbf {k}_{0 \nu}\cdot \textbf{d}=0$ decrease monotonically with $d$.
Owing to the large difference between longitudinal and transverse effective masses in Si used in MV EMT, our envelopes are very anisotropic: we get $a_{D}/b_{D}\approx 1.90$, compared to KL’s 1.74. To explain why anisotropy gives a great suppression of the oscillating terms in MV EMT, we introduce the two-envelope overlap integral ${\cal S}(\textbf{d})=\int d\textbf{r} \Psi(\textbf{r}) \Psi(\textbf{r}-\textbf{d})$. Both the envelope overlap parts of the $\bf{r}_1$ and $\bf{r}_2$ integrands in Eq. \[simpler\] are peaked in the region between the two donors - i.e. for the same values of $\bf{r}_1$ and $\bf{r}_2$. The denominator of the integrand has its largest value when $\bf{r}_1-\bf{r}_2$ is small; it can therefore be shown that the $d$ dependence of the exchange integral, Eq. \[eq:exchange\], is dominated by that of ${\cal S}^2(\bf d)$[@oscilla]. This is true so long as $\{a_{D},b_{D}\}/d$ are small enough, which they are for all results presented here.
It can be shown [@oscilla] that $$\label{overlap}
{\cal S}(\textbf{d})\approx \sum_{\mu}{\cal S}_{\mu\mu}(\textbf{d}) \equiv \sum_{\mu}|\alpha_{\mu}|^{2} \text{e}^{-i \textbf{k}_{\mu}\cdot \textbf{d}} \text{e}^{- \mathit{d}_{\mu}}(1+\mathit{d}_{\mu} + \mathit{d}_{\mu}^{2}/3)$$ where $\textbf{\textit{d}}_{\mu}$ is the separation vector $\textbf{d}$ appropriately rescaled with the anisotropic Bohr radii: $b_{D}$ along $\hat{\mu}$ direction, $a_{D}$ for the others, e.g. $\textbf{\textit{d}}_{z}=(d_{x}/a_{D},d_{y}/a_{D},d_{z}/b_{D})$. For the range of separations explored, the decaying exponential term dominates the functional dependence of the ${\cal S}$. For example, with $\textbf{d}$ parallel to \[110\] $$|\frac{\partial}{\partial d} \log({\cal S}^{l}_{\mu\mu})|/|\frac{\partial}{\partial d} \log({\cal S}^{t}_{\nu\nu})|\propto \frac{\sqrt{a_D^2+b_D^2}}{b_D\sqrt{2}}>1 .$$ Hence the oscillating longitudinal terms decay more quickly with $d$ than the transverse ones; as $d$ increases, oscillations are smoothed out. Anisotropy plays a key role in this effect, and this is far more evident within MV EMT, where our fitting of hyperfine coupling results in a spread of the donor wave functions that is much smaller than those in KL or BMB. With $\textbf{d}$ directed along the \[110\] direction, even though 32 of the 36 terms in Eq. \[eq:exchange\] are transverse, these are heavily suppressed and the oscillations then appear shallower in MV EMT than in the other theories.
Even more striking is the form of $J(\textbf{d})$ when the separation lies precisely along the \[100\] direction (see panel $b)$ of figure \[wash\]). Thanks to the higher symmetry in this case, only four of the 36 $j_{\mu\nu}(\textbf{d})$ are associated with oscillations, and these are suppressed to such an extent that the exchange is now monotonically decreasing.
IV. Conclusions
===============
We have presented a theoretical analysis of the P-donor electron wave function in Si. Our consistency with the measured hyperfine interaction strength improves the description of the electronic density in the region between neighbouring donor nuclei, which determines their exchange coupling. Ours is a relatively simple and numerically light framework, which nonetheless is able to reliably predict properties of shallow electronic states in silicon. The limitations and approximations of our theory are clearly understood, and possible improvements may come from an exact knowledge of the Si Bloch eigenfunctions and the short-range potential characteristic of each donor: both still are inaccessible even with *ab initio* approaches. We have shown why the anisotropy intrinsic to the Si conduction band is particularly important for estimating the exchange splitting within the cylindrically symmetric two-donor system: the most immediate consequence is the large difference in the distance dependence of $J$ for donors separated along different spectroscopic axes. We find the same qualitative effect of ‘washing out’ of the oscillations in $J(d)$ as in the *ab initio* calculations in , but the size of the exchange and the amplitude of oscillations are significantly reduced. Precisely along the \[100\] direction, we predict that there will be no oscillations at all in the dependence of $J$ on separation. The reasoning outlined at the end of the previous section allows us to anticipate that oscillations will be smoothed efficiently at smaller distances the more localized the impurity electron. Thus at fixed donor-separation, the predicted effect will be more pronounced for As, Sb and Bi-implanted silicon. Even though oscillatory variations of $J$ are still expected as a function of misplacements orthogonal to a nominal \[100\] separation (those trends would resemble qualitatively the $J$ dependence on inter-donor separations along \[110\] and \[111\] directions), the range of interaction strengths induced by uncertainty in donor implantation position will be less than previously thought. Future work will explore extensions of MV EMT to include the effects of external electric or magnetic fields, and other dopants.
Acknowledgements
================
This research was funded by the joint EPSRC (EP/I035536) / NSF (DMR-1107606) Materials World Network grant (BWL, GP, SAL), partly by the NSF MRSEC grant DMR-0819860 (SAL), the Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences grant DE-SC0002140 (RNB). BWL thanks the Royal Society for a University Research Fellowship and RNB thanks the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton for hospitality during the period this work was written.
[26]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****,, ().
, p. ().
, ** (, ).
, ****, ().
(), , <http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Cubature>.
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
[^1]: This approximation has been criticized for example in [@resta] and with the argument that there are some Fourier components of the impurity potential $U(\textbf{q})$ on the scale of $\textbf{q}=\textbf{k}-\textbf{k}'-\textbf{G}$ with $\textbf{G}\neq 0$ which are actually more important than those with $\textbf{G}= 0$ with the same $\textbf{k}$ and $\textbf{k}'$. However, some counter-arguments can be provided: $i)$ as pointed out in [@resta], neglecting the Umklapp components of the pseudopotential can only result in an underestimation of some inter-valley matrix elements, i.e. $\textbf{k}\neq \textbf{k}'$, which are considerably smaller than the intra-valley ones ($\textbf{k}= \textbf{k}'$); $ii)$ the statistical weight of those wave vectors over which the envelopes $F_{\mu}$ are significant is small, and the relative matrix element comes from an integration over the whole of $k_{\mu}$ space; $iii$) the neglected contributions are further depressed by $C_{\textbf{G}}(\textbf{k}_{0q},\textbf{k}_{0p})$ with $\textbf{G} \neq 0$ which, although not exactly known, should be smaller than the respective quantities with $\textbf{G}=0$ as derived in using some theoretical treatments (see for example [@rescaresta]).
[^2]: Different $\eta$ values, proposed by other experiments and theory [@assali], would lead to slightly different Bohr radii (about 5%), what would not change any of the conclusions presented later.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Consider the random polytope, that is given by the convex hull of a Poisson point process on a smooth convex body in $\RR^d$. We prove central limit theorems for continuous motion invariant valuations including the Will’s functional and the intrinsic volumes of this random polytope. Additionally we derive a central limit theorem for the oracle estimator, that is an unbiased an minimal variance estimator for the volume of a convex set. Finally we obtain a multivariate limit theorem for the intrinsic volumes and the components of the $\bff$-vector of the random polytope.\
**Keywords**. central limit theorem, multivariate limit theorem, intrinsic volumes, f-vector, random polytope, random convex hull, stochastic geometry, Poisson point process, oracle estimator, volume estimation\
**MSC (2010)**. 52A22, 60D05, 60F05
author:
- Jens Grygierek
bibliography:
- 'Gry-MVLT.bib'
title: Multivariate Normal Approximation for functionals of random polytopes
---
Introduction
============
We denote by $\cK^d$, $d \geq 2$, the collection of all compact convex sets in the Euclidean space $\RR^d$ and by $\cK^d_{sm}$ the set of all smooth convex bodies in $\cK^d$, which are all $K \in \cK^d$ that have nonempty interior, boundary of differentiability class $\cC^2$, and positive Gaussian curvature everywhere. Let $\eta_t$ be a Poisson point process on $\RR^d$ with intensity measure $\mu = t \Lambda_d$, where $t > 0$ and $\Lambda_d$ denotes the $d$-dimensional Lebesgue measure on $\RR^d$, see e.g. [@LastPenrose2018] for more details on Poisson point processes. We fix $K \in \cK^d_{sm}$ and investigate the random polytope $K_t \subset K$ defined as the convex hull of all points in $\eta_t \cap K$, $$\begin{aligned}
K_t := \conv\cbras*{x : x \in \eta_t \cap K}.\end{aligned}$$
The investigation of random convex hulls is one of the classical problems in stochastic geometry, see for instance the survey article [@Hug2013] and the introduction to stochastic geometry [@HugReitzner2016]. Functionals like the intrinsic volumes $V_j(K_t)$ and the components $f_j(K_t)$ of the $\bff$-vector, see Section \[sec:geometric-prelim\], of the random polytope $K_t$ have been studied prominently, see [@CalkaYukich2014; @Reitzner2010; @CalkaSchreiberYukich2013 Section 1] and the references therein as well as the remarks and references on [@LachiezeReySchulteYukich2017 Theorem 5.5] for more details.
Central limit theorems for $V_j(K_t)$ were proven in the special case that $K$ is the $d$-dimensional Euclidean unit ball, see [@CalkaSchreiberYukich2013] and [@Schreiber2002]. Short proofs for the binomial case $K_n$, where $n$ i.i.d. uniformly distributed points in $K$ are considered instead of a Poisson point process, were derived in [@ThaeleTurchiWespi2018]. Recently [@LachiezeReySchulteYukich2017] embedded the problem for both cases, the binomial and the Poisson case, in the theory of stabilizing functionals deriving central limit theorems for smooth convex bodies removing the logarithmic factors in the error of approximation improving the rate of convergence.
We extend the results of [@ThaeleTurchiWespi2018] on the intrinsic volumes to the more general case of continuous and motion invariant valuations. This includes the total intrinsic volume functional (Wills functional) $W(K_t)$ and a central limit theorem for the intrinsic volumes in the Poisson case similar to [@ThaeleTurchiWespi2018 Theorem 1.1].
We also obtain a univariate central limit theorem for the oracle estimator $\hat{\vartheta}_{oracle}$, that was derived in the remarkable work of [@BaldinReiss2016] on the estimation of the volume of a convex body.
Finally we investigate the components of the $\bff$-vector $f_j(K_t)$, $j \in \cbras*{0,\ldots,d-1}$ defined as the number of $j$-dimensional faces of $K_t$ and derive a multivariate limit theorem on the random vector composed of the intrinsic volumes and the $\bff$-vector.
For a continuous and motion invariant valuation $\varphi: \cK^d \rightarrow \RR$ we define the random variable $\varphi(K_t)$ and the corresponding standardization $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\varphi}(K_t) := \frac{\varphi(K_t)-\E*{\varphi(K_t)}}{\sqrt{\V*{\varphi(K_t)}}}.\end{aligned}$$
We prove a central limit theorem for $t \rightarrow \infty$ under some additional assumptions on the coefficients $c_i$ in the linear decomposition into the intrinsic volumes given by the remarkable theorem of Hadwiger stated here as Theorem \[thm:hadwiger\], see [@Chen2004; @Klain1995; @Hadwiger1957] for more details and different proofs. Given this restriction of our model to valuation functionals $\varphi(K_t)$, that can be safely assumed to not loose variance compared to the intrinsic volume functionals $V_j(K_t)$, we show the first main result of this paper:
We denote by $\dist_W$ the Wasserstein distance, see in Section \[sec:malliavin-stein:uni\] for the precise Definition.
\[thm:univariate\] Assume that $\varphi$ is a continuous and motion invariant valuation, with linear decomposition given by Hadwiger , such that $c_i c_j \geq 0$ for all $i,j \in \cbras*{0, \ldots, d}$ and suppose that at least one index $k \in \cbras*{1, \ldots, d}$ exists, such that $c_k \neq 0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\dist_W(\tilde{\varphi}(K_t), Z) = \cO\rbras*{t^{-\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{d+1}} \log(t)^{3 + \frac{2}{d+1}}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $Z \distribute \cN(0,1)$.
For $j \in \cbras*{1, \ldots, d}$ we can directly obtain the central limit theorem for the standardized $j$-th intrinsic volume in the Poisson model by setting $\varphi(K_t) = V_j(K_t)$.
Further we can directly obtain a central limit theorem with rate of convergence for the total intrinsic volume, also known as the Wills functional, see [@Wills1973; @Hadwiger1975; @McMullen1975], setting the coefficients $c_j = 1$, $j \in \cbras*{0,\ldots,d}$ in Theorem \[thm:univariate\]:
Let $W(K_t)$ denote the Wills functional, defined by $W(K_t) = \sum_{j=0}^d V_j(K_t)$ and denote by $\tilde{W}(K_t)$ the corresponding standardization. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\dist_W(\tilde{W}(K_t), Z) = \cO\rbras*{t^{-\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{d+1}} \log(t)^{3 + \frac{2}{d+1}}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $Z \distribute \cN(0,1)$.
In the remarkable work [@BaldinReiss2016] on the estimation of the volume of a convex body $V_d(K)$ given the intensity $t > 0$ is known, the oracle estimator $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\vartheta}_{oracle}(K_t) = V_d(K_t) + \frac{f_0(K_t)}{t},\end{aligned}$$ is derived. This estimator is unbiased, $$\begin{aligned}
\E*{\hat{\vartheta}_{oracle}(K_t)} = V_d(K),\end{aligned}$$ and of minimal variance among all unbiased estimators (UMVU), see [@BaldinReiss2016 eq. (3.2), Theorem 3.2]. Additionally the variance can be obtained by combining [@BaldinReiss2016 Theorem 3.2] with [@Reitzner2005a Lemma 1] yielding
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:oracle-variance}
\V*{\hat{\vartheta}_{oracle}(K_t)} = \frac{1}{t} \E*{V_d(K \setminus K_t)} = \gamma_d \Omega(K)(1+o(1))t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}},\end{aligned}$$
for $t \rightarrow \infty$, where the constant $\gamma_d$ only depends on the dimension and is known explicitly and $\Omega(K)$ denotes the affine surface area of $K$. This enables us to prove the following univariate limit theorem for the oracle estimator:
\[thm:oracle\] Let $\hat{\vartheta}_{oracle}$ be the oracle estimator for a smooth convex body $K \in \cK^d_{sm}$ and denote by $\tilde{\vartheta}_{oracle}$ the corresponding standardization. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\dist_W(\tilde{\vartheta}_{oracle}(K_t),Z) = \cO\rbras*{t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}} \log(t)^{3d+\frac{2}{d+1}}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $Z \distribute \cN(0,1)$.
Finally we provide a multivariate limit theorem for the intrinsic volumes and the components of the $\bff$-vector of the random polytope $K_t$, that were considered in [@LachiezeReySchulteYukich2017 Theorem 5.5] in the univariate case.
We denote by $\dist_3$ the distance given by in Section \[sec:malliavin-stein:multi\].
\[thm:multivariate\] Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:multivariate-functional}
F(K_t) : = \rbras*{\tilde{V}_1(K_t), \ldots, \tilde{V}_d(K_t), \tilde{f}_0(K_t), \ldots, \tilde{f}_{d-1}(K_t)} \in \RR^{2d}
\end{aligned}$$ be the vector of the standardized intrinsic volumes $\tilde{V}_j$ and standardized number of $k$-dimensional faces $\tilde{f}_k(K_t)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{V}_j(K_t) := \frac{V_j(K_t)-\E*{V_j(K_t)}}{\sqrt{\V*{V_j(K_t)}}}
\quad
\text{and}
\quad
\tilde{f}_k(K_t) := \frac{f_k(K_t)-\E*{f_k(K_t)}}{\sqrt{\V*{f_k(K_t)}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ We denote by $F_i := F_i(K_t)$, $i = 1, \ldots, 2d$ the $i$-th component of the multivariate functional $F(K_t)$. Define $\Sigma(t) = (\sigma_{ij}(t))_{i,j \in \cbras*{1, \ldots, 2d}}$ as the covariance matrix of $F(K_t)$, i.e. $\sigma_{ij}(t) := \Cov*{F_i}{F_j}$ and $\sigma_{ii}(t) = 1$ for all $i \in \cbras*{1, \ldots, 2d}$ and all $t > 0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\dist_3(F(K_t), N_{\Sigma(t)}) = \cO\rbras*{t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}\log(t)^{3d+\frac{2}{d+1}}}
\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{\Sigma(t)} \distribute \cN(0, \Sigma(t))$.
Note that $N_{\Sigma(t)}$ still depends on the intensity $t$. This gives rise to the following questions:
**Open Problems:**
The limit of the variances and co-variances are still unknown, thus we can not set $\sigma_{ij}$ to be the limit of the correlations (rescaled co-variances) $\sigma_{ij}(t)$. These limits would give rise to a limit theorem providing a fixed multivariate Gaussian distribution $\cN(0, \Sigma)$ with fixed co-variance matrix $\Sigma$. In this case, the rate of the limit theorem will also contain the rate of the correlations on the right hand side of the bound, thus it would be beneficial to obtain the limit $\sigma_{ij}$ of $\sigma_{ij}(t)$ including an upper bound for $\abs{\sigma_{ij}(t) - \sigma_{ij}}$, since the convergence of the correlations could be slower than the rate given in Theorem \[thm:multivariate\], slowing down the overall convergence. We should mention, that Calka, Schreiber and Yukich, were able to derive limits for the variance in the case that $K$ is the euclidean unit ball using the paraboloid growth process, see [@CalkaSchreiberYukich2013], but up to our knowledge there are no results on the limit of the variance in a general (smooth) convex body and also no results on the co-variances of $F(K_t)$.
Note that the Euler-Poincaré equations and more general the Dehn-Sommerville equations, see [@Ziegler1995 Chapter 8], imply linear dependencies on the components of the $\bff$-vector. Thus the covariance matrix $\Sigma(t)$ is singular and therefore $\rank*{\Sigma(t)} < 2d$, which gives rise to the question what $\rank*{\Sigma(t)}$ actually is and if this also applies to the limiting co-variance matrix $\Sigma$?
Note that the univariate results can be derived for the $d_3$-distance using the multivariate result. Since the additional work that is needed to prove the univariate results alongside the multivariate limit theorem is small, we decided to directly proof the univariate results in the Wasserstein distance.
The paper is organized as follows. For the convenience of the reader, we repeat the relevant material on the Malliavin-Stein-Method for normal approximation of Poisson functionals in Section 2. In Section 3 we introduce some background material on convex geometry and corresponding estimations using floating bodies without proofs, to keep our presentation reasonably self-contained. The proofs of our main results are presented in Section 4, starting with the central limit theorem for valuations, Theorem \[thm:univariate\], in Subsection 4.1. handling the intrinsic volumes. In Subsection 4.2 we prove the multivariate limit theorem, Theorem \[thm:multivariate\] by extending our proof to the components of the $\bff$-vector. Finally we can combine the results derived in the proofs before to obtain the central limit theorem for the oracle estimator, Theorem \[thm:oracle\].
Stochastic preliminaries
========================
Let $\eta$ be a Poisson point process over the Euclidean space $(\RR^d, \sB^d)$ with intensity measure $\mu$. One can think of $\eta$ as a random element in the space $\rN_\sigma$ of all $\sigma$-finite counting measures $\chi$ on $\RR^d$, i.e. $\chi(B) \in \NNN \cup \{ \infty \}$ for all $B \in \sX$, where the space $\rN_\sigma$ is equipped with the $\sigma$-field $\sN_\sigma$ generated by the mappings $\chi \rightarrow \chi(B)$, $B \in \sB^d$. To simplify our notation we will often handle $\eta$ as a random set of points given by $$\begin{aligned}
x \in \eta \Leftrightarrow x \in \cbras*{y \in \RR^d : \eta(\cbras{y}) > 0}.\end{aligned}$$ We call a random variable $F$ a Poisson functional if there exists a measurable map $f:\rN_\sigma \rightarrow \RR$ such that $F = f(\eta)$ almost surely. The map $f$ is called the representative of $F$. We define the difference operator or so called “add-one-cost operator”:
Let $F$ be a Poisson functional and $f$ its corresponding representative, then the first order difference operator is given by $$\begin{aligned}
D_xF := f(\eta + \delta_x) - f(\eta), \quad x \in \RR^d,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_x$ denotes the Dirac measure with mass concentrated in $x$. We say that $F$ belongs to the domain of the difference operator, i.e. $F \in \dom{D}$, if $\E*{F^2} < \infty$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\int\limits_{\RR^d} \! \E*{(D_xF)^2} \, \mu(\id x) < \infty.
\end{aligned}$$ The second order difference operator is obtained by iterating the definition: $$\begin{aligned}
D_{x_1,x_2}^2F & := D_{x_1}(D_{x_2}F)\\
& \phantom{:}= f(\eta + \delta_{x_1} + \delta_{x_2}) - f(\eta + \delta_{x_1}) - f(\eta + \delta_{x_2}) + f(\eta), \quad x_1, x_2 \in \RR^d.
\end{aligned}$$
For a depper discussion of the underlying theory of Poisson point processes, Malliavin-Calculus, the Wiener-Itô-Chaos Expansion and the Malliavin-Stein Method see [@PeccatiReitzner2016] and [@LastPenrose2018].
Malliavin-Stein-Method for the univariate case {#sec:malliavin-stein:uni}
----------------------------------------------
We denote by $\Lip{1}$ the class of Lipschitz functions $h:\RR \rightarrow \RR$ with Lipschitz constant less or equal to one. Given two $\RR$-valued random variables $X,Y$, with $\Eabs*{X} < \infty$ and $\Eabs*{Y} < \infty$ the Wasserstein distance between the laws of $X$ and $Y$, written $\dist_W(X,Y)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:metric-wasserstein}
\dist_W(X,Y) := \sup\limits_{h \in \Lip{1}} \abs*{\E*{h(X)} - \E*{h(Y)}}.\end{aligned}$$
Note that if a sequence $(X_n)$ of random variables satisfies $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \dist_W(X_n, Y) = 0$, then it holds that $X_n$ converges to $Y$ in distribution, see [@LastPenrose2018 p. 219 and Proposition B.9]. Especially if $Y$ has standard Gaussian distribution, we obtain a central limit theorem by showing $\dist_W(X_n, Y) \rightarrow 0$, which we will achieve by rephrasing the bound given by [@LastPeccatiSchulte2016 Theorem 1.1] which is an extension of [@PeccatiSoleTaqquUtzet2010 Theorem 3.1], see also [@LastPenrose2018 Chapter 21.1, 21.2] for a slightly different form and proofs.
\[thm:bound-uni\] Let $F \in \dom{D}$ be a Poisson functional such that $\E*{F} = 0$ and $\V*{F} = 1$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_1 & := \int\limits_{K^3} \!
\rbras*{\E*{(D_{x_1,x_3}^2F)^4}\E*{(D_{x_2,x_3}^2 F)^4} \E*{(D_{x_1}F)^4}\E*{(D_{x_2}F)^4}}^{\frac{1}{4}}
\mu^3(\id (x_1, x_2, x_3))\\
\tau_2 & := \int\limits_{K^3} \!
\rbras*{\E*{(D_{x_1,x_3}^2 F)^4}\E*{(D_{x_2,x_3}^2 F)^4}}^{\frac{1}{2}}
\mu^3(\id (x_1, x_2, x_3))\\
\tau_3 & := \int\limits_{K}
\Eabs*{D_xF}^3
\mu(\id x)
\end{aligned}$$ and let $Z$ be a standard Gaussian random variable, then $$\begin{aligned}
\dist_W(F,Z) \leq 2 \sqrt{\tau_1} + \sqrt{\tau_2} + \tau_3.
\end{aligned}$$
Malliavin-Stein-Method for the multivariate case {#sec:malliavin-stein:multi}
------------------------------------------------
We denote by $\cH_m$ the class of all $\cC^3$-functions $h:\RR^m \rightarrow \RR$ such that all absolute values of the second and third partial derivatives are bounded by one, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\max\limits_{1 \leq i_1 \leq i_2 \leq m} \sup\limits_{x \in \RR^d} \abs*{\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_{i_1} \partial x_{i_2}} h(x)} \leq 1 \quad \text{and} \quad
\max\limits_{1 \leq i_1 \leq i_2 \leq i_3 \leq m} \sup\limits_{x \in \RR^d} \abs*{\frac{\partial^3}{\partial x_{i_1} \partial x_{i_2} \partial x_{i_3}} h(x)} \leq 1.\end{aligned}$$ Given two $\RR^m$-valued random vectors $X,Y$ with $\dsE\norm*{X}^2 < \infty$ and $\dsE\norm{Y}^2 < \infty$ the distance $\dist_3$ between the laws of $X$ and $Y$, written $\dist_3(X,Y)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:metric-3}
\dist_3(X,Y) := \sup\limits_{h \in \cH_m}\abs*{\E*{h(X)} - \E*{h(Y)}}.\end{aligned}$$
Note that if a sequence $(X_n)$ of random vectors satisfies $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \dist_3(X_n, Y) = 0$, then it holds that $X_n$ converges to $Y$ in distribution, see [@PeccatiZheng2010 Remark 2.16]. Especially if $Y$ is a $m$-dimensional centered Gaussian vector with covariance matrix $\Sigma \in \RR^{m \times m}$, we obtain a multivariate limit theorem by showing $\dist_3(X_n, Y) \rightarrow 0$. We will achieve this, similar to the univariate central limit theorem, by rephrasing the bound given by [@SchulteYukich2018 Theorem 1.1] which extends [@PeccatiZheng2010], to provide the multivariate analogon to the univariate result derived in [@LastPeccatiSchulte2016], that was stated here as Theorem \[thm:bound-uni\] above.
\[thm:bound-multi\] Let $F = (F_1, \ldots, F_m)$, $m \geq 2$, be a vector of Poisson functionals $F_1, \ldots, F_m \in \dom{D}$ with $\E*{F_i} = 0$, $i \in \cbras*{1, \ldots, m}$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_1 & := \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^m \int\limits_{K^3} \!
\rbras*{\E*{(D_{x_1,x_3}^2F_i)^4}\E*{(D_{x_2,x_3}^2 F_i)^4}\E*{(D_{x_1}F_j)^4}\E*{(D_{x_2}F_j)^4}}^{\frac{1}{4}}
\mu^3(\id (x_1, x_2, x_3))\\
\gamma_2 & := \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^m \int\limits_{K^3} \!
\rbras*{\E*{(D_{x_1,x_3}^2F_i)^4}\E*{(D_{x_2,x_3}^2 F_i)^4}\E*{(D_{x_1,x_3}^2F_j)^4}\E*{(D_{x_2,x_3}^2 F_j)^4}}^{\frac{1}{4}}
\mu^3(\id (x_1, x_2, x_3))\\
\gamma_3 & := \sum\limits_{i=1}^m \int\limits_{K}
\Eabs*{D_xF_i}^3
\mu(\id x)
\end{aligned}$$ and let $\Sigma = (\sigma_{ij})_{i,j \in \cbras*{1, \ldots, m}} \in \RR^{m \times m}$ be positive semi-definite, then $$\begin{aligned}
\dist_3(F,N_\Sigma) \leq \frac{m}{2} \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^m \abs*{\sigma_{ij} - \Cov*{F_i}{F_j}} + m \sqrt{\gamma_1} + \frac{m}{2} \sqrt{\gamma_2} + \frac{m^2}{4} \gamma_3.
\end{aligned}$$
Geometric preliminaries {#sec:geometric-prelim}
=======================
Fix $j \in \cbras*{1, \ldots, d}$ and let $G(d,j)$ denote the Grassmannian of all $j$-dimensional linear subspaces of $\RR^d$ equipped with the uniquely determined Haar probability measure $\nu_j$, see [@Schneider2014 Section 4.4]. For $k \in \NNN$ the $k$-dimensional volume of the $k$-dimensional unit ball $\BB^k$ is denoted by $\kappa_k := \pi^{\frac{k}{2}}\Gamma\rbras*{1+\frac{k}{2}}^{-1}$.
For a convex body $K \in \cK^d$ the $j$-dimensional Lebesgue measure of the orthogonal projection of $K$ onto the linear subspace $\bbL \in G(d,j)$ is denoted by $\Lambda_j(K \vert \bbL)$.
For $j \in \cbras*{1,\ldots,d}$, the $j$-th intrinsic volume of $K$ is given by Kubota’s formula, see [@SchneiderWeil2008 p. 222]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kubota}
V_j(K) = \binom{d}{j} \frac{\kappa_d}{\kappa_j \kappa_{d-j}} \int\limits_{G(d,j)} \Lambda_j(K \vert \bbL) \nu_j(\id \bbL)\end{aligned}$$ and for $j = 0$ the $0$-th intrinsic volume of $K$, $V_0(K)$ is the Euler characteristics of $K$, therefore we have $V_0(K) = \1\cbras*{K \neq \emptyset}$. It is worth mentioning, that $V_1(K)$ is the mean with, $V_{d-1}(K)$ is the surface area up to multiplicative constants not depending on $K$ and $V_d(K)$ equals the $d$-dimensional Lebesgue-volume of $K$. The intrinsic volumes are crucial examples of continuous, motion invariant valuations:
A real function on the space of convex bodies, $\varphi: \cK^d \rightarrow \RR$ , is called a valuation, if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:valuation-property}
\varphi(K) + \varphi(L) = \varphi(K \cup L) + \varphi(K \cap L)
\end{aligned}$$ holds, whenever $K, L, K \cup L \in \cK^d$. It is called continuous, if it is continuous according to the Hausdorff metric on $\cK^d$, and it is called invariant under rigid motions if it is invariant under translations and rotations on $\RR^d$.
The theorem of Hadwiger [@Hadwiger1957; @Klain1995; @Chen2004] states, that every continuous and motion invariant valuation $\varphi: \cK^d \rightarrow \RR$ can be decomposed into a linear combination of intrinsic volumes:
\[thm:hadwiger\] Let $\varphi$ be a continuous and motion invariant valuation. Then there existing coefficients $c_i \in \RR$, $i \in \cbras*{0, \ldots, d}$, such that for all convex sets $L \in \cK^d$ it holds, that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hadwiger}
\varphi(L) = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^d c_i V_i(L),
\end{aligned}$$ where $V_i$ denotes the $i$-th dimensional intrinsic volume.
For further information on Hadwiger’s theorem, convex geometry and integral geometry we refer the reader to [@Gruber2007; @SchneiderWeil2008; @Schneider2014].
Let $P \in \cK^d$ be a polytope and $i \in \cbras*{0, \ldots, d}$. We denote by $\cF_i(P)$ the set of all $i$-dimensional faces, $i$-faces for short, of $P$ and by $\cF_i^{\Vis}(P,x)$ the restriction to those $i$-faces that can be seen from $x$, where we consider a face $\frF$ of $P$ to be seen by $x$ if all points $z \in \frF$ can be connected by a straight line $[z,x]$ to $x$ such that the intersection of this line with $P$ only contains the starting point $z$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\cF_i^{\Vis}(P,x) := \cbras*{\frF \in \cF_i(P) : \forall z \in \frF : [x,z] \cap P = \cbras*{z}}.\end{aligned}$$ The sets of all faces resp. all visible faces are denoted by $\cF(P) := \bigcup_{i=0}^d \cF_i(P)$ resp. $\cF^{\Vis}(P,x) := \bigcup_{i=0}^d \cF_i^{\Vis}(P,x)$.
For a vertex $v \in \cF_0(P)$ the link of $v$ in $P$ is the set of all faces of $P$ that do not contain $v$ but are contained in a (higher dimensional) face that contains $v$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\link(P, v) := \cbras*{\frF \in \cF(P) : v \not\in \frF \text{ and } \exists \frG \in \cF(P) : \frF \subset \frG \ni v},\end{aligned}$$ see [@Ziegler1995 Chapter 8.1] for a recent account of the theory.
The number of $i$-dimensional faces of $P$ will be denoted by $f_i(P)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
f_i(P) = \abs{\cF_i(P)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the vector $(f_{-1}(P), f_0(P), \ldots, f_d(P))$ with $f_{-1}(P) := V_0(P)$ is the $\bff$-vector of $P$, see [@Ziegler1995 Definition 8.16, p. 245] for more details.
Geometric estimations
---------------------
We introduce the notion of the $\varepsilon$-floating body, following [@Reitzner2010 Section 2.2.3]. For a fixed $K \in \cK^d$ and a closed halfspace $H$ we call the intersection $C = H \cap K$ a cap of $K$. If $C$ has volume $V_d(C) = \varepsilon$, we call $C$ an $\varepsilon$-cap of $K$. We define the function $v: K \rightarrow \RR$ by $$\begin{aligned}
v(z) = \min\cbras*{V_d(K \cap H) : H \text{ is a halfspace with } z \in H},\end{aligned}$$ and the floating body with parameter $\varepsilon$, $\varepsilon$-floating body for short, as the level set $$\begin{aligned}
K(v \geq \varepsilon) = \cbras*{z \in K : v(z) \geq \varepsilon},\end{aligned}$$ which is convex, since it is the intersection of halfspaces. The wet part of $K$ is defined as $K(v \leq \varepsilon)$, where the name comes from the $3$-dimensional picture when $K$ is a box containing $\varepsilon$ units of water. Note that the $\varepsilon$-floating body is (up to its boundary) the remaining set of $K$, if all $\varepsilon$-caps are removed from $K$ and the wet part is the union of these caps. For the convenience of the reader, we will only use the notation for the floating body $K(v \geq \varepsilon)$ to prevent confusion with the wet part denoted by $K(v \leq \varepsilon)$. From now on, we will assume that the parameter $\varepsilon > 0$ is sufficiently small. Thus we can use the following lemmas from [@Vu2005 Lemma 6.1-6.3]:
\[lem:geo:diam\] Let $C$ be an $\varepsilon$-cap of $K$, then there are two constants $c_1, c_2 \in (0,\infty)$ such that the diameter of $C$, $\diameter(C) = \sup_{x,y \in C}\norm{x-y}$, is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
c_1 \varepsilon^{\frac{1}{d+1}} \leq \diameter(C) \leq c_2 \varepsilon^{\frac{1}{d+1}}.
\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:geo:vol\] Let $x$ be a point on the boundary $\partial K$ of $K$ and $D(x,\varepsilon)$ the set of all points on the boundary which are of distance at most $\varepsilon$ to $x$. Then the convex hull of $D(x,\varepsilon)$ has volume at most $c_3 \varepsilon^{d+1}$, where $c_3 \in (0,\infty)$ is some constant not depending on $\varepsilon$.
\[lem:geo:union\] Let $C$ be an $\varepsilon$-cap of $K$. The union of all $\varepsilon$-caps intersecting $C$ has volume at most $c_4 \varepsilon$, where $c_4 \in (0,\infty)$ is some constant not depending on $\varepsilon$.
Proofs of the main results
==========================
To shorten our notation we write $K^x_t$ resp. $K^y_t$ for the convex hull of $(\eta_t + \delta_x) \cap K$ resp. $(\eta_t + \delta_y) \cap K$ and $K^{xy}_t$ for the convex hull of $(\eta_t + \delta_x + \delta_y) \cap K$. Further we will use $\bC \in (0,\infty)$ to denote a constant, that can depend on the dimension and the convex set $K$ but is independent of the intensity of our Poisson point process $t$. For sake of brevity we will not mention this properties of $\bC$ in the following, additionally the value of $\bC$ may also differ from line to line. We will use $g(t) \ll f(t)$ to indicate that $g(t)$ is of order at most $f(t)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
g(t) \ll f(t) & :\Leftrightarrow g(t) = \cO\rbras*{f(t)}\\
& \phantom{:}\Leftrightarrow \exists c > 0, t_0 > 0 : \forall t > t_0 : g(t) \leq c f(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ and $t_0$ are constants not depending on $t$. We will use $g(t) = \Theta(f(t))$ to indicate that $g(t)$ is of the same order of $f(t)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
g(t) = \Theta(f(t)) :\Leftrightarrow f(t) = \cO\rbras*{g(t)} \text{~and~} g(t) = \cO\rbras*{f(t)}.\end{aligned}$$
For sufficiently large $t > 0$, we define $\varepsilon_t := c \tfrac{\log(t)}{t}$ with $c > 0$ and denote by $K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$ the $\varepsilon_t$-floating body of $K$. Let $A(\varepsilon_t, t) := \cbras*{K(v \geq \varepsilon_t) \subseteq K_t}$ be the event, that the $\varepsilon_t$-floating body is contained in the random polytope $K_t$. Recall the well known Lemma from [@BaranyDalla1997; @Vu2005; @Reitzner2010 Lemma 2.2] in a slightly modified version for the Poisson case:
\[lem:floating-body-contained\] For any $\beta \in (0,\infty)$ there exists a constant $c(\beta, d) \in (0,\infty)$ only depending on $\beta$ and the space dimension $d$, such that the event $A(\varepsilon_t,t)$, that the $\varepsilon_t$-floating body is contained in the random polytope $K_t$ occurs with high probability. More precisely, the probability of the complementary event $A^c(\varepsilon_t, t)$ has polynomial decay with exponent $-\beta$ for $t \rightarrow \infty$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\Prob*{A^c(\varepsilon_t, t)} < \bC t^{-\beta}.
\end{aligned}$$ whenever $t$ is sufficiently large.
Note that the parameter $\beta$ can be freely chosen in $(0, \infty)$, thus for $\beta = 16d+1$, which is sufficiently large for all our purposes, we get $c(\beta, d)$ and therefore we can define $\varepsilon_t$ such that $K(v \geq \varepsilon_t) \subseteq K_t$ with high probability according to Lemma \[lem:floating-body-contained\].
We will use the following estimation of subsets of $G(d,j)$ from [@BaranyFodorVigh2010 Lemma 1] to handle the projections arising from Kubota’s formula in our proof of Theorem \[thm:univariate\]:
\[lem:measure-of-angle-set\] For $z \in \bbS^{d-1}$ and $\bbL \in G(d,j)$ we define the angle $\sphericalangle(z,\bbL)$ as the minimum of all angles $\sphericalangle(z,x)$, $x \in \bbL$. For sufficiently small $\alpha > 0$ one has that $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_j\rbras*{\cbras*{\bbL \in G(d,j) : \sphericalangle(z,\bbL) \leq \alpha}} = \Theta\rbras*{a^{d-j}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm:univariate\]: valuation functional
---------------------------------------------------------
We first recall that the valuation functional $\varphi(K_t)$ can be decomposed with Hadwiger into the linear combination of intrinsic volumes, thus the variance $\V*{\varphi(K_t)}$ can be rewritten into $$\begin{aligned}
\V*{\varphi(K_t)} = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^d c_i^2 \V*{V_i(K_t)} + 2 \sum\limits_{i=0}^d \sum\limits_{j = i+1}^d c_i c_j \Cov*{V_i(K_t)}{V_j(K_t)}.\end{aligned}$$
For $V_i$, $i \in \cbras*{1,\ldots,d}$ we will use the variance bound from [@LachiezeReySchulteYukich2017 eq. 5.20, eq. 5.22, eq. 5.23], see also [@CalkaSchreiberYukich2013 Corollary 7.1] and [@Reitzner2005a]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:intrinsic:variance}
t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}} \ll \V*{V_i(K_t)} \ll t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}}.\end{aligned}$$
Since $V_0(K_t)$ is the Euler characteristics of $K_t$ we have $V_0(K_t) = \1\cbras*{K_t \neq \emptyset}$ and therefore $V_0(K_t)$ is a Bernoulli distributed random variable with success probability $\Prob*{V_0(K_t) = 1} = 1 - e^{-t \Lambda_d(K)}$. The expectation is given by $\E*{V_0(K_T)} = 1 - e^{-t \Lambda_d(K)}$ and the variance by $\V*{V_0(K_t)} = (1 - e^{-t \Lambda_d(K)})e^{-t \Lambda_d(K)}$, which can be bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:0-th:variance}
0 \leq \V*{V_0(K_t)} \ll e^{-t \Lambda_d(K)} \ll t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}}.\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:intrinsic-volumes-covariances\] For all $i,j \in \cbras*{0, \ldots, d}$ the intrinsic volumes of $K_t$ are non negatively correlated and their covariances are bounded from above by the same order of magnitude as the variance, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:intrinsic-volumes-covariances}
0 \leq \Cov*{V_i(K_t)}{V_j(K_t)} \ll t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Since $D_xV_j(K_t) \geq 0$ for all $x \in \RR^d$ it follows from the Harris-FKG inequality for Poisson processes, see [@Last2016 Theorem 11], that $\E*{V_i(K_t) V_j(K_t)} \geq \E*{V_i(K_t)}\E*{V_j(K_t)}$, which directly implies the lower bound on the covariances. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality implies $$\begin{aligned}
\Cov*{V_i(K_t)}{V_j(K_t)} \leq \sqrt{\V*{V_i(K_t)} \V*{V_j(K_t)}},
\end{aligned}$$ thus, using and , the upper bound on the covariances is obtained.
We are now in a position to bound the variance of our valuation functional with the following Lemma:
Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:univariate\] the variance of the valuation functional is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}} \ll \V*{\varphi(K_t)} \ll t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}}.
\end{aligned}$$
We assumed $c_ic_j \geq 0$ for all $i,j$ and that there exists at least one index $k \in \cbras*{1,\ldots,d}$ such that $c_k \neq 0$. Thus Lemma \[lem:intrinsic-volumes-covariances\] implies $$\begin{aligned}
\V*{\varphi(K_t)} \geq c_k^2 \V*{V_k(K_t)} \gg t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}},
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\V*{\varphi(K_t)} \ll (d+1) t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}} + (d+1)d \sqrt{\rbras*{t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}}}\rbras*{t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}}}} \ll t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}},
\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
The crucial part in the proof of Theorem \[thm:univariate\] is the application of the general bound given by Theorem \[thm:bound-uni\], thus we need to investigate the moments occuring in $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$ and $\tau_3$. In the first step, we adapt and slightly extend the proof from [@ThaeleTurchiWespi2018] for the binomial case, to work in the Poisson case, yielding upper bounds on the moments of the first and second order difference operators applied to the intrinsic volumes $V_j(K_t)$ which will be used in the second step to derive the bounds for the valuation functional.
**First order difference operator:**
Fix $x \in K$ and $j \in \cbras{1, \ldots, d}$, then conditioned on the event $A(\varepsilon_t, t)$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:first-order-diff-conditioned}
D_xV_j(K_t) = \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K_t} D_xV_j(K_t) = \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} D_xV_j(K_t),\end{aligned}$$ thus we can restrict the following to the case $x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$.
For $x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$ we define $z$ to be the closest point to $x$ on the boundary $\partial K$. Since $K$ is smooth $z$ is uniquely determined, if $\varepsilon_t$ is sufficiently small.
The visible region of $z$ is defined as the set of all points that can be connected to $z$ by a straight line in $K$ avoiding $K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\Vis_z(t) := \cbras*{y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t) : [y,z] \cap K(v \geq \varepsilon_t) = \emptyset}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that, given the sandwiching $K(v \geq \varepsilon_t) \subset K_t \subset K$, a random point $x$ can influence the random polytope only in the visibility region.
We construct a full-dimensional spherical cap $C$ such that $K^x_t \setminus K_t \subseteq C$. The definition of the visible region, that was first used in [@Vu2005] and [@BaranyReitzner2010], is crucial in the following steps:
Let $y_1,y_2 \in \Vis_z(t)$, then there existing two $\varepsilon_t$-caps $C_1$ and $C_2$ such that the straight line $[y_1, z]$ resp. $[y_2, z]$ is contained in $C_1$ resp. $C_2$, thus $$\begin{aligned}
\norm{y_1-y_2} \leq \norm{y_1 - z} + \norm{y_2 - z} \leq \diameter(C_1) + \diameter(C_2).\end{aligned}$$
Since the diameter of any $\varepsilon_t$-cap $C$ of $K$ can be bounded by $\bC \varepsilon_t^\frac{1}{d+1}$, see Lemma \[lem:geo:diam\], it follows directly that the diameter of the visibility region can be bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho := \diameter\rbras*{\Vis_z(t)} \ll \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{1}{d+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $D(z, \rho)$ be the set of all points on the boundary $\partial K$ which are of distance at most $\rho$ to $z$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
D(z,\rho) = \cbras*{y \in \partial K : \norm*{y - z} < \rho}\end{aligned}$$ and denote the cap, that is given by the convex hull of $D(z,\rho)$ by $C$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cap-contains-vis}
C := \conv\cbras*{D(z,\rho)}.\end{aligned}$$
By construction, we have $K^x_t \setminus K_t \subseteq \Vis_z(t) \subseteq C$. It follows from Lemma \[lem:geo:vol\], that the volume of $C$ is of order at most $\frac{\log(t)}{t}$.
Fix a linear subspace $\bbL \in G(d,j)$, then one has that the set-difference of the projection of $K^x_t$ and $K_t$ onto the subspace $\bbL$ is contained in the projection of $C$ onto $\bbL$, $$\begin{aligned}
(K^x_t|\bbL) \setminus (K_t|\bbL) \subseteq C | \bbL.\end{aligned}$$ The $j$-dimensional volume of the projected cap $C | \bbL$ can be bounded in its order of magnitude by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vol-cap}
\Lambda_j(C| \bbL) \ll \rbras*{\tfrac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\tfrac{j+1}{d+1}}.\end{aligned}$$
Depending on the angle between $z$ and $\bbL$, $\sphericalangle(z,\bbL)$, the part $K^x_t \setminus K_t$ is not visible for the orthogonal projection on $\bbL$ since it is hidden behind $K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
(K^x_t \setminus K^x) | \bbL \subseteq K(v \geq \varepsilon_t) | \bbL,\end{aligned}$$ for sufficiently large $t$. To obtain a bound on the maximal angle $\sphericalangle(z,\bbL)$ where the projection does not vanish we approximate $K$ by a ball $\BB^d(z_c,r)$ with center $z_c$ and radius $r$ such that $\BB^d(z_c,r) \subseteq K$ and $\BB^d(z_c,r) \cap \partial K = \cbras*{z}$. Indeed we approximate the boundary $\partial K$ of $K$ from the inside of $K$ by a ball, which is possible, since $K$ is sufficiently smooth.
We repeat the construction of the cap $C$ for $\BB^d(z_c,r)$ with the corresponding $\varepsilon_t$-floating body $\BB^d(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$ of the ball to obtain the cap $C_\BB$ and define $\alpha$ to be the central angle of $C_\BB$ in $\BB^d(z_c,r)$. It follows from Lemma \[lem:geo:vol\], that the volume of $C_\BB$ is of order at most $\frac{\log(t)}{t}$, since $\rho_\BB \ll \rbras{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{1}{d+1}}$, which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:angle-alpha-bound}
\alpha \ll \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{1}{d+1}}.\end{aligned}$$
Thus it follows from $\BB^d(v \geq \varepsilon_t) \subseteq K(v \geq \varepsilon_t) \subseteq K_t \subseteq K_t^x$ that $K_t^x | \bbL = K_t | \bbL$ if $\sphericalangle(z,\bbL)$ is of larger order than $\alpha$, therefore we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_j\rbras*{(K^x_t | \bbL) \setminus (K_t | \bbL )} \neq 0,
\quad \text{only if} \quad
\sphericalangle(z,\bbL) \ll \alpha.\end{aligned}$$
Using and it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_j\rbras*{(K^x_t | \bbL) \setminus (K_t | \bbL )} & \leq \1\cbras*{\sphericalangle(z,\bbL) \ll \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{1}{d+1}}} \Lambda_j(C | \bbL)\\
& \leq \1\cbras*{\sphericalangle(z,\bbL) \ll \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{1}{d+1}}} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{j+1}{d+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally we use Kubota’s formula together with and Lemma \[lem:measure-of-angle-set\] to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& D_xV_j(K_t) = \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} c(d,j) \int\limits_{G(d,j)} \Lambda_j\rbras*{(K^x_t | \bbL) \setminus (K_t | \bbL )} \nu_j(\id \bbL)\\
& \ll \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \int\limits_{G(d,j)} \1\cbras*{\sphericalangle(z,\bbL) \ll \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{1}{d+1}}} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{j+1}{d+1}}
\nu_j(\id \bbL)\\
& \ll \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{j+1}{d+1}} \nu_j\rbras*{\cbras*{\bbL \in G(d,j) : \sphericalangle(z,\bbL) \ll \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{1}{d+1}}} }\\
& \ll \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}\rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{j+1}{d+1}}\rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{d-j}{d+1}} = \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}\frac{\log(t)}{t}.\end{aligned}$$ where $c(d,j) = \binom{d}{j} \frac{\kappa_d}{\kappa_j \kappa_{d-j}}$ can be omitted since we are bounding $D_xV_j(K_t)$ in its order of magnitude with respect to $t$.
**Second order difference operator:**
Fix $x,y \in K$ and $j \in \cbras*{1,\ldots,d}$, similar to and conditioned on the event $A(\varepsilon_t, t)$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t) = \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t).\end{aligned}$$
To further restrict $x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$ we show the following Lemma:
\[lem:second-order-diff-volume\] Fix two convex bodies $P,K \in \cK^d$ with $P \subset K$ and two points $x,y \in K \setminus P$. Denote by $P^{xy}$, $P^{x}$ and $P^{y}$ the convex hulls of $P \cup \cbras*{x,y}$, $P \cup \cbras*{x}$ resp. $P \cup \cbras*{y}$. We define the visibility region of $x$ with respect to $P$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\cV_x(P) := \cbras*{z \in K \setminus P : [z,x] \cap P = \emptyset }.
\end{aligned}$$ If $\cV_x(P) \cap \cV_y(P) = \emptyset$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:second-order-diff-volume:set-equation-1}
P^x \cap P^y & = P,\\
\label{eq:second-order-diff-volume:set-equation-2}
P^x \cup P^y & = P^{xy},
\end{aligned}$$ and further it follows for all valuations $\psi:\cK^d \rightarrow \RR$ that the second order difference operator of $\psi(P)$ vanishes, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:second-order-diff-volume:is-zero}
D_{x,y}^2\psi(P) = 0.
\end{aligned}$$
Using $P^x \subseteq \cV_x(P) \cup P$ and $P^y \subseteq \cV_y(P) \cup P$ it follows directly from $\cV_x(P) \cap \cV_y(P) = \emptyset$ that $P^x \cap P^y \subseteq (\cV_x(P) \cap \cV_y(P)) \cup P = P$. Additionally the inclusion $P \subseteq P^x \cap P^y$, that follows directly from the definition of the convex hull, gives .
Again, it is immediate that $P^x \subseteq P^{xy}$ and $P^y \subseteq P^{xy}$, thus it remains to prove that $P^{xy} \subseteq P^x \cup P^y$. Assume $z \in P^{xy} \setminus (P^x \cup P^y)$, then there existing $\lambda_1, \lambda_2 \in [0,1]$ and $u \in P^x$, $v \in P^y$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
z = \lambda_1 u + (1-\lambda_1)y = \lambda_2 v + (1-\lambda_2) x,
\end{aligned}$$ where we can safely assume that $u$ and $v$ are chosen such that $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are maximized. Note that $u \in P^y$ implies $z \in P^y$ resp. $v \in P^x$ implies $z \in P^x$, a contradiction, which leads to the remaining case $u \in P^x \setminus P^y$ and $v \in P^y \setminus P^x$. By construction it now follows that $[x,z] \cap P = \emptyset$ and $[y,z] \cap P = \emptyset$, which yields $z \in \cV_x(P)$ and $z \in \cV_y(P)$ contrary to $\cV_x(P) \cap \cV_y(P) = \emptyset$ which gives .
The second order difference operator of $\psi(P)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
D^2_{x,y}\psi(P) = \psi(P^{xy}) - \psi(P^x) - \psi(P^y) + \psi(P).
\end{aligned}$$ Using and we can rewrite the first term according to the valuation property to $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(P^{xy}) = \psi(P^x) + \psi(P^y) - \psi(P^x \cap P^y) = \psi(P^x) + \psi(P^y) - \psi(P),
\end{aligned}$$ which gives when substituted in the representation of $D^2_{x,y}\psi(P)$.
Since $\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) = \emptyset$ implies the conditions of Lemma \[lem:second-order-diff-volume\] for $P = K_t \supseteq K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t) = \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}\1\cbras*{\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t).\end{aligned}$$
Taking $D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t) = D_x(D_yV_j(K_t))$ we obtain $\abs*{D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t)} \leq D_xV_j(K^y_t) + D_xV_j(K_t)$ where we immediately see, that the second term $D_xV_j(K_t)$ is the first order difference operator that we have bounded before. Using $K(v \geq \varepsilon_t) \subseteq K_t \subseteq K_t^y$ we can substitute $K_t$ with $K_t^y$ in the proof for the first order difference operator to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t) = \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \1\cbras*{\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} \rbras*{D_xV_j(K^y_t) + D_xV_j(K_t)}\\
& \ll \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \1\cbras*{\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t} + \frac{\log(t)}{t}}\\
& \ll \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \1\cbras*{\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} \frac{\log(t)}{t}.\end{aligned}$$
The results of the prior discussion can be summarized in the following lemma bounding the order of magnitude of the $p$-th absolute moment of the first and second order difference operator of the intrinsic volumes $V_j(K_t)$.
\[lem:diff-moments-volume\] Let $p \in \cbras*{1,\ldots,8}$, $j \in \cbras*{0,\ldots,d}$ and $x,y \in K$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:diff-moments-volume:first}
\Eabs*{(D_xV_j(K_t))^p} & \ll \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^p,\\
\label{eq:diff-moments-volume:second}
\Eabs*{(D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t))^p} & \ll \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}\1\cbras*{\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^p,
\end{aligned}$$
Let $j \neq 0$. On the event $A(\varepsilon_t, t)$ we use the bounds derived before and on the complementary event $A^c(\varepsilon_t, t)$ it is sufficient to use the estimations $D_xV_j(K_t) \leq V_j(K)$ resp. $\abs*{D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t)} \leq 2 V_j(K)$, thus $$\begin{aligned}
\Eabs*{(D_xV_j(K_t))^p} & = \E*{(D_xV_j(K_t))^p\1_{A(\varepsilon_t, t)}} + \E*{(D_xV_j(K_t))^p\1_{A^c(\varepsilon_t, t)}}\\
& \ll \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^p \Prob*{A(\varepsilon_t, t)}\\
& \quad + V_j(K)^p \Prob*{A^c(\varepsilon_t, t)}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& \Eabs*{(D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t))^p} \\
\leq &~ \Eabs*{(D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t))^p\1_{A(\varepsilon_t, t)}} + \Eabs*{(D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t))^p\1_{A^c(\varepsilon_t, t)}}\\
\ll &~ \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \1\cbras*{\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^p \Prob*{A(\varepsilon_t, t)}\\
& \quad + (2V_j(K))^p \Prob*{A^c(\varepsilon_t, t)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\Prob*{A(\varepsilon_t, t)} \leq 1$ and $\Prob*{A^c(\varepsilon_t, t)} \leq t^{-\beta}$, with $\beta = 16d+1 > p$, see Lemma \[lem:floating-body-contained\], our claim follows for $j \in \cbras*{1,\ldots,d}$.
Let $j = 0$. We use $V_0(K_t) = \1\cbras*{K_t \neq \emptyset}$ to derive $$\begin{aligned}
\Eabs*{(D_xV_j(K_t))^p} & = \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \Prob*{K_t = \emptyset}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Eabs*{(D_{x,y}^2V_0(K_t))^p} & = \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}\1\cbras*{\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} \Prob*{K_t = \emptyset},
\end{aligned}$$ thus using $\Prob*{K_t = \emptyset} = e^{-t\Lambda_d(K)}$ the claim follows by bounding the exponential decay with $(\frac{\log(t)}{t})^p$.
Our next objective is to prove corresponding bounds on the moments of the first and second order difference operator of the valuation functional we wish to study.
\[lem:diff-moments-valuations\] Let $p \in \cbras*{1,\ldots,8}$ and $x,y \in K$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:diff-moments-valuations:first}
\Eabs*{(D_x\varphi(K_t))^p} & \ll \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^p,\\
\label{eq:diff-moments-valuations:second}
\Eabs*{(D_{x,y}^2\varphi(K_t))^p} & \ll \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}\1\cbras*{\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^p.
\end{aligned}$$
Since $D_x$ is linear we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Eabs*{(D_x\varphi(K_t))^p} \leq \sum\limits_{j_1, \ldots, j_p = 0}^d \rbras*{\prod\limits_{k=1}^p c_{j_k}} \Eabs*{\prod\limits_{k=1}^p D_xV_{j_k}(K_t)}.
\end{aligned}$$ and the generalized Hölder inequality, yields $$\begin{aligned}
\Eabs*{(D_x\varphi(K_t))^p} \leq \sum\limits_{j_1, \ldots, j_p = 0}^d \rbras*{\prod\limits_{k=1}^p c_{j_k}} \rbras*{\prod\limits_{k=1}^p \Eabs*{D_xV_{j_k}(K_t)}^p}^{\frac{1}{p}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore we can use to bound all moments on the right hand side yielding . The proof of is similar using instead of .
Before we apply the previous lemma to the error bounds $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$ and $\tau_3$ we introduce two estimations for the domain of integration. From [@Barany2008 Theorem 6.3] it follows directly that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:missed-volume-bound}
\Lambda_d(K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)) \ll \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{2}{d+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Denote by $C(x)$ resp. $C(z)$ the caps constructed according to for points $x, z \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$, then for every fixed $x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\cbras*{y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t) : \Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} \subseteq \bigcup\limits_{z \in \Vis_x(t)} \Vis_z(t) \subseteq \bigcup\limits_{z \in C(x)} C(z).\end{aligned}$$ Recall that the volumes of $C(x)$ and $C(z)$ are of order at most $\frac{\log(t)}{t}$, thus Lemma \[lem:geo:union\] yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:visible-intersection-bound}
\Lambda_d\rbras*{\cbras*{y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t) : \Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset}} \ll \frac{\log(t)}{t},\end{aligned}$$ for all $x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$.
Applying the previous results to the error bound $\tau_1$ yields
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau_1 & \ll \V*{\varphi(K_t)}^{-2} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^4 t^3 \int\limits_{K} \1\cbras*{x_3 \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \\
& \quad \times \rbras*{\int\limits_K \1\cbras*{\Vis_{x_1}(t) \cap \Vis_{x_3}(t) \neq \emptyset} \id x_1} \\
& \quad \times \rbras*{\int\limits_K \1\cbras*{\Vis_{x_2}(t) \cap \Vis_{x_3}(t) \neq \emptyset} \id x_2} \id x_3\\
& \ll \rbras*{t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}}}^{-2} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^4 t^3 \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{\frac{2}{d+1}} \rbras*{\frac{\log(t)}{t}}^2\\
& \ll t^{-1 + \frac{2}{d+1}} \log(t)^{6+\frac{2}{d+1}}.\end{aligned}$$
In the same manner we can see that $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_2 & \ll t^{-1+\frac{2}{d+1}} \log(t)^{6 + \frac{2}{d+1}},\\
\tau_3 & \ll t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}} \log(t)^{3+\frac{2}{d+1}}.\end{aligned}$$
Combining these three bounds with Theorem \[thm:bound-uni\] leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\dist_W(\tilde{\varphi}(K_t),Z) \leq 2 \sqrt{\tau_1} + \sqrt{\tau_2} + \tau_3 \ll t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}} \log(t)^{3+\frac{2}{d+1}},\end{aligned}$$ for $Z \distribute \cN(0,1)$, completing the proof of Theorem \[thm:univariate\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:multivariate\]: multivariate functional
--------------------------------------------------------------
We start to investigate the moments of the first and second order difference operators applied to the components of the $\bff$-vector by combining combinatorial results from [@Reitzner2005b] with the floating body and economic cap covering approach from [@Reitzner2010] and [@ThaeleTurchiWespi2018].
**First order difference operator:**
Fix $x \in K$ and $j \in \cbras*{0,\ldots,d-1}$, then conditioned on the event $A(\varepsilon_t, t)$, it follows similar to that $$\begin{aligned}
D_xf_j(K_t) = \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}D_xf_j(K_t),\end{aligned}$$ thus we can restrict the following to the case $x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$.
Let $K_t$ be fixed and assume $x \not\in K_t$. Since the polytope $K_t$ is simplicial and all verticies are in general position almost surely, analysis similar to that in [@Reitzner2005b Section 4] allows us to decompose $D_xf_j(K_t)$ into the number of $j$-faces gained, denoted by $f_j^+$, and the number of $j$-faces lost, denoted by $f_j^-$: $$\begin{aligned}
\abs*{D_xf_j(K_t)} = \abs*{f_j^+ - f_j^-} \leq f_j^+ + f_j^-.\end{aligned}$$ Every $j$-face gained in $K_t^x$ is the convex hull of $x$ and a $(j-1)$-face in $\link(K_t^x,x)$. Additionally it can easily be seen that every $(j-1)$-face in $\link(K_t^x,x)$ is also contained in $\cF_{j-1}^{\Vis}(K_t,x)$, thus $$\begin{aligned}
f_j^+ \leq f_{j-1}\rbras*{\link(K_t^x,x)} \leq \abs*{\cF_{j-1}^{\Vis}(K_t,x)}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the $j$-faces in $\cF_j(K_t)$ that are lost have to be visible from $x$, thus $$\begin{aligned}
f_j^- \leq \abs*{\cF_{j}^{\Vis}(K_t,x)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that not all visible $j$-faces are removed, to gain the exact amount of lost $j$-face, one has to calculate the number of $j$-faces that are visible and not contained in the link of $x$ in the new polytope $K_t^x$, i.e. $\abs*{\cF_j^{\Vis}(K_t,x) \setminus \link(K_t^x,x)}$, as we will see later for the second order difference operator.
Let $z$ be the closest point to $x$ on the boundary of $\partial K$, then it follows immediately that every visible $i$-face $\frF \in \cF_i^{\Vis}(K_t,x)$ has to be as subset of $\Vis_z(t)$. Since $(i+1)$ pairwise distinct points are needed to form an $i$-face, the number of visible $i$-faces can be bound by the number of points in $\Vis_z(t)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\abs*{\cF_i^{\Vis}(K_t,x)} \leq \binom{\eta\rbras*{\Vis_z(t)}}{i+1}\end{aligned}$$ for all $i \in \cbras*{0, \ldots, d-1}$. Combining these steps we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\abs*{D_xf_j(K_t)} \leq \binom{\eta\rbras*{\Vis_z(t)}}{j} + \binom{\eta\rbras*{\Vis_z(t)}}{j+1} = \binom{\eta\rbras*{\Vis_z(t)}+1}{j+1} \leq \rbras*{\eta\rbras*{\Vis_z(t)}+1}^{j+1}\end{aligned}$$ and further for $p \in \cbras*{1,\ldots,8}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Eabs*{D_xf_j(K_t)\1_{A(\varepsilon_t,t)}}^p \leq \E*{\rbras*{\eta\rbras*{\Vis_z(t)}+1}^{p(j+1)}}.\end{aligned}$$ The binomial theorem and the fact that $\eta\rbras*{\Vis_z(t)}$ is Poisson distributed with parameter $\mu(\Vis_z(t))$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\Eabs*{D_xf_j(K_t)\1_{A(\varepsilon_t,t)}}^p & \leq \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{p(j+1)} \binom{p(j+1)}{i} \E*{\eta\rbras*{\Vis_z(t)}^i}\\
& \leq \sum\limits_{i=0}^{p(j+1)} \binom{p(j+1)}{i} \sum\limits_{k=0}^i \stirling{i}{k} \mu(\Vis_z(t))^k\end{aligned}$$ where $\stirling{i}{k}$ denotes the Stirling numbers of the second kind. Recall that $\mu(\Vis_z(t)) = t \Lambda_d(\Vis_z(t)) \ll t \frac{\log(t)}{t} = \log(t)$ and $j \in \cbras*{0, \ldots, d-1}$, thus $$\begin{aligned}
\Eabs*{D_xf_j(K_t)\1_{A(\varepsilon_t,t)}}^p \ll \log(t)^{pd}.\end{aligned}$$
Conditioned on the complementary event $A^c(\varepsilon_t,t)$ we need to slightly modify the proof, replacing $\eta(\Vis_z(t))$ by $\eta(K)$, the number of all points in $K$, and using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to separate the expectation of the indicator, from the moments of $\eta(K)$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Eabs*{D_xf_j(K_t)\1_{A^c(\varepsilon_t,t)}}^p & \leq \sum\limits_{i=0}^{p(j+1)} \binom{p(j+1)}{i} \rbras*{ \E*{\1_{A^c(\varepsilon_t,t)}} \E*{\eta(K)^{2i}}}^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \leq \sqrt{\Prob*{A^c(\varepsilon_t,t)}} \sum\limits_{i=0}^{p(j+1)} \binom{p(j+1)}{i} \rbras*{\sum\limits_{k=0}^{2i} \stirling{i}{k} \mu(K)^k}^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \ll t^{-\frac{\beta}{2}} t^{pd} \ll 1,\end{aligned}$$
since $\beta = 16d+1 \geq 2pd$.
**Second order difference operator**:
Fix $x,y \in K$ and $j \in \cbras*{0, \ldots, d-1}$, similar to the intrinsic volumes handled before we have $$\begin{aligned}
D_{x,y}^2f_j(K_t) = \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}D_{x,y}^2 V_j(K_t).\end{aligned}$$ We show the following Lemma, to obtain a restriction on $x,y$ for the components of the $\bff$-vector similar to that derived from Lemma \[lem:second-order-diff-volume\] for the intrinsic volumes:
\[lem:second-oder-diff-f-vector\] Fix a $d$-dimensional polytope $P \subset K$ contained in a convex body $K \in \cK^d$ and two points $x,y \in K \setminus P$. Let $\cV_x(P)$ and $\cV_y(P)$ denote the visibility regions of $x$ and $y$ with respect to $P$ be defined as in Lemma \[lem:second-order-diff-volume\]. If $\cV_x(P) \cap \cV_y(P) =\emptyset$, then $$\begin{aligned}
D_{x,y}^2f_j(P) = 0,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $j \in \cbras*{0, \ldots, d-1}$.
Denote by $P^{xy}$, $P^x$ and $P^y$ the convex hulls of $P \cup \cbras*{x,y}$, $P \cup \cbras*{x}$ resp. $P \cup \cbras*{y}$, then we can decompose the number of $j$-faces of $P^{xy}$ into the number of $j$-faces of $P^x$ and the gained and lost $j$-faces obtained from adding $y$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
f_j(P^{xy}) = f_j(P^x) + f_{j-1}(\link(P^{xy},y)) - \abs*{\cF_j^{\Vis}(P^x,y) \setminus \link(P^{xy},y)}
\end{aligned}$$ Since the visible regions are disjoint we have $\cF^{\Vis}(P^x,y) = \cF^{\Vis}(P,y)$ and $\link(P^{xy},y) = \link(P^y,y)$, thus $$\begin{aligned}
D_{x,y}^2f_j(P) & = f_j(P^{xy}) - f_j(P^x) - f_j(P^y) + f_j(P)\\
& = f_{j-1}(\link(P^{y},y)) - \abs*{\cF_j^{\Vis}(P,y) \setminus \link(P^{y},y)} - f_j(P^y) + f_j(P).
\end{aligned}$$ Similar to $f_j(P^{xy})$ we can decompose $f_j(P)$ by counting the $j$-faces in $P^y$ and subtracting the difference that arises from the addition of $y$ to $P$: $$\begin{aligned}
f_j(P) = f_j(P^y) - f_{j-1}(\link(P^y, y)) + \abs*{\cF_j^{\Vis}(P,y) \setminus \link(P^y,y)},
\end{aligned}$$ yielding $$\begin{aligned}
D_{x,y}^2f_j(P) & = f_{j-1}(\link(P^{y},y)) - \abs*{\cF_j^{\Vis}(P,y) \setminus \link(P^y,y)} - f_j(P^y)\\
& \quad + f_j(P^y) - f_{j-1}(\link(P^y, y)) + \abs*{\cF_j^{\Vis}(P,y) \setminus \link(P^y,y)}\\
& = 0,
\end{aligned}$$ which is the desired conclusion.
Since $\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) = \emptyset$ implies the conditions of Lemma \[lem:second-order-diff-volume\] for $P = K_t \supseteq K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
D_{x,y}^2f_j(K_t) = \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}\1\cbras*{\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} D_{x,y}^2f_j(K_t),\end{aligned}$$ and similar to $D_{x,y}^2V_j(K_t)$ we derive $$\begin{aligned}
D_{x,y}^2(K_t) \ll \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}\1\cbras*{\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} \log(t)^{pd}.\end{aligned}$$
Having disposed of this preliminary steps, we can now summarize the results in the following Lemma bounding the order of magnitude of the $p$-th moment of the difference operator of the $\bff$-vector components $f_j(K_t)$.
\[lem:diff-moments-f\] Let $p \in \cbras*{1,\ldots,8}$, $j \in \cbras*{0,\ldots,d-1}$ and $x,y \in K$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\Eabs*{(D_xf_j(K_t))^p} & \ll \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \log(t)^{dp},\\
\Eabs*{(D_{x,y}^2f_j(K_t))^p} & \ll \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}\1\cbras*{\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} \log(t)^{dp}.
\end{aligned}$$
The proof is similar to the one of Lemma \[lem:diff-moments-volume\].
We are left with the task of applying our estimations on the bound $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma_3$ given by Theorem \[thm:bound-multi\]. Since we consider the multivariate functional given by we have to distinguish the following three cases depending on the combination of functionals $F_i$ and $F_j$ using the corresponding bounds for the variance given by for the intrinsic volumes and by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fvec:variance}
t^{1-\frac{2}{d+1}} \ll \V*{f_k(K_t)} \ll t^{1-\frac{2}{d+1}},\end{aligned}$$ for the components of the $\bff$-vector, see [@Reitzner2005a]. We denote by $\gamma_1(i,j)$, $\gamma_2(i,j)$ resp. $\gamma_3(i)$ the integral in $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$ resp. $\gamma_3$, then it follows from Lemma \[lem:diff-moments-volume\], \[lem:diff-moments-f\] and the estimations on the domain of integration and , that $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_1(i,j), \gamma_2(i,j) \ll t^{-1+\frac{2}{d+1}} \times
\begin{cases}
\log(t)^{6+\frac{2}{d+1}}, & i,j \in \cbras*{1,\ldots,d},\\
\log(t)^{4+2d+\frac{2}{d+1}}, & i \in \cbras*{1,\ldots,d}, j \in \cbras*{d+1, \ldots, 2d},\\
\log(t)^{2+4d+\frac{2}{d+1}}, & i,j \in \cbras*{d+1, \ldots, 2d}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_3(i) \ll t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}} \times
\begin{cases}
\log(t)^{3+\frac{2}{d+1}}, & i \in \cbras*{1, \ldots, d},\\
\log(t)^{3d + \frac{2}{d+1}}, & i \in \cbras*{d+1, \ldots, 2d}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ It can easily be seen that the speed of convergence is dominated by the case $i,j \in \cbras*{d+1, \ldots, 2d}$ thus we can rewrite the bound in Theorem \[thm:bound-multi\] using $\sigma_{ij}(t) = \Cov*{F_i}{F_j}$ to $$\begin{aligned}
& \dist_3(F,N_\Sigma(t)) \ll d \sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{2d} \abs*{\sigma_{ij}(t) - \Cov*{F_i}{F_j}}\\
& + 2d \cdot t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}\log(t)^{1+2d+\frac{1}{d+1}} + d \cdot t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}\log(t)^{1+2d+\frac{1}{d+1}} + d^2 \cdot t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}\log(t)^{3d+\frac{2}{d+1}}\\
& \ll t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}\log(t)^{3d+\frac{2}{d+1}},\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:oracle\]: oracle functional
--------------------------------------------------
Recall that the oracle estimator is given by $\hat{\vartheta}_{oracle}(K_t) = V_d(K_t) + t^{-1} f_0(K_t)$, and its variance asymptotics is given by , $$\begin{aligned}
\V*{\hat{\vartheta}_{oracle}(K_t)} = \gamma_d \Omega(K)(1+o(1))t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}} = \Theta\rbras*{t^{-1-\frac{2}{d+1}}},\end{aligned}$$ for $t \rightarrow \infty$, where the constant $\gamma_d$ only depends on the dimension and is known explicitly and $\Omega(K)$ denotes the affine surface area of $K$. Rescaling of $\vartheta(K_t)$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\hat{\vartheta}(K_t)}{\sqrt{\V{\hat{\vartheta}(K_t)}}} = \Theta\rbras*{t^{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}} V_d(K_t) + t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}f_0(K_t)},\end{aligned}$$ where the scaling $t^{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}$ resp. $t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}$ corresponds with the asymptotic variance of $V_d(K_t)$ resp. $f_0(K_t)$, see and . Therefore we can use the previous results to deduce bounds on the moments of the first and second order difference operator of the standardized oracle estimator $\tilde{\vartheta}(K_t)$.
Let $p \in \cbras*{1,\ldots, 4}$ and $x,y \in K$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\Eabs{(D_x\tilde{\vartheta}(K_t))^p} & \ll \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} t^{-\frac{p}{2}+\frac{p}{d+1}} \log(t)^{dp},\\
\Eabs{(D_{x,y}^2\tilde{\vartheta}(K_t))^p} & \ll \1\cbras*{x,y \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)} \1\cbras*{\Vis_x(t) \cap \Vis_y(t) \neq \emptyset} t^{-\frac{p}{2} + \frac{p}{d+1}} \log(t)^{dp}.
\end{aligned}$$
Using the binominal theorem and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality it follows directly with Lemma \[lem:diff-moments-volume\] and Lemma \[lem:diff-moments-f\] that $$\begin{aligned}
& \Eabs*{t^{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}} D_xV_d(K_t) + t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}D_xf_0(K_t)}^p\\
& \leq \sum\limits_{j=0}^p \binom{p}{j} \rbras*{ \Eabs*{t^{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}D_xV_d(K_t)}^{2j} \Eabs*{t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}D_xf_0(K_t)}^{2(p-j)} }^\frac{1}{2}\\
& \ll \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}\sum\limits_{j=0}^p \binom{p}{j} \rbras*{\rbras*{t^{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}} \frac{\log(t)}{t}}^{2j} \rbras*{t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}} \log(t)^d}^{2(p-j)}}^\frac{1}{2}\\
& = \1\cbras*{x \in K \setminus K(v \geq \varepsilon_t)}t^{-\frac{p}{2}+\frac{p}{d+1}} \sum\limits_{j=0}^p \binom{p}{j} \log(t)^{j+d(p-j)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $j+d(p-j) \leq dp$ the desired conclusion follows. The proof for the second order difference operator is similar.
Applying these estimations to the bound $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$ and $\tau_3$ in Theorem \[thm:bound-uni\] yields $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_1 & \ll t^{-1+\frac{2}{d+1}}\log(t)^{2+4d+\frac{2}{d+1}},\\
\tau_2 & \ll t^{-1+\frac{2}{d+1}}\log(t)^{2+4d+\frac{2}{d+1}},\\
\tau_3 & \ll t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}\log(t)^{3d+\frac{2}{d+1}},\end{aligned}$$ thus $$\begin{aligned}
\dist_W(\tilde{\vartheta}(K_t),Z) \leq 2 \sqrt{\tau_1} + \sqrt{\tau_2} + \tau_3 \ll t^{-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{d+1}}\log(t)^{3d+\frac{2}{d+1}},\end{aligned}$$ for $Z \distribute \cN(0,1)$, completing the proof of Theorem \[thm:oracle\].
**Acknowledgments.** The author wishes to express his thanks to Matthias Schulte for helpful suggestions on the multivariate limit theorem and to Martina Juhnke-Kubitzke for several helpful comments concerning Lemma \[lem:second-order-diff-volume\] and \[lem:second-oder-diff-f-vector\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Electrospinning is a nanotechnology process whereby an external electric field is used to accelerate and stretch a charged polymer jet, so as to produce fibers with nanoscale diameters. In quest of a further reduction in the cross section of electrified jets hence of a better control on the morphology of the resulting electrospun fibers, we explore the effects of an external rotating electric field orthogonal to the jet direction. Through intensive particle simulations, it is shown that by a proper tuning of the electric field amplitude and frequency, a reduction of up to a $30 \%$ in the aforementioned radius can be obtained, thereby opening new perspectives in the design of future ultra-thin electrospun fibers. Applications can be envisaged in the fields of nanophotonic components as well as for designing new and improved filtration materials.'
author:
- 'M. Lauricella$^{1}$'
- 'F. Cipolletta$^{1}$'
- 'G. Pontrelli$^{1}$'
- 'D. Pisignano$^{2,3}$'
- 'S. Succi$^{1,4}$'
title: Effects of Orthogonal Rotating Electric Fields on Electrospinning Process
---
Introduction {#sec:01}
============
Electrospinning has witnessed a dramatic upsurge of interest in recent years because of its potential to produce ultra-fine fibers with sub-micrometer diameters (see Refs [@li2004electrospinning; @greiner2007electrospinning; @carroll2008axisymmetric; @huang2003review; @yarin2014fundamentals; @wendorff2012electrospinning; @pisignano2013polymer]). Though routinely realizable in the laboratory, electrospinning is a complex phenomenon to analyze because of the coupling between the electric field and the non-linear deformation of the fluid, the latter being dictated by the rheology of the material. As a consequence, the resulting jet (fiber) diameter is affected by several material, design, and operating parameters.
In this context, computational models represent a useful tool to investigate the underlying physics of electrospinning and provide information which may be used for the design of new electrospinning experiments and nanofibrous materials. Several strategies have been pursued to model the process, which can be broadly classified within two main families, Eulerian and Lagrangian. The former is based on a fixed-grid discretization of the partial differential equations of continuum fluid-dynamics [@yarin2001bending; @hohman2001electrospinning; @ganan1997theory; @huebner1971instability], while in the latter the grid moves with the flow, taking the form of particle-like ordinary differential equations.[@reneker2000bending; @lauricella2016three; @carroll2011discretized; @ganan1994electrostatic]
![Sketch representation of the electrospinning process in presence of an orthogonal rotating electric field (OREF). The jet, ejected from a nozzle, is stretched by an electric field $E_{\parallel}$ parallel to the $x$ axis. The OREF $E_{\perp}$ can be generated by a series of capacitor plates hexagonally arranged, and connected to a three-phase power source. The electrical power source is graphically represented in the bottom part of the figure. Here, the three phase voltage show colors corresponding to the color of the connected capacitor plate.[]{data-label="fig01"}](figure01){width="0.9\hsize"}
By using suitable theoretical models, the effects of the parameters on the fiber diameter can be systematically studied and assessed, both analytically and numerically. For example, it has been shown that bending (or whipping) instabilities of electrical and hydrodynamical nature, are mostly responsible for jet stretching during the electrospinning process. [@yang2014crossover; @reznik2010capillary; @reneker2000bending] This behavior leads to a reduction of the cross section radius of electrospun nanofibers. In other studies, the attention is mostly focused on the morphological aspects, revealing a wide variety of pattern depositions of electrified jets. [@yang2014crossover; @reneker2008electrospinning] In the literature, one can find theoretical models to describe the jet dynamics and control of the fiber diameter, through numerical simulations based on multi-parameter choice, involving the perturbation at the nozzle, the intensity of the fixed electric field, the density of the polymer solution. [@reneker2008electrospinning; @fridrikh2003controlling; @reneker2000bending] However, investigating new strategies to improve the overall control on electrospun nanofibrous materials, still is an open scientific and technological challenge. In the present work, we consider the effect of a rotating electric field orthogonal to the main electric field (Figure \[fig01\]). In particular, we present a theoretical model and ensuing numerical simulations with the JETSPIN code [@lauricella2015jetspin; @lauricella2016dynamic], in order to identify the optimal values of the amplitude and rotational frequency of the orthogonal rotating electric field (OREF), which permit to alter fiber morphology.
------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
simulated time $0.1$ $s$
discretization length step $l_{step}$ $0.02$ $cm$
initial jet radius $R_0$ $5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ $cm$
charge density $4.4 \cdot 10^4 $ $g^{\frac{1}{2}} \, cm^{-\frac{3}{2}} \, s^{-1}$
fluid viscosity $\mu$ $20$ $g \, cm^{-1} \, s^{-1}$
elastic modulus $G$ $5 \cdot 10^4$ $g \, cm^{-1} \, s^{-2}$
collector distance $h$ $16$ $cm$
external electric potential ($h E^{\parallel}$) $30.021$ $g^{\frac{1}{2}} \, cm^{\frac{1}{2}} \, s^{-1}$
surface tension $\alpha$ $21.13$ $g \, s^{-2}$
bulk velocity $\upsilon_s$ $0.28$ $cm \, s^{-1}$
perturbation frequency $\omega_{pert}$ $10^4$ $s^{-1}$
perturbation amplitude $A_{pert}$ $10^{-3}$ $cm$
OREF modulus $A$ $\left[ 0.0, 10.0 \right]$ $g^{\frac{1}{2}} cm^{-\frac{1}{2}} s^{-1}$
OREF frequency $\omega$ $\left[ 0.5, 20.0 \right]$ $10^4 \, s^{-1}$
------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
: Parameters values in the simulations.
\[tab:INPUT\]
The model {#sec:02}
=========
The jet emitted by the nozzle is modeled by a finite set of $n$ parcels at a distance $l_i$ (distance between the $i$th and $(i+1)$th parcel), connected via viscoelastic elements, similarly to previous electrospinning models.[@reneker2000bending; @kowalewski2005experiments; @sun2010three; @carroll2011discretized] Each jet parcel represents a cylindrical element of jet volume $V_i=V_{0}$ and initial height $l_{i}=l_{step}$ (initial length step of jet discretization). As a consequence, the initial radius $R_{0}$ of the jet element is equal to $\sqrt{V_{0}/\pi l_{step}}$. From this representation, the following set of equations of motion (EOM) can be written for each parcel $i$ (hereafter, we shall consider the $x$-axis pointing from the nozzle to the collector):
$$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d \vec{r_i}}{d t} = \vec{v_i}, \label{eq01} \\
& \nonumber \\
&\frac{d \sigma_i}{d t} = \frac{G}{l_i} \frac{d l_i}{d t} - \frac{G}{\mu} \sigma_i, \label{eq02} \\
& \nonumber \\
&m_i \frac{d \vec{v}_i}{d t} = q_i \vec{E} + \sum_{ j \neq i} \left( \frac{q_i q_j}{\vert \vec{r}_j - \vec{r}_i {\vert}^{2}} \vec{u}_{i,j} \right) - \pi {R_i}^2 \sigma_i \vec{t}_i \nonumber \\
& + \pi {R_{i+1}}^2 \sigma_{i+1} \vec{t}_{i+1}
+ k_i \, \pi \left( \frac{R_i + R_{i+1}}{2} \right)^2 \alpha \, \vec{c}_i, \label{eq03}\end{aligned}$$
In the above, the subscript $i$ stands for the $i$-th parcel, $\vec{r}_i$ is the position vector, $\vec{v}_i$ is the velocity vector, $G$ is the elastic modulus, $\mu$ is the viscosity of the fluid jet, $\sigma$ is the stress, $R$ is the cross sectional radius, $q$ is the charge, $\vec{E}$ is the electric field (Figure \[fig01\]), $\vec{u}_{i,j}$ is the unit vector from parcel $i$ to parcel $j$, $\vec{t}_i$ is the unit vector pointing from parcel $i$ to $(i-1)$, $k_i$ is the local curvature, $\alpha$ is the surface tension coefficient and $\vec{c}_i$ is the unit vector pointing from the parcel $i$ to the local centre of curvature. It is worth stressing that the filament radius $R_{i}$ at each $i$-th parcel location is equal to $\sqrt{V_{0}/\pi l_{i}}$, as a result of the volume conservation. Note that the constitutive Eq \[eq02\] models a Maxwell material with constant viscosity, in line with the approach of Refs [@reneker2000bending; @kowalewski2005experiments].
The aforementioned system of EOM is numerically solved, starting each simulation with only two bodies: a parcel fixed at $x=0$, representing the spinneret nozzle, and a second parcel modeling the initial jet segment located at distance $l_{step}$ from the nozzle along the $x$ axis with a given initial velocity $ \upsilon^{\circ}_{i}$ (defined below). Once the last parcel reaches a distance $2 l_{step} $ away from the nozzle, a new parcel (third body) is placed at a distance $l_{step}$, the length step used to discretize the jet as a sequence of parcels. Repeating this injection rule over time, we obtain a set of $n$ discrete jet elements.
The initial velocity is defined as $\upsilon^{\circ}_{i}=\upsilon_{s}+\upsilon_{d,i}$, where $\upsilon_{s}$ is a velocity term along the $x$ axis, modelling the bulk fluid velocity in the syringe needle, and $\upsilon_{d,i}$ denotes the dragging velocity $$\upsilon_{d,i}=\frac{\upsilon_{i-1}-\upsilon_{s}}{2}.$$ The extra term $\upsilon_{d,i}$ accounts for the drag effect of the electrospun jet on the last inserted segment ($i-1$). Note that the definition of $\upsilon_{d,i}$ was chosen in such a way as to keep the velocity strain unchanged before and after the parcel insertion.
Furthermore, we take into account a periodic nozzle perturbation with frequency $\omega_{\text{pert}}$ and amplitude $A_{\text{pert}}$, which models fast mechanical oscillations nearby the spinneret. This perturbation results in the emission of a conic helix jet. We are interested in adding an OREF to the above configuration, namely: $$\label{eq05}
\vec{E} = \vec{E}^{\parallel} + \vec{E}^{\perp}.$$ Hereafter, the main electric field and the OREF are denoted it by $\vec{E}^{\parallel} = \left( E_x,0,0 \right)$ and $\vec{E}^{\perp} = \left( 0, E_y,E_z \right)$, respectively. In equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq06}
E_y (A,{\omega} ,t) = A \cos \, \omega t , \nonumber \\
E_z (A,{\omega} ,t) = A \sin \, \omega t , \end{aligned}$$ where $A (\text{g}^{\frac{1}{2}} \, \text{cm}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \text{s}^{-1})$ is the modulus, $\omega (s^{-1})$ is the angular frequency. OREFs have already been treated in the literature, in the context of plasma confinement by means of a series of capacitor plates with alternating current around the apparatus. [@huang1997steady] In JETSPIN, we modified the EOM according to equation (\[eq05\])–(\[eq06\]).
With the exception of $A$ and $\omega$, in all simulations we use the numerical parameters proposed in Ref. [@lauricella2015jetspin]. These values were assessed by comparing with experimental data from an electrospinning process of polyvinylpyrrolidone (molecular weight = 1300 kDa, mixture of ethanol and water 17:3 v:v, with PVP concentration 2.5 wt%).[@montinaro2015sub] In particular, we consider the surface tension $\alpha=21.1\, \text{g}\; \text{s}^{-2}$ from Ref. [@yuya2010morphology], the elastic modulus $G=5 \cdot 10^{4} \, \text{g} \; \text{cm}^{-1} \text{s}^{-2} $ from Ref. [@morozov2012water], and the shear viscosity $\mu=100 \, \mu_{0}$, where $\mu$ is taken equal to two orders of magnitude larger than the zero-shear viscosity $\mu_{0}=0.2\, \text{g} \; \text{cm}^{-1} \text{s}^{-1}$, see Ref. [@yuya2010morphology; @buhler2005polyvinylpyrrolidone]. This is because the strong longitudinal flows we are dealing with, can lead to an increase of the extensional viscosity, as observed in the literature.[@reneker2000bending; @yarin1993free] Finally, $\upsilon_{s}$ is taken equal to 0.28 $\text{cm} \; \text{s}^{-1}$ which corresponds to a constant flow rate of $ 2 \text{mL} \; \text{h}^{-1}$ in a needle of radius $250 \mu \text{m}$. The values of the simulation parameters are summarized in Table \[tab:INPUT\].
Results
=======
In the following, we present an exploratory study of the effects of the amplitude $A$ and frequency $\omega$ on the electro-spinning process. We wish to emphasize that this does not represent a fully-fledged analysis of the non-linear dynamical behaviour of this complex system, but rather a computational identification of the most interesting regions in the $A-\omega$ parameter space.
Modulus and frequency of OREF
-----------------------------
We investigate the effect of $\vec{E}^{\perp}$ in equations (\[eq06\]), compared to the standard case $\vec{E}^{\parallel}$, and study the way that the jet morphology is deformed for different choices of the free-parameters. We take $A^*=\vert \vec{E}^{\parallel} \vert \simeq 1.8763 \, \text{g}^{\frac{1}{2}} \, \text{cm}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \text{s}^{-1}$ and $\omega^*=\omega_{\text{pert}} = {10}^{4} \, \text{s}^{-1}$ as a reference values, respectively for $A$ and $\omega$ in equations (\[eq06\]). A wide range of physically relevant values of these parameters is spanned by selecting $A \in \left[ 0,10 \right]$ and $10^{-4} \omega \in \left[ 0.5, 20 \right]$ (see Ref. [@montinaro2015sub]). Such high values of the angular frequency $\omega$ mediate the OREF along the circumference orthogonal to $\vec{E}^{\parallel}$. Note that the dominant component of the force acting on each parcel is the one given by $\vec{E}^{\parallel}$, since the jet travels towards the collector without undergoing any breakup, such as that reported in literature. [@yang2014crossover]
![Contour lines showing the simulated mean jet radius $R$ at the collector as a function of $A \in \left[ 0,10 \right]$ and $\omega \in \left[ 0.5, 20 \right]$ parameters. The $R(A,\omega)$ surface was assessed by a linear interpolation over a grid of pairs of $A$ and $\omega$, shown in figure as yellow square symbols.[]{data-label="fig02"}](figure02){width="0.9\hsize"}
The two components of the electric field are shown in the top left panel of Figure \[fig01\], where the red and blue arrows represent $\vec{E}^{\parallel}$ and $\vec{E}^{\perp}$, respectively, while the total field $\vec{E}$ runs over the transparent grey conic surface. We run several simulations, each for a total time of $0.1 s$. After an initial drift $t_{\text{drift}} = 0.02$ s, the jet dynamics is assumed regular so that we can estimate mean values of suitable observables over their stationary statistical distributions. [@lauricella2015jetspin] In particular, the mean value of the filament radius $R$ was estimated at the collector in different simulations with several pairs of $A$ and $\omega$ values. The surface of the mean radius $R$ was reconstructed as a function of $A$ and $\omega$ by linear interpolation, shown by contour lines in Figure \[fig02\]. It is worth observing that for $A = 0$ the mean cross section radius reduces to $R_0 = 4.05 \cdot 10^{-4}$ cm, in agreement with the mean cross section values obtained for the standard case, $ \vec{E} = \vec{E}^{\parallel}$. Further, as a representative value, we analyze the case $A = 5 \, \text{g}^{\frac{1}{2}} \, \text{cm}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \text{s}^{-1}$ in Figure \[fig03\], namely the red vertical line in Figure \[fig02\]. Along such a line, we plot $R$ as a function of $\omega$, together with the corresponding confidence interval (namely the interquartile interval). In this figure, the thick black horizontal line indicates $R_{0}$ allowing a direct comparison between the cases with and without OREF.
From this plot, an oscillatory behavior of $R$ as a function of $\omega$ is clearly recognizable. Two representative points are singled out, namely the first minimum $m_{1}$, with $R(m_{1}) = 2.65 \cdot {10}^{-4}$ cm, corresponding to $\omega(m_{1}) = 2.5 \times 10^4 s^{-1}$ and the relative maximum $M_{1}$ with $R(M_{1}) = 4.15 \cdot {10}^{-4}$ cm, with $\omega(M_{1}) = 6 \times 10^4 s^{-1}$ . The corresponding jet-paths are reported in the sub-panels: one is the view from the side and the other is the view from the collector, looking up to the nozzle. It is worth noting that, although the helix associated with $\omega(M_{1})$ is wider than the one for $\omega(m_{1})$, the latter is more entangled, meaning that the jet undergoes longer-lived instabilities, resulting in a smaller value of $R$. 3D representations of the two highlighted trajectories are displayed in Figure \[fig04\], with color convention stated in the caption of Figure \[fig03\]. A reduction of the cross-section by about $34 \%$ with respect to the case without OREF (namely $A=0$ in Figure \[fig02\] for which $R_0$ is reported) is observed. It is worth observing that such a reduction is obtained without altering the rheological properties of the jet by, say, changing the polymer concentration. This is comparable with similar results obtained by blowing-assisted electrospinning, where a gas stream, provided by suitable distributors around the nozzle, is employed as additional stretching force.[@wang2005formation; @lin2008preparation; @hsiao2012effect] The latter technique was recently extended by Sinha-Ray [*et Al.*]{} [@sinha2013supersonic] to include supersonic blowing gaseous stream in electrospinning producing ultra-thin nanofibers.
![Mean of cross section radius $R$ at the collector for $A = 5$ at several values of $\omega$, plotted with their respective interquartile as confidence intervals. The thick solid black horizontal line represents $R_{0}$, i.e. the mean value of $R$ in a standard electrospinning process (without OREF). The first minimum and maximum of $R$ are highlighted in red, with the insets showing the trajectories from the lateral and bottom planes.[]{data-label="fig03"}](figure03){width="0.9\hsize"}
![Jet trajectories with $A = 5$, $\omega(m_{1}) = 2.5 \cdot {10}^4 \, \text{s}^-1$ (left blue curve) and $\omega(M_{1}) = 6 \cdot {10}^4 \, \text{s}^-1$ (right red curve). Axis convention, shown in the center, is as follows: red for $x$ axis, green for $y$ axis and blue for $z$ axis. While the red curve is wider than the blue one, the latter appears more twisted, thus producing a thinner $R$ (cfr with fig. 2 and 3).[]{data-label="fig04"}](figure04){width="0.9\hsize"}
Even though the functional relation $ R = R(\omega)$ is the result of a highly complex structural dynamics, the oscillatory structure of such relation is relatively regular, and suggestive of a sort of resonant mechanism underlying the OREF setup, which is likely to depend on the frequency $\omega_{noz}$ of the mechanical oscillation of the nozzle. Here, we have kept $\omega_{noz}$ at a fixed value, because it is practically easier to change the OREF frequency than modifying the inherent mechanical oscillations of the nozzle.
Nonetheless, we repeat the simulations corresponding to the two points $m_{1}$ and $M_{1}$ in Figure \[fig03\], with a nozzle perturbation $\omega_{noz} =2.5 \cdot {10}^4 s^{-1}$. In both cases, we observe a change in the mean cross section radius $<R>$ between $5$ and $10 \%$, compared to the previous values, confirming that both frequencies $\omega$ and $\omega_{noz}$ contribute to the oscillatory jet dynamics. At the moment, we have no clear theoretical explanation for such oscillatory behavior, which depends on the overall non-linear dynamics of the jet. However, we can define suitable observables which help elucidating the effects of the OREF on the jet morphology (see next Subsection).
Statistical analysis and overlap of trajectories {#sec:03b}
------------------------------------------------
Here, we provide both statistical and time-dependent analysis performed over the trajectories related to the most relevant $\omega$ values identified in the previous Subsection. Each jet trajectory is the result of a complex dynamics, which presents an initial drift in the time lapse where the filament has not yet reached the collector. After such time lapse, the trajectory regularizes and consequently it becomes possible to analyze the statistical distribution of the cross section radius.
The top part of Figure \[fig05\] shows normalized histograms for the distribution of cross section radius at the collector for three different frequencies, $\omega =[2.5, 5.5, 6] \cdot {10}^4 \, \text{s}^{-1}$, all with the same amplitude $A=5 \, \text{g}^{\frac{1}{2}} \, \text{cm}^{-\frac{1}{2}} \text{s}^{-1}$.
It is apparent that the frequency distribution is skewed and strongly non Gaussian, which is relatively unsurprising due to the highly non-linear nature of the process. Owing to this non-Gaussianity, this observable is best described via its median and confidence interval (given by the first and third quartiles), as reported in Figure \[fig03\]. In order to clarify the trend of the mean radius reported in Figure \[fig05\] we define the jet length as: $$\Lambda\left(t\right)=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\left|\vec{\textbf{r}}_{i+1}-\vec{\textbf{r}}_{i}\right| ,$$ which measures the total length of the jet, from the collector up to the nozzle. Comparing the two trends of $R$ and $\Lambda$ in Figure \[fig05\], it is apparent that the two are anti-correlated, namely the smallest $<R>$ corresponds to the longest $<\Lambda>$ and vice versa. As a result, one of the main effects of OREF is to alter the jet path, which in turn modifies the jet stretch and the resulting cross sectional radius.
![Top: the normalized histograms for distribution of cross section radius $R$ at the collector for $A = 5$ and three values of $\omega$. Note that the distribution of the observable during the dynamics is strongly skewed and non-gaussian. Bottom: the corresponding normalized histograms for distribution of jet path length $\Lambda$, showing an opposite trend with respect to $<R>$.[]{data-label="fig05"}](figure05){width="0.8\hsize"}
To gain further insights into the jet dynamics, it is also of interest to assess the “morphological distance” between two spirals corresponding to minimum and maximum fiber radii. Instead of a “smooth” Euclidean distance, we find it more informative to introduce an overlap distance between two trajectories $\alpha$ and $\beta$ by gaining insight from an order parameter usually exploited in the context of glassy materials (see Refs [@ozawa2015equilibrium; @kob2013probing; @kirkpatrick1989scaling]), which is defined as follows :
$$\label{eq07}
Q_{\alpha \beta} \left( t,\varepsilon \right) = \int_0^1 \Theta \left( \varepsilon - \vert \vec{r}_{\alpha}(t,\lambda) - \vec{r}_{\beta}(t,\lambda) \vert \right) d\lambda,$$
In the above, $\lambda$ is the curvilinear coordinate, $\Theta$ the Heaviside step function, $\varepsilon$ (cm) a [*distance*]{} tolerance. The Heaviside step function acts like a switch, turning off whenever the distance of two homologue points with the same $\lambda$ at two different jets, goes above a given threshold $\varepsilon$. Therefore, $Q_{\alpha \beta}$ serves as a suitable indicator of the [*separation transition*]{} between two indistinguishable ($Q=1$) and two fully separated ($Q=0$) configurations, at the given scale $\varepsilon$. Note that by assuming the jet discretized as a set of $n$ parcels, each parcel can only contribute a factor $1/n$ to the overlap parameter. This is in contrast with the Euclidean distance which may eventually be completely dominated by a single, localized, large deviation between the two jets. Being sensitive to the value of $\varepsilon$, $Q$ is a useful indicator of the dynamics of the separation process at different scales.
We evaluated the overlap distance for three values of the parameter $\varepsilon$ as a function of time $t$, and correlate this indicator with $R(M_{1})$ and $R(m_{1})$. As a reference value, we take $\varepsilon_{\text{ref}} = 0.94$ cm, i.e. the pitch distance of the jet-path in the case $m_{1}$ (see sub–panel of Figure \[fig03\]). Our results pertain to $\alpha \equiv m_{1}$ and $\beta \equiv M_{1}$, in Figure \[fig06\], where a separation transition between the two jets is apparent. By definition, for $\varepsilon=0$, the two jets are always separated, so that $Q_{m_{1} M_{1}}=0$ at all times.
On the other hand, at increasing $\varepsilon$, the two jets overlap only up to an initial time $t_{ov}$, while for $t>t_{ov} \sim 0.01$ s, a separation transition starts to take place, with the two jets getting more separated as $\varepsilon$ is made smaller. After $t = 0.15$ s, the distance between the two configurations reaches its asymptotic value. On top of Figure \[fig06\], we report some snapshots of the two jets at a given time, to provide a visual counterpart of the corresponding values of $Q_{m_{1} M_{1}} \left( t,\varepsilon \right)$.
![Overlapping function $Q_{m_{1} M_{1}} \left( t,\varepsilon \right)$ as a function of time, for three value of $\varepsilon$. For non–zero values of $\varepsilon$, an abrupt transition is evident, which stops after the drift time $t_{\text{drift}}$ has been reached. In particular, the smaller the value of $\varepsilon$, the smaller $Q \left( \varepsilon,t \right)$ is. Snapshots of the two jets analyzed at three times are reported at the insets over the plot, where color legend is the same as Fig. \[fig04\]. We wish to remark that the trajectories should not self-intersect and they actually do not.[]{data-label="fig06"}](figure06){width="0.8\hsize"}
Time series analysis of trajectories {#sec:03c}
------------------------------------
In order to gain further insight into the jet dynamics, we analyze the frequency spectra induced by OREF on the jet dynamics. In particular, the Fourier analysis exposes the frequencies of the swirling motion of the helix, which has a direct bearing on the jet path and the resulting fiber radius.
To this purpose, let us consider a plane perpendicular to the $x-axis$ placed at $x=8$ cm, and denote it by $\vec{\upsilon}^{*}_{\perp}=\upsilon_{y}(\lambda | x=8 \, \text{cm}) \vec{u_y}+ \upsilon_{z}(\lambda | x=8 \, \text{cm}) \vec{u_z}$ the projection on this plane of the velocity vector measured at the point $\lambda$ where the jet crosses such plane.
We inspect the normalized velocity autocorrelation function (VACF) of $\vec{\upsilon}^{*}_{\perp}$ defined as $$Z(\tau)=<\vec{\upsilon}^{*}_{\perp}(t) \cdot \vec{\upsilon}^{*}_{\perp}(t+\tau)>_t/<\vec{\upsilon}^{*}_{\perp}(t) \cdot \vec{\upsilon}^{*}_{\perp}(t)>_t ,$$ where bracket denote time-averaging over the corresponding steady-state regime. The quantity $Z(\tau)$ measures the self-correlation of the swirling motion within the jet path. Then, cosine Fourier transformation (power spectra) of the VACF was computed for each OREF frequency, in order to expose the spectral densities of states.[@allen1989computer]
![Cosine Fourier transformation (density of states) of the VACF computed for the three cases: without OREF as a reference case (drawn in black line), with OREF at $\omega(m_{1}) = 2.5 \cdot {10}^4 \, \text{s}^{-1}$ (blue curve on top panel), and $\omega(M_{1}) = 6 \cdot {10}^4 \, \text{s}^{-1}$ (red curve on bottom panel). We observe as the case $m_1$ corresponds to the presence of a second peak located at higher frequency, while the case $M_1$ is characterized by a second peak detected at lower frequency.[]{data-label="fig07"}](figure07){width="0.8\hsize"}
We focus our attention on three main cases: first, the simulation setup without OREF as a reference case. The second and third correspond to the simulation setups denoted $m_1$ and $M_1$, respectively, in Figure \[fig03\]. In Figure \[fig07\], we observe a central peak at 1600 $Hz$ for all three cases under inspection, which is related to the main swirling motion resulting from the mechanical oscillation of the nozzle. Upon switching-on the OREF, satellite peaks are seen to appear, at higher(lower) frequencies for the case $m_1$ and $M_1$, respectively.
In order to elucidate the relation between the jet path $<\Lambda>$ and the frequency of the secondary peak in the power spectra, we invoke simple arguments related to the helicoidal motion of jet.
For the sake of simplicity, we assume (neglecting other terms as Coulomb repulsive forces, etc.) that the centrifugal force of the $i-th$ jet segment is approximately given by $F_{C,i} \propto q_{i}A$, where $A$ is the OREF amplitude, laid on the plane of rotation, and $q_{i}$ is the net charge of the jet segment. The corresponding curvature radius is $r_{c,i} \propto (q_{i}A)/(m_i \omega_{f}^{2})$, where $m_{i}$ is the mass of the jet segment and $\omega_{f}$ is the angular swirling frequency reported in Figure \[fig07\]. Further, we can assess the pitch of the jet helix, defined as the height of a complete helix turn, $h_{i}=2\pi\upsilon_{x,i}/\omega_{f}$, where $\upsilon_{x,i}$ is the velocity component of the $i-th$ jet segment along the $x$ axis.
A number of considerations on jet path and swirling frequency arise from the above relations. In particular, we note that the second peak in power spectra located at higher frequency provides a reduction of the helix pitch and an increase of the jet curvature, which is the reciprocal of the curvature radius. As a consequence, the number of helices drawn by the jet between the nozzle and the collector significantly increases, thereby providing a larger value of the jet path length $\Lambda$ observed in Figure \[fig05\]. Furthermore, we observe that the OREF can also be used as a tool to control the jet curvature, and possibly drive the jet deposition on the collector, as detailed in the next Subsection.
Statistical analysis of jet deposition at the collector
-------------------------------------------------------
The OREF significantly affects the spatial distribution of the jet, providing several patterns of the electrospun coatings deposited on the collector. In Figure \[fig08\], we report the normalized 2D maps, showing the probability of a jet parcel to hit the collector at the coordinates $y$ and $z$ (both perpendicular to $x$ by construction). Note that only the late dynamics describing the stationary regime was considered in order to compute the histograms. Here, we observe a clear modification of the pattern deposition as function of the applied OREF frequency $\omega$. In particular, by tuning the frequency, the deposition pattern is driven towards the inner region of the collector.
This is evident in top panel of Figure \[fig08\], where we report the normalized histogram for the case $m_1$, with the probability distribution spans over a precession motion. This is likely due to the combined effects of the two peaks in the frequency spectra (see Figure \[fig07\]). Since the second peak is located at higher frequency, we observe a tighter deposition due to the larger jet curvature, depending on the frequency as shown in previous Subsection. On the other hand, if the second frequency lies below the one of the precession motion, the distribution stretches towards the external region of collector.
Therefore, the OREF frequency $\omega$ appears to offer new, possibly even time-dependent, strategies to achieve uniform distributions at the collector plate.
![Normalized 2D maps computed over the coordinates $y$ and $z$ of the collector for the two cases with OREF at $\omega(m_{1})$ (on top panel) and $\omega(M_{1})$ (on bottom panel). The color palettes define the probability that a jet parcel hits the collector in coordinates $y$ and $z$.[]{data-label="fig08"}](figure08){width="0.7\hsize"}
Summary and outlook {#sec:04}
===================
Summarizing, we have proposed the OREF mechanism and explored its effects on the electrospinning process, particularly on the radius of the electrospun fibers. Numerical simulations using the JETSPIN code show that such radius can be reduced up to about $30 \%$. Despite the inherent complexity of the underlying dynamics, the electrospinning response to OREF, $R = R(\omega)$ appears to organize into a rather regular oscillatory pattern, with periodic local minima and maxima of the finer radius as a function of the OREF frequency. The existence of such minima opens up the possibility of advancing electrospinning technologies and producing finer fibers with high repeatability. Further, the OREF can be used as a control mechanism to achieve uniform distributions of polymer filaments at the collector.
While a $30 \%$ reduction of the diameter of single nanofibers might not seem that dramatic, controlling the morphology of electrospun materials in such a finer way, might prove useful. For instance, the fraction of power of the fundamental mode of a cylindrical waveguide strongly (exponential-like) depends on the diameter of the guide, with a $30 \%$ variation of the diameter potentially leading to a significant (e.g., $20 \%$) change of coupled optical power.[@fasano2013bright] Also, fibers with such reduced size being most sensitive to their external environment, might lead to changes of their refractive index due to detected chemical or biological species, which can be probed by variations in the power transmitted in single nanofiber waveguides. Finally, more uniform area coverage can lead to better coatings and improved filtrating materials. These perspectives are intriguing and worth experimental investigation.
The present simulations permit to highlight the salient morpho-dynamical features associated with the application of the OREF, as well as to probe the electrospinning response in a range of applied frequency. Much remains to be done for the future; particularly, the study of the spatial dependence of the self-consistent electrostatic field induced by charge deposition at the collector, and its effects on the overall jet dynamics and associated deposition patterns. Moreover, a fully-fledged analysis of the non-linear dynamical behavior of the OREF setup would be highly desirable. Studies along these lines are currently under way.
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement n. 306357 (NANO-JETS).
[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 [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.